Aussie professor solves global warming: Let’s tax reproduction

posted at 2:45 pm on December 10, 2007 by Allahpundit

“We are what is wrong,” said the Goracle in his Nobel speech today, perfectly summarizing the environmentalist ethos. It’s nice for once to hear him using “we” in that context without meaning the United States, although that’s the practical effect: He’s already on record as saying China shouldn’t have to go green until America does, and since it’s unlikely that developing nations will risk retarding their growing economies with draconian anti-industrial measures, the only “we” who can be counted on — or properly expected by the conscientious multiculturalist — to do anything about the problem is the west. As Gore put it in another line of notably cringing pap, “It is time to make peace with the planet.” Where do we go to sign the treaty?

We go … to the root of the problem!

A WEST Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus “baby levy” at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.

Writing in today’s Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child’s lifetime.

Professor Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and “greenhouse-friendly” services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits.

Not the first time recently we’ve seen the Steynian nightmare of green consciousness, big government, and low western birthrates converge. Nice to see them adding financial incentives towards abortion and sterilization into the mix, though, instead of relying on the individual’s own sense of solidarity with “Gaia” to lead them. Exit question one: How long before this sort of proposal becomes mainstream in the west? Ten years maybe? Exit question two: To the extent that this policy would indirectly benefit people who are less likely to reproduce, is this advantage: beta males?


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

Mark Steyn call your office.

sweeper on December 10, 2007 at 2:47 PM

This is why religion is necessary to freedom.

JiangxiDad on December 10, 2007 at 2:53 PM

advantage: beta males?

It might be called a Pyrrhic victory advantage.

eeyore on December 10, 2007 at 2:58 PM

I’m a little confused here. If we aren’t going to reproduce, why the hell should we care what we do to the planet? We’re supposed to be good stewards of the planet now for the children and grandchildren we’ll never have?

If we’re aiming at extinction, wouldn’t trying to *accelerate* global warming speed the process along? And since the Earth will have millions of years before another sentient species evolves, why shouldn’t we live it up and go out with a bang?

LagunaDave on December 10, 2007 at 3:00 PM

But didn’t Hillary just tell us that we should be subsidizing reproduction at $5000 per child?

Or are we just supposed to use the $5000 baby bond to pay the $5000 baby tax?

I’m so confused!

cool breeze on December 10, 2007 at 3:00 PM

A WEST Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus “baby levy” at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.

Are they going to collect it at the hospital? Hold your baby until you can pony up the $5,800?

What about the poor folks in Zambia or Zimbabwe who only have an annual income of $500 or so? Do they get an installment plan?

BacaDog on December 10, 2007 at 3:04 PM

I’m curious why the article refers to this man as a “medical expert.” Exactly how is this man’s training as a doctor germane to the question of how to counteract climate change?

Mark V. on December 10, 2007 at 3:04 PM

Exit question one: How long before this sort of proposal becomes mainstream in the west? Ten years maybe?

Allah, per teh Goracle, we don’t have 10 years. I think we’re down to 8 or 9 now. Also, 10 years from now, when no discernible pattern in climate change is apparent, or the sun pipes down a little bit, the greens can move on to something else – like protesting the ground breakings at all the new nuke plants that will be popping up everywhere.

Hoodlumman on December 10, 2007 at 3:05 PM

The Medical Journal of Australia isn’t the Aussie version of The Onion, is it? Cuz this is so stupid it can only be the product of a PhD or a savage parodist.

Tantor on December 10, 2007 at 3:05 PM

Onanists deserve some credit too!

Ropera on December 10, 2007 at 3:08 PM

I’m curious why the article refers to this man as a “medical expert.” Exactly how is this man’s training as a doctor germane to the question of how to counteract climate change?

Silly boy. Since humans are to blame for destroying the earth, and some doctors specialize in destroy humans, their place is integral.

JiangxiDad on December 10, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Professor Walters called for condoms and “greenhouse-friendly” services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits.

This will be used as an excuse eventually when some middle school is passing out condoms to 12 year olds! Just doing our part to stop global warming!

pb5000 on December 10, 2007 at 3:08 PM

Are they going to collect it at the hospital? Hold your baby until you can pony up the $5,800?

What about the poor folks in Zambia or Zimbabwe who only have an annual income of $500 or so? Do they get an installment plan?

BacaDog on December 10, 2007 at 3:04 PM

Geez, I gotta work an extra shift to get my kid outta hock.

Frozen Tex on December 10, 2007 at 3:08 PM

A WEST Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus “baby levy” at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.

A $5000-plus “Baby Levy”? Has Andy been consulted about this?

ReubenJCogburn on December 10, 2007 at 3:12 PM

Even libs wouldn’t go for this because it unfairly “punishes” the poor by denying them the ability to have more children if they want to. Only the rich would be able to afford to have more than two kids under this plan, right? That doesn’t match the lib M.O.

Of course, I have no problem with people being strongly discouraged from having kids they can’t afford. It’s the global warming crap that’s offensive.

aero on December 10, 2007 at 3:14 PM

To the extent that this policy would indirectly benefit people who are less likely to reproduce, is this advantage: beta males?

I don’t know about beta-males, but moonbat omega-persons seem to be determined to extinct themselves and drag the rest of us along with them. And by “us” I mean western civilization – they don’t seem to mind high birth rates in places like Yemen and Pakistan.

forest on December 10, 2007 at 3:14 PM

Geez, I gotta work an extra shift to get my kid outta hock.

Frozen Tex on December 10, 2007 at 3:08 PM

No you won’t Tex. I did some more research. Hillary and the Silky Pony will pay the fee through the childbirth portion of their universal healthcare plan!!

Still doesn’t help the Zimbabwe folks though. Maybe they can persuade Bob Mugabe to have a similar plan.

BacaDog on December 10, 2007 at 3:15 PM

And what happens if a family refuses to or can’t pay the baby taxes? Does the government take the kid away as collateral?

aero on December 10, 2007 at 3:16 PM

And what happens if a family refuses to or can’t pay the baby taxes? Does the government take the kid away as collateral?

aero on December 10, 2007 at 3:16 PM

Nah. They become part of the “village”.

BacaDog on December 10, 2007 at 3:18 PM

Or are we just supposed to use the $5000 baby bond to pay the $5000 baby tax?

Exactly. That way we can have employees of the government whose job is literally do nothing.

If you want to de-incentivize having children, just take away (or reduce) the tax deductions for having dependent kids. Anything else is pure ivory tower fantasy.

calbear on December 10, 2007 at 3:19 PM

No you won’t Tex. I did some more research. Hillary and the Silky Pony will pay the fee through the childbirth portion of their universal healthcare plan!!

Well, that’d be kinda bass-ackwards; “The government taketh-away, the government giveth”

But then, does anything liberals progressives socialists do have to make sense in the real world?

Frozen Tex on December 10, 2007 at 3:20 PM

One small step for sterilization, a giant step for the end of mankind. All that’s missing is some abortion tax credits.

Rush played an excerpt from the Goreacle’s sermon, er, speech where he compared Global Warming hoax deniers to those who let the Nazis take over (and he had the effrontery to quote Churchill). It is just stunning to me how these libs can’t look in the mirror and see what they are doing with Islamofascism.

Buy Danish on December 10, 2007 at 3:21 PM

If we’re aiming at extinction, wouldn’t trying to *accelerate* global warming speed the process along? And since the Earth will have millions of years before another sentient species evolves, why shouldn’t we live it up and go out with a bang?

LagunaDave on December 10, 2007 at 3:00 PM

I’m doing my best. Driving the ’79 Bronco more, grilling with charcoal instead of propane and more Christmas lights and decorations than I’ve ever had. Oh, and I cut two trees for inside the house.

R D on December 10, 2007 at 3:21 PM

well, hillary is going to give us $5000 at birth, so its pretty much a wash, right?

lorien1973 on December 10, 2007 at 3:23 PM

And what happens if a family refuses to or can’t pay the baby taxes? Does the government take the kid away as collateral?

aero on December 10, 2007 at 3:16 PM

They become property of the state. The state will be mother, the state will be father…..

CrazyFool on December 10, 2007 at 3:25 PM

Well, I have actually thought for a long time that families collecting welfare for children should be capped at two kids (or however many they have when they go on welfare). If they have more kids while on welfare, they get no more benefits. A great disincentive for people who can’t afford to have more kids and really shouldn’t have more kids until their circumstances improve. As it is, the system rewards welfare recipients for continuing to be irresponsible in having more and more children they can’t afford.

aero on December 10, 2007 at 3:26 PM

But didn’t Hillary just tell us that we should be subsidizing reproduction at $5000 per child?

Or are we just supposed to use the $5000 baby bond to pay the $5000 baby tax?

I’m so confused!

cool breeze on December 10, 2007 at 3:00 PM

Obviously, the government solution is to use YOUR $5000 baby tax to pay the baby bond to another mother, and that mother’s $5000 baby tax to pay YOUR baby bond. That way, you feel okay about getting screwed because you know at least someone else is being screwed for your benefit. Plus it will require a whole other bureaucracy (“Dept. of Protecting the Children’s Future” or some such pandering crap) be created to manage the process. It’s the circle of life, liberal style.
.
Allah, please keep a look out for the next article in this series: “Science Journal Says: ‘Suicide is Answer to Global Warming,’ San Francisco Self-Annihilates.”

sweetlipsbutterhoney on December 10, 2007 at 3:27 PM

What about the poor folks in Zambia or Zimbabwe who only have an annual income of $500 or so? Do they get an installment plan?

BacaDog on December 10, 2007 at 3:04 PM

The poor folks in Zambia and Zimbabwe, along with the poor folks in North and South America will be “encouraged” to use the sterilisation procedure. Courtesy of your friendly lib health care professional.
So you see, it wouldn’t cost them a dime.

RMR on December 10, 2007 at 3:28 PM

If we’re aiming at extinction, wouldn’t trying to *accelerate* global warming speed the process along? And since the Earth will have millions of years before another sentient species evolves, why shouldn’t we live it up and go out with a bang?

LagunaDave on December 10, 2007 at 3:00 PM

No, no, no! They want a pristine planet with only a few of the “Right” kind of people. And bunnies. Lots of bunnies.

Frozen Tex on December 10, 2007 at 3:29 PM

Another aspect of this that wouldn’t fly with the libs: If you succeed in cutting down the birthrate, there are fewer and fewer each generation to pay the entitlements of the larger retiring generations before them. Declining tax revenues = BAD in lib-land.

aero on December 10, 2007 at 3:35 PM

Oh… Bejesus…

Uh… don’t let a little thing like FACTS get in the way of a good idea…

Trees do NOT help with global temp change, and in fact HURT it.

Trees, being dark in color, adsorb and retain heat more than either grassland, or open feilds… especialy snow feilds. Snow does this little thing called REFLECTING light. Grass, because it is usualy yellow to brown (in its natural state) does the same… planting TREES causes MORE heat absorption.

They also take nutrients from the soil, and water, and sunlight, and CREATE a great Carbon engine… trees have this little habit of BURNING during forest fires (and since the enviros won’t let us clear brush, we are having BIGGER fires)… when trees burn they create huge CLOUDS of both smoke, and Carbon emmisions… which because they are localised CREATE more heat absorption…

This whole carbon offset thing is HURTING the environment, and adding to global heat…

But its OK… since we are about to enter an mini ice age anyway….

Romeo13 on December 10, 2007 at 3:42 PM

Professor Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and “greenhouse-friendly” services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits.

Keep letting that mask slip, you climate change nutters.

Mike Honcho on December 10, 2007 at 3:42 PM

What about the poor folks in Zambia or Zimbabwe who only have an annual income of $500 or so? Do they get an installment plan?

BacaDog on December 10, 2007 at 3:04 PM

The poor folks in Zambia and Zimbabwe, along with the poor folks in North and South America will be “encouraged” to use the sterilisation procedure. Courtesy of your friendly lib health care professional.
So you see, it wouldn’t cost them a dime.

RMR on December 10, 2007 at 3:28 PM

In India, the late Prime Minister Indira Gandhi enforced mass sterilizations of so many people.

mram on December 10, 2007 at 3:48 PM

The poor folks in Zambia and Zimbabwe, along with the poor folks in North and South America will be “encouraged” to use the sterilisation procedure. Courtesy of your friendly lib health care professional.
So you see, it wouldn’t cost them a dime.

RMR on December 10, 2007 at 3:28 PM

Margaret Sanger’s lifelong goals would finally be achieved.

ReubenJCogburn on December 10, 2007 at 3:56 PM

No, no, no! They want a pristine planet with only a few of the “Right” kind of people. And bunnies. Lots of bunnies.

Frozen Tex on December 10, 2007 at 3:29 PM

Nuh UHH! Bunnies fart! and they eat the veggies that do a liberal body good. They want cats, lots of them. More cats than people in fact. Cause cats don’t drive SUVs. Not during the day anyway.

inviolet on December 10, 2007 at 4:04 PM

More cats than people in fact

inviolet on December 10, 2007 at 4:04 PM

So the Earth just becomes one big Crazy-Old-Lady’s house?

Frozen Tex on December 10, 2007 at 4:09 PM

Margaret Sanger’s lifelong goals would finally be achieved.

ReubenJCogburn on December 10, 2007 at 3:56 PM

And people *still* have no clue what the founder of Planned Parenthood had to say about how much she hated “brown people.” A deacon at my church gave a sermon on that once and the congregation –including a (I assume now ex-) volunteer at Planned Parenthood–literally gasped at the quotes he rattled off and told them, this is what that organization comes from.

inviolet on December 10, 2007 at 4:10 PM

So the Earth just becomes one big Crazy-Old-Lady’s house?

Frozen Tex on December 10, 2007 at 4:09 PM

You’ve heard the Anointed Savior of the Planet talk and you need to ask that question?

inviolet on December 10, 2007 at 4:11 PM

You’ve heard the Anointed Savior of the Planet talk and you need to ask that question?

inviolet on December 10, 2007 at 4:11 PM

I’m just trying not to imagine the smell from all the kitty litter.

Frozen Tex on December 10, 2007 at 4:17 PM

Well, why not? We’re already living in a society which takes money from those who work for it, and gives it to those who don’t. And for each child they have, they get more. Meanwhile, those of us who work, pay higher taxes to offset the “needy” – meaning those who continue to have babies they can’t afford to raise. Or even better yet, for babies, education, healthcare, housing, food… for people who are here illegally…. We are subsidizing our own demise. GWB says we want more immigrants, says we need them to fuel our growth. Well, if we want growth, why won’t we pass legislation helping people who actually work, afford larger families???????????????????

KMC1 on December 10, 2007 at 4:19 PM

I’m just trying not to imagine the smell from all the kitty litter.

Frozen Tex on December 10, 2007 at 4:17 PM

hahaha

inviolet on December 10, 2007 at 4:20 PM

Monty Python plans to sue – he stole their idea to tax “thingie”…

mojo on December 10, 2007 at 4:30 PM

And people *still* have no clue what the founder of Planned Parenthood had to say about how much she hated “brown people.” A deacon at my church gave a sermon on that once and the congregation –including a (I assume now ex-) volunteer at Planned Parenthood–literally gasped at the quotes he rattled off and told them, this is what that organization comes from.

inviolet on December 10, 2007 at 4:10 PM

I’m making a point of hammering that issue a little harder after last week, when some nimrod accused those of us who are actually aware that Margaret Sanger was a lifelong racist and eugenicist (also Socialist) of “conservative Trutherism”. It’s not as if she ever made a secret of any of it, it was all right out in the open. As usual, liberals just don’t want people to know the truth.

ReubenJCogburn on December 10, 2007 at 4:35 PM

I’m really confused.

My childless friends go on fancy vacations much more often than we do — flying across country to Lake Tahoe, or to Cabo, or Jamaica.

And when we do travel, we probably shed less carbon per person than singles. And wasn’t there a recent news item finding that married couples use less resources?

Perhaps we should impose a carbon tax on divorcees?

Just thinking out loud, here.

SWLiP on December 10, 2007 at 4:55 PM

Idiocracy. Believe it.

Vizzini on December 10, 2007 at 5:17 PM

So under this “brilliant” plan who’s suppose to pay for the kiddies who are born to unwed 15 year olds? Let’s just skip the middle man, i.e. the IRS, and just send me the bill. I’ve already got a pile of them, what’s one more.

SPIFF1669 on December 10, 2007 at 6:24 PM

Maybe IQ test.
This would increase the Conservative population.

TheSitRep on December 10, 2007 at 7:06 PM

I’m making a point of hammering that issue a little harder after last week, when some nimrod accused those of us who are actually aware that Margaret Sanger was a lifelong racist and eugenicist (also Socialist) of “conservative Trutherism”. It’s not as if she ever made a secret of any of it, it was all right out in the open. As usual, liberals just don’t want people to know the truth.

ReubenJCogburn on December 10, 2007 at 4:35 PM

It’s true liberals are trying to hide the truth about Margaret Sanger and others like her (Hilary for instances).

But most of all they are trying to hide the truth of how truly destructive modern-day liberalism is.

RMR on December 10, 2007 at 9:03 PM

I’m completely aware of the danger of Islam, but–despite the fantasies of most people here–there are also real ecological problems due to insanely excessive human population. Taxing human spawning is an excellent idea, but it won’t work unless you also forbid immigration from the irresponsible nations that spawn in excess. Our immigration policy should be to allow greater immigration from other countries the lower their birth rate. We’ll welcome all the Italians and Japanese who want to come, but we’ll make impossible for Palestinians to immigrate here. However, to make sure we don’t welcome a fifth column, we should forbid Islamic immigration altogether.

thuja on December 10, 2007 at 9:41 PM

due to insanely excessive human population

hahahahahahahahahahaha

*ahem*

Sorry about that.
What can one say to this, except “that view is so 20th century?”

Ecological problems, I will grant you. “Insanely excessive human population?” Not a chance.

Nice description of human fertility in other countries as “spawning,” BTW. I’m sure the “irresponsible” people will appreciate your referring to their valuable children in such terms, and will also appreciate your considerate singling out of which countries have birthrates acceptable to you. I suppose my (American) friends John and Janet who have 12 beautiful children – they planned one dozen exactly – are parents of “spawn” too.

I’m sure you have no idea what an elitist, eugenic snob you sound like.

I’m happy you’re alive, and I’m also happy that the 8th child of some anonynmous Palestinian mother, born today, was born as well. I wouldn’t want to choose between the two of you. But by wanting to keep that baby from the world, while deciding YOU are valuable enough to stay around, you only condemn your own viewpoint as the elitist garbage it is.

inviolet on December 10, 2007 at 10:34 PM

Well, I guess our betters on the Left have decided it isn’t enough to tax us to death – now they want to tax us to extinction.

It’s the reality-based equivalent of what Private Joker in Full Metal Jacket called “that duality shit, sir” – their boundless love for humanity is exceeded only by their ineffable contempt for people.

LagunaDave on December 10, 2007 at 11:52 PM

I suppose my (American) friends John and Janet who have 12 beautiful children – they planned one dozen exactly – are parents of “spawn” too.

inviolet on December 10, 2007 at 10:34 PM

12?! Now that’s just showing off–I mean, after about 7 or 8, I’d be like, “Okay, we get it, you’re fertile, you can stop now!” Where did they find the time?

The g/f wants to have “a houseful” between kids and pets, but I’m not sure exactly how many that is–less than 12, I think. It’ll depend on the house, I guess.

ReubenJCogburn on December 11, 2007 at 12:56 AM

Let’s tax muslim reproduction.

Syndic Nuruodo on December 11, 2007 at 3:09 AM

F— em,I going out to burns some tires.

leanright on December 11, 2007 at 8:08 AM

Modern “environmentalism” is so screwed it may already be dead.

The pathetic thing is that the psuedo-religious obsession with CO2 (which is not a pollutant, unless you lock yourself in a garage with a running car) has drawn attention away from real problems.

You can EITHER put all your energy into battling the production of plant food, OR you can put all your energy into battling actual pollutants that actually harm people.

Not that environmentalists were ever particularly good at that, anyway.

Merovign on December 11, 2007 at 12:17 PM

Um, my second pregnancy was planned, but having twins wasn’t exactly something we counted on… can we count them as one kid (they share everything, a crib, clothes, the bathtub, portions, etc)?

Chort forbid that some poor couple under such a tax have natural multiples. Of course, I’m sure they’d be encouraged to selectively reduce the number of babies, right?

the goddess anna on December 11, 2007 at 7:57 PM

This isn’t exactly a new proposal. In a sociology class in the ’80s, I remember a long-haired leftist doing a class presentation on population control and advocating abolishing the tax break for dependents and replacing it with a tax on children after the 2nd one.

Sadly, that long-haired leftist was me.

But, on doing the research for the paper, I found lots of stuff from the ’60s and ’70s with similar proposals. One of the most fruitful sources was an extensive report from some branch of the United Nations. The only thing different was that, then, we were afraid of a new ice age, not global warming, but the proposals were pretty much the same.

JackOfClubs on December 11, 2007 at 9:13 PM