Wednesday, August 05, 2009
"... it only takes is a little bit of common sense to debunk the loftiest of left-wing theorizing."
According to statisticians at Oregon State University, the easiest way for people to have a long-term impact on their "carbon footprint" is to have fewer kids:
A study ... at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environment-friendly practices people might employ during their entire lives - things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.
"In discussions about climate change, we tend to focus on the carbon emissions of an individual over his or her lifetime," said study team member Paul Murtaugh. "Those are important issues and it's essential that they should be considered." ...
Reproductive choices haven't gained as much attention in the consideration of human impact to the Earth, Murtaugh said. When an individual produces a child - and that child potentially produces more descendants in the future - the effect on the environment can be many times the impact produced by a person during their lifetime.
For the most part, folks who worry about "carbon footprints" and the like tend to be on the left side of the political dial and, thus, are more likely to support the redistributionist welfare state. With populations rapidly aging in the West, it’s vitally important that a growing number of young people enter the workforce over time to pay the taxes that fund said welfare state. (Mark Steyn has done yeoman’s work on this particular issue.)
If everyone stops having kids, a critical mass will be reached when there are more people getting stuff from the guv’ment than there are people available to pay for the stuff. So left-wingers can’t have it both ways. They can’t say "having kids burdens society" without also working to reign in the 100 lb gorilla of societal burdening: Big Government.
You know, it only takes is a little bit of common sense to debunk the loftiest of left-wing theorizing.
A study ... at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environment-friendly practices people might employ during their entire lives - things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.
"In discussions about climate change, we tend to focus on the carbon emissions of an individual over his or her lifetime," said study team member Paul Murtaugh. "Those are important issues and it's essential that they should be considered." ...
Reproductive choices haven't gained as much attention in the consideration of human impact to the Earth, Murtaugh said. When an individual produces a child - and that child potentially produces more descendants in the future - the effect on the environment can be many times the impact produced by a person during their lifetime.
For the most part, folks who worry about "carbon footprints" and the like tend to be on the left side of the political dial and, thus, are more likely to support the redistributionist welfare state. With populations rapidly aging in the West, it’s vitally important that a growing number of young people enter the workforce over time to pay the taxes that fund said welfare state. (Mark Steyn has done yeoman’s work on this particular issue.)
If everyone stops having kids, a critical mass will be reached when there are more people getting stuff from the guv’ment than there are people available to pay for the stuff. So left-wingers can’t have it both ways. They can’t say "having kids burdens society" without also working to reign in the 100 lb gorilla of societal burdening: Big Government.
You know, it only takes is a little bit of common sense to debunk the loftiest of left-wing theorizing.
# posted by Joltin' Django @ Wednesday, August 05, 2009 
