The Public Policy
Rush-Defying Thought Experiments
What planet does Andrew Revkin live on?
Fresh from controversial, unuttered racist remarks that spurred sports businessman Dave Checketts to drop him from his bid to buy the NFL’s St. Louis Rams, talk radio magnate Rush Limbaugh last week steamed environoiacs with a riff about New York Times global warming alarmist Andrew Revkin.
The king of EIB expounded on a theme suggested by the editors of Investor’s Business Daily, who wondered — based upon Revkin’s comments at conference panel discussion about “the population part of the climate and energy challenge” — whether we are headed toward a “cap-and-trade for babies.” Revkin explained his remarks at his “Dot Earth” blog:
So I mused on whether the next logical step, in a world increasingly fixated with carbon markets, would be carbon credits for avoided kids. This is something particularly relevant in the United States, which — nearly unique for rich countries — has a fast-growing population and very high rates of emissions per person….
As I put it…: “Should you get credit — if we’re going to become carbon-centric — for having a one-child family when you could have had two or three. And obviously it’s just a thought experiment, but it raises some interesting questions about all this.”
It’s just unfathomable to propose carbon credits for avoided children, if we are to believe Revkin. Too radical an idea for him, you know…heh, heh…but hey, somebody else might just propose it! It’s just a “thought experiment.”
And what a beaker in that brain! To come up with such crackpottery you need to start with the following premises: that CO2 is pollution rather than a life-giving gas; that human-generated CO2 is more destructive than that of the rest of the mammal population; and because of the first two premises, a reduction in the number of humans is needed to solve the “pollution” problem. While The Amazing Revkin may dismiss the last idea as a mind exercise, he certainly embraces the first two principles. In fact, he’s written books that support the idea.
That’s where Rush comes in. After a long monologue Tuesday about the philosophical beliefs about overpopulation by environmentalists, including some in the Obama administration, the battered (by some) yet beloved (by others) talk host said:
This guy from the New York Times, if he really thinks that humanity is destroying the planet, humanity is destroying the climate, that human beings in their natural existence are going to cause the extinction of life on earth, Andrew Revkin, Mr. Revkin, why don’t you just go kill yourself and help the planet by dying?
Isolating that out of context, as Media Matters for America and the Center for Environmental Journalism’s Tom Yulsman intentionally did, and you’ve got red meat remarks for leftists. But Limbaugh’s point was simply an “align your actions with your beliefs” challenge — part of a long monologue — to hypocritical environmental activists:
See, liberals always come up with these laws, these plans, these solutions, and they’re always for everybody else. You go and limit the number of kids you have. You go drive a Yugo. You go get rid of your big house. You go turn your thermostat up or down, you go do this, you go do that….
If I may get serious with you for a moment, the left, if you believe them, believes that there’s one species on the planet destroying it. Now, all mammals exhale carbon dioxide. But somehow only man, only human beings’ carbon dioxide is destroying the planet. It’s only man in all of his endeavors, particularly Capitalist Man, Western Culture man. Those are the culprits! We are the real culprits. We are destroying the planet. We are the one species on the planet that’s destroying it.
While Revkin hoped Limbaugh’s “kill yourself” suggestion was itself a “thought experiment,” the Times reporter gave other evidence that his own views on child cutbacks were more than just an idea. For example, Revkin’s response characterized a Worldwatch Institute blog post as an appropriate context for his statements:
At a Wilson Center discussion on Wednesday, New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin considered this idea and stated that having fewer children was one of the best ways that individuals could reduce their carbon footprints. Humans reproduce exponentially, and having two children instead of three could reduce energy consumption that would otherwise occur for generations.
Was it just an idea, or something more? Then there’s this nugget from Revkin in September:
I recently raised the question of whether this means we’ll soon see a market in baby-avoidance carbon credits similar to efforts to sell CO2 credits for avoiding deforestation. This is purely a thought experiment, not a proposal. But the issue is one that is rarely discussed in climate treaty talks or in debates over United States climate legislation. If anything, the population-climate question is more pressing in the United States than in developing countries, given the high per-capita carbon dioxide emissions here and the rate of population growth. If giving women a way to limit family size is such a cheap win for emissions, why isn’t it in the mix?
Conclusion: Revkin may have a lot of thought experiments, but he sure is pushy about them.
About the Author
Paul Chesser is executive director for the American Tradition Institute and a senior fellow for the Commonwealth Foundation for Public Policy Alternatives. The views he expresses do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (40) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Paul Chesser
More Articles From The Public Policy
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/28/rush-defying-thought-experimen
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 10.28.09 @ 6:33AM
If we are going to start giving people tax credits for NOT doing things, here are a bunch of things I plan NOT to do that I suggest should get me big tax credits:
I will not buy a Ferrari Enzo, a Lamborghini Murcelago, a Koenigsegg or the new Mercedes McLaren SLR. I will not ask Spyker to custom build one of their fabulous cars with the rivets especially for me.
I will not run a Madoff-style Ponzi Scheme, and will not defraud thousands of people out of millions of dollars. I will not, therefore, use my ill gotten gains to buy expensive houses and heat and cool them and park fifteen large sports cars in my garage like Al Gore does.
I will not sell illegal drugs, and will not form a world wide Carlos the Jackal Type Empire, thus saving the government billions in chasing and trying to catch me and millions of stupid hippie scum from disease, mental illness, arrest and death from my products.
I will not waste valuable resources making Chick Flicks, nor movies about vampires, anorexia, divorce, or people whose music causes severe damage to the hearing of normal people and whose behaviour causess crime.
I will not start a band that plays loud music, gets popular, wastes resources touring the world and encouring people to come out and see them, or whose music ends up on iPods causing damage to hearing and encouraging young people to walk into open manholes, fall under the wheels of garbage trucks, and be run down by Amtrak because they have become deaf.
I will not start a successful cable news program, thus saving Obama and his myrmidion the energy required to try to destroy me.
Give me a little more time and I will think of lots more things I will not do, if you will give me a tax credit for not doing them.
Right Brained| 10.28.09 @ 11:02PM
For all of that you deserve to be given all of Al Gore's cars and possibly a house or two. I'm sure that he will comply being the dedicated ecophile that he is...
SC Mike| 10.28.09 @ 8:00AM
Avoiding the production of additional carbon dioxide by having fewer kids is a long-term strategy that would be tricky to implement. Is it a one-time payment or is it spread over 18 years?
In the shorter term there’s much more we can do, like taxing health clubs, those noxious sweatshops designed to accelerate the production of CO2. Marathons, walks-for-whatever disease, and sports in general need to be taxed, with special attention to kids’ sports to prevent them from continuing daily exercise into adulthood.
The libs are rubbing their hands in anticipation of killing NASCAR, so we have to be ready with our own counterproposals.
2Anglico| 10.28.09 @ 8:50AM
I was going to have 18 kids, now I will agree to only have 9. How much is my check?
Alan Brooks| 10.28.09 @ 12:50PM
in pesos or $$?
Bananas| 10.28.09 @ 11:05PM
Go for the pesos, the outlook is better.
Alan Brooks| 10.28.09 @ 12:50PM
in pesos or $$?
JP| 10.28.09 @ 9:01AM
The fertility rate in the US (per Wiki) is about 1.9 children/female. A few years ago it did top 2.1;however, since the 1970s the US has consistently averaged less than the replacement rate. Our population grew primairily through immigration (both legal and illegal).
It is know wonder we have now an inverted demographic, with a huge population bulge for the Baby Boomers followed by smaller demographics after them. That is why both Social Security and Medicare are considered very large underfunded liabilities.
Rivkin and his Alarmist Brethren have it exactly wrong. Over-population isn't the problem (it never was), but under-population is. Again, go to Wiki and check the population growth rates, and very few of the G20 Nations have positive growth rates. That is, they (we) are all on the cusp of losing population (ie negative growth) just at the time so many of us need younger people to sustain our huge entitlement empires.
We are all in for a very very rude future.
The answer is...| 10.28.09 @ 1:33PM
...IMMIGRATION. Yes, we have been & continue to be at lower-than-replacement birthrates...but the population continues to climb not only because of ILLEGAL immigration, but due to DECADES of sustained, record-level LEGAL immigration.
But you won't see enviro's decrying this, the sole cause of our population explosion, but instead only focus on the non-contributing below-replacement reproduction of those already here.
Richard Baker| 10.28.09 @ 9:28AM
I've always said that liberal fools like Rivkin and his bretheren advocate a world that they themselves would not want to live in. Andrew, laddie, it's time to cull your herd. Lead the way!
Anthony| 10.28.09 @ 12:31PM
A symptom of the idiocy that has overtaken the Left over the past 50 years is their complete lack of shame and the extremes they will go to garner attention. Shame, was at one time, a limiting emotion that tended to keep humans within a range of acceptable behavior. No longer, probably due to the fact that the Left has completely become unhinged from reality and because they deal almost exclusively within their echo chamber, hence, there is noone they respect to admonish their behavior. In other words, they are perpetual adolescents who don't give a rat's ass what the "adults" have to say.
Revkin, like that British Enviornmental moron, Lord Idiot, who recently demanded that the entire world population become vegans, in order to reduce carbon emissions, feels perfectly smug in his lunacy, because it is shared by kindred spirits. Upping the ante to new heights of insanity is the Left's new favorite world sport.
The world's entire Leftist population needs one huge smack upside the head. I think that time is fast approaching.
Tim| 10.28.09 @ 10:32AM
I gotta give them credit; "carbon footprint" has given them much better traction than "ozone hole" ever did.
Bob Miller| 10.28.09 @ 12:39PM
Those who float misanthropic ideas like this are sure in their own minds that they and their social circles will live on, regardless of how many lives are prevented or snuffed out by implementing these ideas.
Alan Brooks| 10.28.09 @ 12:58PM
Rush is a great entertainer and has a first class mind.
But Geo F. Will is the most important one of all; let's hope he takes good care of his health.
We lost WFB last year, if we lose Will anytime soon then we are in worse trouble than ever.
Statesmen are not to be replaced, they are not cogs in a machine.
Scott Martin| 10.28.09 @ 1:35PM
If the enviros' mantra is "Think globally; act locally", then the logical extension should be "Save the planet; kill yourself". That would be about as "local" as you could get.
Marc Jeric| 10.28.09 @ 4:27PM
Environmentalism is a cult of death; that is why I call them eco-nazis.
Dave| 10.28.09 @ 4:58PM
If people on the left really believe this trash why do they not stop having children and do what they can to stop immigration. This would really drop the birth rate in this country. Oh, I forgot, what they say only applies to someone else, not them!
Grant| 10.29.09 @ 10:47AM
1. Minnesotans know much of our state was covered by ice in the recent geological past.
2. Our present landscape is entirely formed by the action of ice, its melting, or its absence.
3. Norwegians (and some Minnesotans) know what "Brattahlid" and "Medieval Climate Optimum" mean.
4. Malthusians have been wrong since Malthus. (Remember Pres. Carter in 1977? "...we could use up all the proven reserves of oil in the entire world by the end of the next decade.")
5. Let the Econazis turn themselves into "Soylent Green" for their surviving pets.
Richard Baker| 10.29.09 @ 7:06PM
Grant:
Your #5. Soon?
Pingback| 10.30.09 @ 5:28AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Rush-Defying Thought Experiments [sp links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
JeffT| 10.30.09 @ 6:11PM
I recall AlGore saying something I now believe is true. During one of the presidential campaigns, he suggested, "Everything that should be up is down, and everything that should be down is up." His context was wrong at the time, but it is highly relevant in the times we live. When a bumbling, hack politician like Gore can have "credibility" on the issue of the environment, but a genius such as Dr. Richard Lindzen is ignored, we truly have the inmates running the asylum and everything IS off by 180 degrees.
Pingback| 12.1.09 @ 3:31PM
Cooler Heads Digest 30 October 2009 | GlobalWarming.org links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
dhhg| 2.20.10 @ 4:09AM
http://spectator.org/blog/2009.....ent_217227
lay123 | 4.4.10 @ 1:18AM
They are really popular among teenagers or outdoor enthusiasts, famous by 'hip-hop' style in rap and hip-hop videos and also well-known for their strong and enduring work boots varieties www.timberland-outlets.com