-
Expanding Access to Health Insurance: Obama-Style
May 17, 2012 | 2 comments
-
The Washington Post Makes the Case for School Choice
April 15, 2012 | 20 comments
-
Mitt Romney's Tattered Economic Credentials
January 20, 2012 | 6 comments
-
Service Personnel Prefer Ron Paul
December 24, 2011 | 158 comments
-
No Christmas Celebrations in Baghdad
December 24, 2011 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Should the U.S. join China with a one-child policy? Maybe not through forced abortion, but how about with carbon credits? That's the, um, "interesting" idea from New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin.
Reports Cybercast News Service:
At the event, Revkin said: "Well, some of the people have recently proposed: Well, should there be carbon credits for a family planning program in Africa let's say? Should that be monetized as a part of something that, you know, if you, if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward an accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn't there be a carbon value to that?
"And I have even proposed recently, I can't remember if it's in the blog, but just think about this: Should--probably the single-most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the lights or driving a Prius, it's having fewer kids, having fewer children," said Revkin.
"So should there be, eventually you get, 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," said Revkin. "And obviously it's just a thought experiment, but it raises some interesting questions about all this."
When CNSNews.com later followed up with questions about his comments, Revkin responded in an e-mail.
"I wasn't endorsing any of this, simply laying out the math and noting the reality that if one were serious about the population-climate intersection, it'd be hard to avoid asking hard questions about USA population growth," wrote Revkin.
Heck, if Congress votes to wreck the economy with cap and trade, and nationalize the health care system, who is going to want to have kids? Maybe that's the Obama administration's secret plan. Make us so miserable that population growth will drop to zero!
View all comments (16) | Leave a comment
Leave a Comment
More Blog Posts by Doug Bandow
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/10/25/an-american-one-child-policy
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Rating the Presidents and Their Raters
- Media Trackers Hits Wisconsin
- Capital Bound
SPONSORED LINKS
Special Feature
Better that we become a nation of choosers rather than beggars. Our symposium on choice from the May, 2012 issue:
FLASHBACK TO: 1984
-
The Fairness Delusion
The speech our President should make.
-
Media Smears: One Man’s Experiences
A noted economist fires back.
-
Chuck Colson vs. The Fundamentalists
How political can you get?
-
The Reagan Doctrine
You might have missed it, but it was boomed in January.
-
The Woman Problem
Farcical feminism is a decades-old phenomenon, as George Will's essay from 1970 reminds us.
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Richard Baker| 10.25.09 @ 6:33PM
Did you notice that "death" seems to be a central theme with these liberals? Someone's got to die to make them happy, seemingly.
Thalia Masure| 12.31.10 @ 2:09PM
hmmmm as soon as I came on this website, I was greeted by an advertisement that said had a image of a gravestone with socialism on it. So apparently conservatives, who also send troops to Iraq for a meaningless war to die, like death as well. Hush cho mouth little boy.
No Hammer No Sickle| 10.25.09 @ 7:08PM
Liberals are idiots and fascists. Even if we forget for a moment that global warming theory is full of crappy science, bad models and politicians overruling scientific testing... This is just plain un-American.
Liberals can't expect us to pile up massive debt for our children and create massive entitlements that push obligations out into the future like Social Insecurity, MediCare and MediCaid while simultaneously destroying those programs which ONLY work if we have a reasonably high population growth.
Slowing our native population growth will only encourage more illegal immigration from our neighbors and it will in the end become a zero sum game while also destroying our culture through monocultural immigration. Liberals who would encourage this have zero common sense.
Johnno| 10.26.09 @ 2:04AM
No Hammer, great post!
Patty| 10.26.09 @ 2:10AM
Another day, another liberal monster. Their numbers seem endless.
Soviet Union| 11.17.09 @ 1:53PM
FOR THE MOTHERLAND! ALWAYS REMEMBER COMMUNIST RUSSIA. DEATH TO THE UNITED STATES!
Hammer and Sickle| 11.17.09 @ 1:57PM
Great comment! FOR THE MOTHERLAND!
lol| 11.17.09 @ 1:55PM
un-american? I have lost all respect for the united states. You ppl are losers.
Thalia Masure| 12.31.10 @ 2:17PM
You obviously are not that smart. Communism is the liberal dictatorship. Fascism is the conservative dictatorship. Get your facts straight buddy. High population growth leads to more pollution, less jobs and more government spending on programs like social security, medicare, and medicaid. If theyre having to pay for 500 million people to go to the doctor they will have to raise taxes in order to not end the programs entirely. Also, your unemployment will go up being as there will not be enough jobs for everyone. Unemployment also leads to starvation or assistance from the government. Then the government will have to pay for all of them so they DONT die in the street. But hey, apparently thats what you want with no control on population. Hush cho mouth little boy. You dont know WHAT you talking about.
TWoPolitics| 10.25.09 @ 7:26PM
Please - don't give Obama and his thugs any more ideas than they have already proposed.
Andy Revkin| 10.25.09 @ 9:16PM
When I use a word like "carbon-centric," it's one thing for Rush Limbaugh not to catch the irony, but American Spectator?
More: http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes......and-death/
http://j.mp/NPRonRush
Trurl| 10.26.09 @ 1:22AM
Typical discrimination, implying that only "families" would be eligible for this credit. What defines a family? A man and a woman? Two men? Me and me cat maybe?? Why should I, a 45 year old male, not be permitted to take part in the largess; to suckle at the teat! I demand my credits, moreover I want one every time I ejaculate without actually impregnating anyone. Yea, every time I, shall we say, keep my hands to myself, I save the Earth. Pay me.
Gina| 10.26.09 @ 2:08AM
I guess you and your private bits could comprise a family--one inwhich no one else wants to join, that is.
Yucky, yucky, yucky.
Crusader| 10.26.09 @ 8:29AM
All the climate-change wackos and over-population zealots should put their money where their mouth is. If they truly believe that overpopulation is a problem, why don't they off themselves? Remember, if "charity begins at home," so does population control. I'll even supply the shotgun and shells for as many libtard kooks as possible to help mother earth by killing themselves.
cocksucker| 11.17.09 @ 1:48PM
agreed
pamela| 4.23.10 @ 2:44AM
Slowing our native population growth will only encourage more illegal immigration from our neighbors and it will in the end become a zero sum game while also destroying our culture through monocultural immigration.Download daughtry mp3