Climate extremists think their children are a ‘high-cost luxury’ and bad for Mother Earth

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A few days ago, Shannon Osaka, the “Climate Zeitgeist Reporter” in the Washington Post he wrote an article exploring the idea that having children is unethical since children are bad for the climate. She does not mean that children are loud or messy, in which case she would have agreed that they are bad for the environment, but that they breathe and live too much, use up resources, and cause climate destruction for those of us who have the lucky to have done it. born.

Osaka cites Travis Rieder, a “bioethicist” at Johns Hopkins University who wrote his own 2017 paper on how environmentally irresponsible is to have children. Rieder wrote: “Having a child imposes high emissions on the world, while the parents reap the benefit. So, as with any high-cost luxury, we must limit our indulgence.”

Rieder, of course, has a son. He did not decide not to have children, but simply to “limit” his “indulgence” as if the children were a naughty bar of chocolate before dinner.

PETE BUTTIGIEG CRIMINATED FOR CLIMATE HYPOCRISY ABOUT 18 TAXPAYER-FUNDED PRIVATE FLIGHTS

Osaka quotes Rieder as saying, “‘You have a good moral reason to be part of the solution, not part of the problem, even when your part is infinitesimally small.'”

Climate protesters dumped black liquid on Gustav Klimt’s “Death and Life” painting on display at a Vienna museum on Tuesday.
(Last generation Austria)

Leaving aside whether there is any evidence that this “fix” actually works, and as Osaka points out that the evidence is very, very scant, is Rieder or any other anti-child environmentalist taking other “infinitesimally small” steps to save our planet? ?

Does he vacation? Ride in a car? Get on a plane? Heat or cool his house? Why do we simply accept the idea of ​​fewer children, in a country already suffering from a declining birth rate, instead of first limiting the excesses of all bioethicists?

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION BULLETIN

In general, this line of thought is still an attack on the idea of ​​children and family. It is part and parcel of the environmental movement that we need to uproot absolutely all the ideas that have held civilization together until now.

Just like him “Green New Deal” requires retrofitting every building in the country to adapt to a new environmental model with, again, scant evidence that it will do any good, also this idea of ​​limiting future children “for the planet” really just means a reorganization of the family.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Many of the weather predictions have turned out to be wrong. That’s why most of the new predictions are phrased in the proper language of “could” and “may.” Osaka writes: “The irony is that even as the footprint of a child born in the developed world is diminishing, the climate change impacts that child will experience are increasing, and in some cases much faster than scientists expected. In everyone is already facing days filled with choking smoke from wildfires, catastrophic floods, and dangerous heat waves. A child born today will likely still be alive in 2100, by which time warming could have doubled.”

Sure, it could have doubled. Also absolutely couldn’t. The idea that humans are reproducing on a cliff is based on many possibilities and very little reality. So have children, have several, and don’t let people who have been so wrong scare you.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM KAROL MARKOWICZ

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *