Kill the kids, save the planet

I have heard it all now!!

Apparently having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust 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.

[quote]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.

"The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."[/quote] 

Oh Pulllease, this is what comes from labelling CO2 as a pollutant when every human being emits it as we breathe.

These fricken greenies are getting dumber by the day.

Meanwhile Michael Cullen denys basic biology and utters in parliament complete inanities like this;

[quote]I was very interested to receive a report from television last night, indicating that Mr Key is determined to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from livestock. Given that livestock do not emit carbon dioxide, that may be one goal he will be able to achieve.[/quote]

Hulloooo Michael, anyone home, livestock do emit CO2, when they breathe, just like you, fool!!

  • perky pinky


    Firstly, if I were to supply you only CO2 to breathe, you would be dead. Anything can be a pollutant if it is in the wrong place and/or in the wrong quantity.

    Secondly, you accuse Cullen of denying biology, and you’re correct. But you deny chemistry and physics when you suggest CO2 is never a pollutant. You and I breathe it out as a WASTE PRODUCT fer Pete’s sake!


  • Whaleoil

    And trees and green things suck it up, it's what makes them grow, it called photosynthesis and then we get oxygen, voila…..take away one and you lose the other, it's a cycle don't you know.

  • andrei

    Nature abhors a vacuum.


    The places of all those liberal kids who wont get born because of the earnest Libbies to take this to heart will be filled with muslim kids whose parent don't follow the green religion.

  • Leonidas

    We are only having the one, does anyone want to buy a child credit?.

    Hey, if it's good enough for Gore, it's good enough for me!. 

  • Simo

    Does Al Quaeda every wonder how many carbon credits its using as the next roadside bomb gets dentonated, we have more urgent problems in the world. like survival perhaps, before we can jolly about carbon credits.

    As usual the socialists have their collective heads up their collective arses.

  • Whaleoil

    So what!! the percentages are so miniscule as to not matter.

  • Perky Pinky

    But with hectares across the globe covered with trees, and with more carbon being dug/pumped out of the ground into the atmosphere, there's going to be a build-up of surplus carbon in the atmosphere isn't there? Why do you think this surplus carbon is having no effect on the atmosphere?