Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Is Cap and Trade for Babies Next?
Christian Post ^ | 8/13/2009 | R. Albert Mohler, Jr.

Posted on 08/15/2009 10:31:51 AM PDT by SeekAndFind

Just when you thought you'd seen everything, a pair of scientists at Oregon State University has published a study arguing that any effort to limit carbon emissions must consider the impact of "reproductive choices" on the ecological equation.

Paul A. Murtaugh and Michael G. Schlax make their case in "Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals," published in the journal, Global Environmental Change. "While population growth is obviously a key component of projections of carbon emissions at a global level, there has been relatively little emphasis on the environmental consequences of the reproductive choices of an individual person," they argue. After all, there are not only the "immediate effects" caused by each offspring, but also the "additional impacts" if these offspring eventually produce further offspring.

According to the study, a single female's decision to reproduce even a single child could have tremendous ecological effects. In order to make their case, the researchers traced a hypothetical single female's "genetic contribution to future generations" and projected the carbon legacy this contribution would entail. They posit that each child will add 9441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average female.

To their credit, the researchers have invested considerable thought into exactly how they might project this "carbon legacy." They made their calculations with the understanding that children, both male and female, are likely to enter into reproductive pairs and produce future generations. They assumed a reproductive rate of 1.85 children per woman by the year 2050.

Taking all this into account, Murtaugh and Schlax estimate that a woman in the United States who makes significant lifestyle adjustments in order to reduce her own carbon legacy - such as increasing her car's fuel economy, reducing miles driven, adopting energy-efficient technologies, recycling, etc. - would save about 486 tons of carbon dioxide emissions over a lifetime. Yet, "if you were to have two children, this would eventually add nearly 40 times that amount" of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. In other words, all her efforts to be environmentally conscious and careful would be overwhelmed by her decision to have just two children.

The researchers argue:

Clearly, an individual's reproductive choices can have a dramatic effect on the total carbon emissions ultimately attributable to his or her genetic lineage. Understanding the ways that an individual's daily activities influence emissions and explain the huge disparities in per capita emissions among countries is obviously essential, but ignoring the consequences of reproduction can lead to a serious underestimation of an individual's long-term impact on the global environment.

In one sense, a scientific report like this could represent little more than a hypothetical answer to a conjectured question. Nevertheless, more is at stake here. These researchers make this point clear when, early in their article, they assert: "Our basic premise is that a person is responsible for the carbon emissions of his descendents, weighted by their relatedness to him."

This is a quite remarkable assertion. While these two researchers have addressed their report to the scientific community, they openly acknowledge that their argument should be taken into consideration by those concerned with the policy challenge of climate change. As they argue, "Clearly, the potential savings from reduced reproduction are huge compared to the savings that can be achieved by changes in lifestyle."

Warnings that human reproduction will lead to ecological disaster have been common since at least the 1960s. Generally, these arguments have been couched in considerations of limited natural resources and environmental sustainability. Now, a new element is added to the mix, complete with a proposed model for quantifying a projected environmental impact. These two researchers advise that failing to take "reproductive choices" of individuals into account will effectively doom all other efforts to reduce the level of carbon emissions.

The logic of this argument is clear and chilling. The leap from scientific analysis to proposals for public policy is almost sure to come. How long will it be before prospective parents are warned that their decision to reproduce could be catastrophic for the environment? Should we now expect a cap and trade proposal for babies?

Anti-natalist philosophies have been around even longer than arguments over ecology and sustainability. Given our biblical responsibility for environmental stewardship, Christians should indeed be thoughtfully engaged with the entire nexus of questions related to carbon emissions, climate change, and respect for the Earth. Nevertheless, when we begin to measure babies in terms of a "carbon legacy" and a projected threat to the environment, we abandon the biblical worldview. Human beings cannot be reduced to a "carbon legacy" and the gift of children must never be seen as an assault upon the earth.

Adapted from R. Albert Mohler Jr.'s weblog at www.albertmohler.com.

___________________________________________________

R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to www.sbts.edu. Send feedback to mail@albertmohler.com. Original Source: www.albertmohler.com.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: babies; birthrate; capandtrade; greens; mohler; populationcontrol

1 posted on 08/15/2009 10:31:54 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Obama has appointed a ton of crazies, so it wouldn’t surprise me if this gets taken seriously


2 posted on 08/15/2009 10:33:44 AM PDT by GeronL (bookmark my new FR back-up site - http://unitedcitizen.proboards.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Global warming hysteria is the foreplay before the sodomy known as government population control.


3 posted on 08/15/2009 10:36:28 AM PDT by impimp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Just when you thought you'd seen everything, a pair of scientists at Oregon State University has published a study arguing that any effort to limit carbon emissions must consider the impact of "reproductive choices" on the ecological equation.

4 posted on 08/15/2009 10:38:07 AM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Paul A. Murtaugh and Michael G. Schlax

I know two candidates for mandatory carbon footprint reduction right now....

5 posted on 08/15/2009 10:39:26 AM PDT by Regulator (Welcome to Zimbabwe! Now hand over your property)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

China has been capping babies for years. How’s their environment?


6 posted on 08/15/2009 10:49:36 AM PDT by VisualizeSmallerGovernment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VisualizeSmallerGovernment
China has been capping babies for years. How’s their environment?

For all her economic growth, China is in serious demographic trouble. They have a surplus of males and not enough females. In other words, millions of men will not have wives to marry. I wonder where they will channel their energies to....

God is not mocked. You try to play God and you end up with a hard fall.
7 posted on 08/15/2009 10:57:21 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

My guess is they REALLY like Gladiator movies and antiques...


8 posted on 08/15/2009 11:10:31 AM PDT by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The logic behind the global warming argument is totalitarian.

Yes, these people intend to insert themselves into your most basic decisions. There is nothing private where they are concerned.

People are going to have to understand that there is no such thing as a little totalitarianism. Once you have accepted the logic that drives it you have no clear boundary anymore.


9 posted on 08/15/2009 11:14:18 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I have a novel idea. Why don’t we drill here, drill now, use our abundant coal resources, build nuclear power plants, forget about endangered species, wetlands, global warming, etc., and get back to feeding the world with our abundance.

Do you realize, I know most of you do, that all these liberal programs are working just as the liberals intended, they are destroying us as a world leader in every possible way.

They take advantage of our goodness in order to destroy us. Who doesn’t want to protect the environment, save the children, protect animals, etc.? All of us do. However, all these things can easily be done privately with no government involvement. As my tagline says, “Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.”

They have become so open and aggressive we need to fight back in kind. We are doing that with the Tea Parties, Townhall Meetings, e-mails, letters, and phone calls to politicians and the media.

We must not let up. We are beginning to have an impact.


10 posted on 08/15/2009 11:26:12 AM PDT by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Looks like the best way I can reduce the carbon footprint for my descendants is to make room for them by sterilizing Paul A. Murtaugh and Michael G. Schlax as soon as possible (among others).

Bet they didn't count on that choice eh!

Now, to find their addresses and my old Burdizzo.

11 posted on 08/15/2009 11:51:50 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
I am all for sterilization for those who receive welfare.

You want help? sure! but you got to agree to be sterilized. In return I would be willing to give them cradle to grave care of every sort, food, housing, healthcare, even shinny mag wheels that spin, as long as they agree to be sterilized.

12 posted on 08/15/2009 11:57:01 AM PDT by TexasFreeper2009 (Obama lied, the economy died)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“any effort to limit carbon emissions must consider the impact of “reproductive choices” on the ecological equation.”

This is their true dream. And it is of course pure evil. It really is easy to see parallels with 1930’s Germany.


13 posted on 08/15/2009 11:57:51 AM PDT by HereInTheHeartland (Just say no to Soylent Green health care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Humans have no rights.

Fish, whales & owls have all of them.


14 posted on 08/15/2009 12:01:07 PM PDT by 4Liberty (End of civilization. 'Who cares about a little pork?' - Senator Schumer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
I know two candidates for mandatory carbon footprint reduction right now....

They might have a point. In the process of conceiving three children, I can remember lots of nights when Mrs. CommerceComet and I were producing carbon dioxide hot and heavy.

15 posted on 08/15/2009 1:58:01 PM PDT by CommerceComet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CommerceComet
were producing carbon dioxide hot and heavy

How awful! So now you're EcoCriminals...

Aren't we all

But one thing we probably know....these two dweebs have never engaged in that kind of greenhouse gas production, unless it was with each other.

Maybe that's what really bothers them. They didn't get invited to the party. Maybe we should just buy them a night at the Mustang Ranch and they'll shut up.

16 posted on 08/15/2009 2:13:30 PM PDT by Regulator (Welcome to Zimbabwe! Now hand over your property)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Hamid read the new report on Cap and Trade for babies with Rapt Attention. He turned to his wife:

“Look, Surya! We and our fellow muslim couples can each have 10 kids, like the Koran commands, and each one will add 9441 tons of Carbon to our atmosphere! We can conquer the world while the decadent Europeans and Americans stop having children, and we will be warmer, just like in Iraq! Hooraaaaay! Allahu fubar!”


17 posted on 08/15/2009 2:14:23 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Barack Obama: in your guts, you know he's nuts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VisualizeSmallerGovernment
China has been capping babies for years. How’s their environment?

They'll all die of black lung well before the ice caps collapse.

18 posted on 08/15/2009 2:15:32 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Barack Obama: in your guts, you know he's nuts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: CommerceComet
I can remember lots of nights when Mrs. CommerceComet and I were producing carbon dioxide hot and heavy.

Do you know what this means? Rampant sex can protect us against the coming Maunder Minimum! Who knew?

19 posted on 08/15/2009 2:23:50 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Barack Obama: in your guts, you know he's nuts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
How awful! So now you're EcoCriminals...

Guilty as charged....and proud of it.

Maybe that's what really bothers them.

I think what really bothers them is that they have screwed up their own lives and want to make amends by running everyone else's.

20 posted on 08/15/2009 2:24:43 PM PDT by CommerceComet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Regulator
But one thing we probably know....these two dweebs have never engaged in that kind of greenhouse gas production, unless it was with each other.

Poor dears. I suspect that there's a woman out there for just about every man. You may have to order her over the internet, but she's out there!

21 posted on 08/15/2009 2:29:26 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (Barack Obama: in your guts, you know he's nuts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I believe that my family accounts for more emissions than a one GigaWatt dirty coal plant!

Wheeeeee!!!! Take that, Greenies!

(by the way, the bulk of them are quite conservative :^)


22 posted on 08/15/2009 5:29:27 PM PDT by AFPhys ((.Praying for President Bush, our troops, their families, and all my American neighbors..))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: impimp

“A nation that kills its own children is a nation without hope.” John Paul II


23 posted on 08/15/2009 7:19:04 PM PDT by victim soul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I have a far better idea. All liberals must commit suicide in order to save the planet.


24 posted on 08/15/2009 7:22:45 PM PDT by Conservativegreatgrandma (Al Franken--the face of the third-party voters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
funny. things no sooner become "rights" (i.e. "reproductive rights") than they become "privileges" (bestowed by the state).

The founder were so on their game, enumerating inalienable rights, as they did.

25 posted on 08/15/2009 10:22:05 PM PDT by the invisib1e hand (STOP OBAMA NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the invisib1e hand
The founder were so on their game, enumerating inalienable rights, as they did.

The problem with the founders is they used the words : "among these are"... The liberals have now understood these words to mean -- yes, but they are NOT LIMITED TO these and now have expanded these rights.
26 posted on 08/16/2009 6:44:50 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Inalienable rights are not limited to what the founders spelled out. In fact, the right of a baby to be born is inalienable, though not explicitly said so in the Bill of Rights.

The founders didn't have a problem. They declared, as the basic law of our country, that there are rights that the government does bestow but is obligated to recognize.

What the left does is to demand recognition of created "rights," and assume authority over them. It a power play: the "plantation" method exposed.

27 posted on 08/16/2009 7:54:10 AM PDT by the invisib1e hand (STOP OBAMA NOW.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

As Galatians 6:7 illustrates.


28 posted on 09/11/2009 4:52:13 AM PDT by myknowledge (F-22 Raptor: World's Largest Distributor of Sukhoi parts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson