British think tank: Fight global warming — by having fewer children

posted at 6:29 pm on July 11, 2007 by Allahpundit

A twist on the old saying. The only way to save the village is to burn depopulate it.

Families should have no more than two children if they want to help combat climate change, according to new research by a thinktank.

According to the report, published by the Optimum Population Trust, Britain’s high birth rate is a major factor in the current level of climate change, which can only be combatted if families voluntarily limit the number of children they have.

The report calls for a ‘two-child’ policy in the UK that would reduce the nation’s population from 60 million, as it currently stands, to no more than 55 milllion by 2050.

According to the Telegraph, that “high birth rate” is 1.87 — well below replacement rate, albeit on the upswing thanks to “migrants.” But no matter. Even if they’re dropping, they’re not dropping precipitously enough: every Briton burns a woodland hectare’s worth of carbon in his or her lifetime, according to the study, so the more rugrats there are, the more hectares burn.

As always when it comes to this subject, a western nation is asked to do its part even though it’s not the main cause of the problem and there’s no reason to believe other nations are similarly restraining themselves. Exit question: Aren’t there any other countries the Optimum Population Trust should be off bothering first?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Why would we combat something that doesn’t exist?

If there’s any detriment from man it’s the hot air produced by these useless windbags.

darwin on July 11, 2007 at 6:30 PM

I wish I were doing my part to make more patriotic, greenhouse producing Americans…

gmoonster on July 11, 2007 at 6:33 PM

In a related note the UK considers banning gyms.

Spirit of 1776 on July 11, 2007 at 6:35 PM

I heartily agree that anyone who buys into Al Gore’s schtick should not reproduce.

saint kansas on July 11, 2007 at 6:37 PM

I am so sick to death of the Friends of Algore, whatever their country, preaching to the hoi polloi that they should make all manner of sacrifices for Mother Earth, from the small ones of recycling and using less toilet paper, to the huge ones of having fewer children, so that the elite can have their massive mansions and use 20 times the electricity of the average Joe Schmo and make NO sacrifices whatsoever.

The hypocrisy is staggering, and I have no more words for the depth of my outrage. I think I actually HATE these people.

inviolet on July 11, 2007 at 6:38 PM

Fewer British children is just what the caliphate seekers would love to see. I certainly doubt muslims in britain will limit their children.

Witness the downfall of the UK.

darwin on July 11, 2007 at 6:39 PM

And so the insanity continues…yes humans are vile and the earth needs to survive …hogwash as usual. It’s the same lie again and again with just a different spin….either a few million need to die or not have anymore children (which are the humans precious jewels)and then the final utopia will occur.

Suz on July 11, 2007 at 6:40 PM

Somehow I think Mark Steyn’s opinion of this “think tank” and their suggestions will be less than flattering.

ReubenJCogburn on July 11, 2007 at 6:40 PM

this calls for a swiftian solution.

jummy on July 11, 2007 at 6:41 PM

I think I actually HATE these people.

Nothing wrong with that … hate is a natural emotion. Liberals have lots of it.

darwin on July 11, 2007 at 6:41 PM

Voluntary human extinction movement. Why stop having kids. Kill yourself. Save the planet now. If you -really- care, y ou’d do it, right?

lorien1973 on July 11, 2007 at 6:41 PM

This chills me to the bone.

Something that doesn’t exist is going to:
- try to stop people from reproducing
- try to raise taxes

At its core, the argument is Anti-family, Anti-American and ultimately anti industrial revolution.

bleh…

dc84123 on July 11, 2007 at 6:44 PM

“It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish.” – Mother Teresa

It’s also the height of appalling arrogance to say that a child should never be born so that you can live as you wish.

And yes, this applies to much more than global warming.

I’ll stop now before my anger at reading this story gets the best of me.

inviolet on July 11, 2007 at 6:44 PM

Question: How far can the global warming fundamentalists ratchet up the rhetoric before they are rejected on a widespread scale (not just by informed people)?

Nosferightu on July 11, 2007 at 6:45 PM

Except for immigration the US would be at Zero population growth…

We’ve got enough people… seal the borders NOW… for Gore’s sake…

/sarc off

Romeo13 on July 11, 2007 at 6:55 PM

Who wants be the first to tell the mullah’s not to reproduce?

I seem to remember a saying back in Sunday school “Go forth and multiply”. It wasn’t about math.

Socialism, is not for social folks.

Kini on July 11, 2007 at 6:55 PM

Question: How far can the global warming fundamentalists ratchet up the rhetoric before they are rejected on a widespread scale (not just by informed people)?

That is an interesting thought. I mean at some point this stupidity has to be noticed by non-informed people. Maybe a clear comparison of its tactics to those of the USSR or something. Baby control in China… who knows.

dc84123 on July 11, 2007 at 6:57 PM

Fight global warming.

By having fewer talking news head.

William Amos on July 11, 2007 at 7:04 PM

Music to the terrorsts’ ears, especially for Britain.

Entelechy on July 11, 2007 at 7:05 PM

Augh, this stuff gives me a headache.

emmaline1138 on July 11, 2007 at 7:07 PM

I’m all for forming a resistance movement to this. Undercover operatives in every city. Volunteers?

Limerick on July 11, 2007 at 7:08 PM

Reminds me of a bumper sticker my 10th grade history teacher had on his file cabinet: Save the Planet. Kill yourself.

Needless to say, he was my favorite history teacher EVER.

wherestherum on July 11, 2007 at 7:09 PM

Well, they may have a point but not the right conclusion!

After all, 6 billion people at 98.6 degrees each is an addition 591,600,000,000 degrees of temperature added to the earth’s environmental temperature. Forget the carbon use – there’s your .7 degree increase there.

That and all those man made boats on the ocean can easily have added 20 inches or 20 feet (I forget which it is) to sea level!

Right?
DKK

LifeTrek on July 11, 2007 at 7:12 PM

That was supposed to have sarcasm tags around it, but HotAir ate them.
DKK

LifeTrek on July 11, 2007 at 7:12 PM

Can these people not even do math? Lowering the population of Britain from 60 to 55 million is going to have an effect on the globabl climate when there are about 6 Billion people on the planet?

Resolute on July 11, 2007 at 7:14 PM

Just require mandatory sterilization at a government facility in order to enter the country as a new citizen.

Want citizenship? Get sterilized. So many of the earth’s problems solved in one fell swoop.

Mojave Mark on July 11, 2007 at 7:17 PM

Doing my part: number 5 is due in October.

TexasDan on July 11, 2007 at 7:21 PM

TexasDan on July 11, 2007 at 7:21 PM

TaDA!!!!!! Another Texan! Congrats TD!

Limerick on July 11, 2007 at 7:29 PM

Doing my part: number 5 is due in October.

Good news! We can always can use good new Texan-Americans!

gmoonster on July 11, 2007 at 7:38 PM

After the fall of communism, many found environmentalism as the means to bring back socialism. Many of the environmental arguments are now laced with communist fundamentals.

Wealth redistribution
No property ownership
Less children for the state to take care of

Sounds Smells like communism to me.

Kini on July 11, 2007 at 7:47 PM

Keep it up, soon the enemy will just walk right in and take over America.

There will be one left to fight evil.

shooter on July 11, 2007 at 7:48 PM

Ha. And I thought the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (http://www.vhemt.org/) was satrire.

Citizen Duck on July 11, 2007 at 7:48 PM

Voluntary human extinction movement. Why stop having kids. Kill yourself. Save the planet now. If you -really- care, you’d do it, right?

lorien1973 on July 11, 2007 at 6:41 PM

This sounds vaguely familiar. Recruiting people to do something drastic that the leaders themselves won’t do. What could it be? Wait, I’ve got…..Islamic suicide bombers.

If these enviro-nuts were true to their principles, they would show their compassion for Mother Earth and remove themselves from the equation.

Mallard T. Drake on July 11, 2007 at 7:59 PM

Yesssss…..

Have fewer children, while your jihadi population is rutting like rabbits. In one generation the whole of jolly old England will be 98% riddled with Abdullahs and Fatimas, and anyone even looking like bespectacled old Harry Potter will be, well, converted to Islam, but at least they’ll have done their part to save Al-Gore’s planet!

We need a stupid bomb!

thejackal on July 11, 2007 at 8:07 PM

Isn’t this just a recycling of the Zero Population movement from the 60′s?

I think (though I certainly wasn’t around back then) that it was to stave off either Global Cooling or Global Famine.

Well, people didn’t stop breeding and the Earth didn’t get cooler and we didn’t have mass starvation (in fact, most of the starvation currently happening around the globe is due to manmade disasters – such as Robert Mugabe ruining Zimbabwean farms and turning an exporting excess of food into a famine in a few short years).

Why is the answer to every perceived disaster the same: Kill of humanity?

JadeNYU on July 11, 2007 at 8:07 PM

Could this be Darwinian evolution at work?

A certain sector of the population has lost their will to survive (which certainly doesn’t make them the ‘fittest’).

That same sector of the population has developed the idea that the best idea is for them to remove themselves from the population….

Seems like a defect working its way out of the gene pool too me. :)

JadeNYU on July 11, 2007 at 8:10 PM

As a committed environmentalist, I strongly support Negative Population Growth. The current rate of loss of species is a sure path to disaster even if there is no global warming issue, which I’m unwilling to bet the future on. As a totally uncompassionate conservative, I’m totally repulsed by the socialism of providing any almost any aid at all to the third world. What possible sense does it make to provide food to people who habitually cannot feed themselves? They too must do we did and learn to feed themselves. What have we wrought by providing aid to Haiti? If Paul Pot is evil for creating Cambodia’s killing fields, then can’t we at least say the Catholic aid workers who created modern Haiti are also evil?

We bring these demographic issues that Mark Steyn talks about on ourselves. Let’s stop paying the Palestinians to spawn a godzillion children who will come to kill us. Let’s us say “no” to every imbecile who thinks morality means paying for our own murder.

thuja on July 11, 2007 at 8:18 PM

After the fall of communism, many found environmentalism as the means to bring back socialism. Many of the environmental arguments are now laced with communist fundamentals.

Wealth redistribution
No property ownership
Less children for the state to take care of

Sounds Smells like communism to me.

Kini on July 11, 2007 at 7:47 PM

As somebody said about the Live Earth debacle, the environmental movement is green on the outside but red on the inside.

ReubenJCogburn on July 11, 2007 at 8:29 PM

Shouldn’t they have passed this idea on to their Islamic invaders first?

(Or was this concept devised at the Cairo University for Infidel Dhimmitude and Others Ways of Tricking the Blaspheming Crusader Dogs into Cheaply Exterminating Themselves? Or at least funded with Saudi money?.)

profitsbeard on July 11, 2007 at 8:45 PM

Hey, I have had such a great Wednesday, topped off by TexasDan’s marvelous news, that I will herein refrain from flaming thuja. except,

Paul Pot.

Whadda maroon.

RushBaby on July 11, 2007 at 8:49 PM

“Why is the answer to every perceived disaster the same: Kill off humanity?” –JadeNYU on July 11, 2007 at 8:07 PM

Precisely. I just don’t get it.

On a happier note, Congrats to TexasDan!

inviolet on July 11, 2007 at 9:03 PM

According to Ben Wattenberg’s book Fewer the Total Fertility Rate in Britain is 1.6 and declining. And Wattenberg gets his data from the the UN. Wattenberg’s book is from 2004 so the current TFR is almost certainly slightly lower. Steyn uses the same 1.6 figure in America Alone. (And of course this is for the UK as a whole. The TFR for indigenous Brits is even lower.)

I don’t know what the Telegraph is smoking but I from what I’ve read 1.87 is wishful thinking.

Thomas the Wraith on July 11, 2007 at 9:06 PM

Rushbaby-

He was thinking of Ron Pol Pot maybe?

profitsbeard on July 11, 2007 at 9:10 PM

Dear British environuts,

The people of the world graciously thank you for deciding not to reproduce. By taking this noble step in wiping out an entire population of misguided idiots, you are doing more to help the world than even you know.

Someday I’ll be able to tell my children, and then my grandchildren, that there were noble environmentalists who believed it was the duty of everyone not to reproduce. Thankfully, I say to them, I chose not to take that advice, and now share a beautiful, enviro-suicidalist free world.

Thank you survival-instinct free environmentalists, thank you for all you’ve done.

Also, today is my Birthday :D

BKennedy on July 11, 2007 at 9:11 PM

Bumper Sticker: Save a tree. Don’t hump Mommy.

PatrickS on July 11, 2007 at 9:28 PM

BKennedy on July 11, 2007 at 9:11 PM

Dang it! I can’t remember where…but I’m pretty sure it was on a popular British blog, I read:

Dear American environuts,

The people of the world graciously thank you for deciding not to reproduce. By taking this noble step in wiping out an entire population of misguided idiots, you are doing more to help the world than even you know.

Someday I’ll be able to tell my children, and then my grandchildren, that there were noble environmentalists who believed it was the duty of everyone not to reproduce. Thankfully, I say to them, I chose not to take that advice, and now share a beautiful, enviro-suicidalist free world.

Thank you survival-instinct free environmentalists, thank you for all you’ve done.

RushBaby on July 11, 2007 at 9:50 PM

Oh – Happy Birthday.

RushBaby on July 11, 2007 at 9:51 PM

It seems any superpower or great power worthy of the name will have high total fertility. It’s not up to the populace of a working, thriving nation to limit their fertility, when so many other populaces are available who can limit theirs. Whatever the British may do, I’ll be well satisfied if the Americans raise their total fertility to 5 and teach their children to read Locke, Smith, and Austen judiciously.

Kralizec on July 11, 2007 at 10:18 PM

WAIT!!!

Won’t global warming raise ocean levels, cause massive drought and starvation which in turn will lower population levels by the millions? Then why should I care if Britons chose not to make more babies who will grow up to be multi-cultural, anti-assimilation, politically correct wusses anyway?

Now if you need me I’ll be at home impreginating my wife for the fourth time.

Mack08 on July 11, 2007 at 10:26 PM

I heartily agree that anyone who buys into Al Gore’s schtick should not reproduce.

saint kansas on July 11, 2007 at 6:37 PM

Yep.

As my dearly departed mum used to say, if the world is going to be overpopulated, better with my children than someone else’s.

Let them decline to procreate. Fine with me, more room fo the sane people.

Bob's Kid on July 11, 2007 at 10:33 PM

So the Morrill act of 1862 was really anti-global warming legislation. Republicans used to be so progressive.

Sebastian on July 11, 2007 at 10:48 PM

If the Brits and the Europeans were really serious about Global Warming, they’d start by reducing the Voltage that their appliances use (240V-220V) to what Americans appliances use (120V).

I’m surprised that I’ve never heard this mentioned before by Mark Steyn or someone with a bigger soapbox, though I keep forgetting to mention it myself. A crude calculation of how much more inefficient and wasteful the Brit’s and Euro’s dodgy appliances are, would be quite the embarrassment to them.

Oh, but I forgot, they’re our moral superiors….

zb42 on July 11, 2007 at 10:51 PM

I swear, reading crap like this makes me want to have my hubby’s vasectomy reversed just so I can have 4 more kids!

We have 4 so I guess I need to buy some children offsets! The boys do give off an awful lot of gas.

acleaver on July 11, 2007 at 11:03 PM

What are they ‘saving’ the Earth for? Without people, nobody cares what happens to this hunk of rock, least of all the rock itself.

They could work on saving Pluto instead. I bet they could eliminate humans from there entirely. And then they would have to be happy, having actually saved an entire planet! Or something.

kate q on July 11, 2007 at 11:10 PM

That’s twice in just a few months I’ve seen this very same story. The last time was in May.

This plan has been in the works for a long time anyway.

angryoldfatman on July 11, 2007 at 11:18 PM

What are they ’saving’ the Earth for? Without people, nobody cares what happens to this hunk of rock, least of all the rock itself.
kate q on July 11, 2007 at 11:10 PM

That’s the crazy thing, isn’t it? In their minds, the earth is not a hunk of unthinking rock, but a deity, and our presence is a poison or virus making her sick.

angryoldfatman on July 11, 2007 at 11:21 PM

White families already have less than 2 children per family (Mark Stein’s America Alone) so this may be a good idea but I do not think the islamists? will follow.

SIJ6141 on July 11, 2007 at 11:54 PM

the environmental movement is green on the outside but red on the inside.

They’re “watermelons”!

gmoonster on July 12, 2007 at 12:02 AM

So let me get this straight. While the UK and Europe depopulate themselves, Muslims, Orthodox Jews and “kid happy” Christians will continue to have 8 kids per family.

In 50 years, Europe could regain its spirituality again. How do you like them apples?

Darnell Clayton on July 12, 2007 at 12:06 AM

We have 4 so I guess I need to buy some children offsets!

acleaver on July 11, 2007 at 11:03 PM

I’ll sell my offsets…how much are your two youngest kids worth to you?

James on July 12, 2007 at 7:31 AM

If the Brits and the Europeans were really serious about Global Warming, they’d start by reducing the Voltage that their appliances use (240V-220V) to what Americans appliances use (120V).

zb42 on July 11, 2007 at 10:51 PM

There are plenty of reasons to criticize the Brits for their state of environmental hysteria, but there use of 220v wall power is not one of them. Toasting a slice of bread in a 220v toaster does not consume any more energy than toasting a slice of bread in a toaster that runs on 110 voltage. It’s the “load” that determines the energy use, not the input voltage, see Ohm’s Law.

The USA made the wall voltage standard 110v because it is not as dangerous as 220v, not because 110v is any more efficient. The same amount of electricity is needed to perform a given task no matter what the input voltage. But thanks for the chart on what countries use what type of voltage, that is good travel information.

Maxx on July 12, 2007 at 10:30 AM

Depopulating yourself for global warming means never knowing you were wrong.

Tantor on July 12, 2007 at 1:40 PM

Fewer Brits will also reduce the crime rate in England. Fewer targets for their burgeoning Islamic immigrant population.

Ernest on July 12, 2007 at 2:23 PM

These people are not pro environment, they are just anti human.

As every schoolchild knows, the dinasours died because the climate changed. Was this because they all drove S.U.V.s? Obviously not.

Climate change IS happening. But the truth is it never stopped. When the Viking farms of Greenland were overrun by the encroaching icepack it was not becuase of “big oil”, Dick Cheney or the industrial military complex. It was not because of “Climate Change”(TM). It was just becuase the climate changed. And change happens.

There IS a correlation between carbon and temperature. The hotter it gets the more plants grow. And when they die they release carbon dioxide. More carbon is an effect of increased temperature, not the cause of it. Cause. Effect. See? I appreciate you don’t get time for such fine details when you are a big political figure. How… inconvenient.

In the last hundred years the average temperate of our planet HAS has increased. By one degree. Hardly conclusive. And, inconveniently, the bulk of that change happend before the industrialisation of the fourties. Before trans-atlantic travel and mass production of the automobile, before the naisance of the dreaded global marketplace or the onset of “wicked” consumerism.

Carbon should, to anyone who pauses to think about it for a while, seem a strange target for the environmentalists. We know that cows farting produces more carbon dioxide than all of humanities “evil capitolist” ways put together. A good volcano is worth about five years of human carbon activity, and there is volcanic activity somewhere in the world, on average, about every three weeks. And anyone who does think about it for long enough will eventually say something like, “hey! aren’t we made of carbon?”. And of course they would be right.

So, if not carbon, what else might cause changes in the temperature of our planet? Strangely enough, changes in the temperature of our planet bear a striking correlation to changes in the temperature of our sun. Who would have guessed? And what is not widely publicised – becuase it is “off message” – is that the other planets in our solar system are also getting warmer.

So why do people go along with this patently absurd idea? Why do we accept, often in complete faith, hundred year weather predictions from the same people who we can’t trust to tell us if it will rain this afternoon? The truth of the matter is that we exist on a lump of rock, travelling through the void at about 1000 miles per hour, held in the gravitatinal pull of an immense atomic fireball. Such a stark reality often causes otherwise sane individuals to fantasise that they have some control upon the wider environment. Their own sense of self importance creates an anomaly in their logical function that prevents them from acknowledging their impotence in the face of that precarious predicament.

But under those precarious circumstances should one degree of change in a hundred years be considered newsworthy? Worthy of reporting in a thousand different ways and in every single newscast?

Why is it that the political wing of the international panel on climate change always delivers it’s findings before the scientific body publish their research? Why does a “scientific truth” need a political wing in the first place? And why does the media work so hard to push the Climate Change(TM) agenda? Why are any dissenting voices being surpressed by comparisson to Holocost denial?

The reason is twofold. The first part is idealogical. Within the environmental movement, flower power hippy hold-overs from the sixties have given way to a new generation of ex-communists who, with the collapse of their failed ideology, set out into the world to seek new ways of pursing their anti-capitolist adgendas. These are the people who can, with a straight face, glibly state that Climate Change(TM) “can be solved for just a fraction of your GDP” – without actually mentioning how may trillion dollars that is. They are the new Vandals, hoping to destroy capitolism from within, to roll back globalism, restrict economic growth and ultimately enact global socialism via unelected international institution. The Climate Change(TM) adgenda gives them a tool with which they can enact seemingly reasonable legislation that will in fact accomplish all of the above.

The second reason is financial. Follow the money. If enacted, cap and trade schemes will create a new global market in the sale of what will essentially be the emporers new clothes. These “carbon credits” are designed to be party favours for politicians wishing to curry favour and funding from the big industries who polute. Fortunes will be made. It is set to make “big oil” look like beer money. And that is one detail that a certain American political figure did not overlook: he happens to own a company that is set up to distribute and broker these carbon credits.

Now that IS convenient.

SimonBarnett on July 13, 2007 at 2:38 AM

This story almost makes me want to start me making more Englishmen – and women obviously – (if only I could afford another after paying 50% tax and £600($1200)/month nursery care).

Certainly my wife would not need much encouragement in that direction :\

SimonBarnett on July 13, 2007 at 2:46 AM

SimonBarnett on July 13, 2007 at 2:38 AM

Nice post SimonBarnett, I hope you post that again sometime so more people will see it. I only take issue with one part. The issue with cows and livestock is actually methane… not CO2. These people (the global warmers) are trying to create a food crisis, so they are blaming livestock for putting methane into the air. But of course, there are only trace amounts of methane in the air because methane is a very heavy molecule, almost as heavy as water and falls out of the air very quickly.

But if the enviros are going to get control over the livestock then they have to blame them for something…. thus the silly accusations about methane. Thanks for the post, I enjoyed reading it.

Maxx on July 13, 2007 at 10:23 AM