I read, yet I don't believe

This one is worth saving for posterity. Just to show how deep, morally, rationally and humanly, some are willing to sink in the name of their new god: Having large families ‘is an eco-crime’:
HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a 4x4 car and failing to reuse plastic bags, according to a report to be published tomorrow by a green think tank.

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family’s carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: “The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.

The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child.
(emphasis is mine - KV)

One wonders what Mark Steyn would make of this...

[UPDATE001] And hop! The answer is in. Via Pajamas, Steyn's retort:
In those terms, surely the greatest thing everyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to reduce his carbon footprint to zero by killing himself. The United Kingdom's present fertility rate is not three children or even two but 1.6 or 1.7, and the British will be extinct long before the polar bear. And when the self-loathing westerners are gone how many Yemeni imams will want to man the late shift at the local Greenpeace office?


Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...