Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change? by Jennifer Ludden.
Standing before several dozen students in a college classroom, Travis Rieder tries to convince them not to have children. Or at least not too many. …
He asks how old they will be in 2036, and, if they are thinking of having kids, how old their kids will be.
“Dangerous climate change is going to be happening by then,” he says. “Very, very soon.” … In fact, without dramatic action, climatologists say, the world is on track to hit 4 degrees Celsius of warming by the end of the century, and worse beyond that. A World Bank report says this must be avoided, and warns of unprecedented heat waves, severe drought and serious impacts on ecosystems and “human systems.”
Relax. It’s all rubbish. There is a mistake in the models, and fixing the error shows that the impact of increasing carbon dioxide is a tenth to a fifth of the current official estimates. It is likely to cool soon, as the Sun quietens down.
Back in the classroom, Rieder puts this in less technical terms: 4 degrees of warming would be “largely uninhabitable for humans. It’s gonna be post-apocalyptic movie time,” he says.
The room is quiet. No one fidgets. Later, a few students say they had no idea the situation was so bad. One says he appreciated the talk but found it terrifying, and hadn’t planned on being so shaken before heading off to start the weekend.
He’s alarmist, scaring defenseless kids. “Pedoalarmer?” Ergh.
“If I had told my boyfriend at the time, ‘I’m not ready to have children because I don’t know what the climate’s gonna be like in 50 years,’ he wouldn’t have understood. There’s no way,” says Hoskins, a 23-year-old whose red hair is twisted in a long braid.
This is one of 16 meetings over the past year and a half organized by Conceivable Future, a nonprofit founded on the notion that “the climate crisis is a reproductive crisis.”
Hoskins says she’s always wanted “little redheaded babies” — as do her parents, the sooner the better.
But she’s a grad student in environmental studies, and the more she learns, the more she questions what kind of life those babies would have.
Ms Hoskins wins the Darwin award for stupidity leading to non-reproduction. But look at the stats they wail:
For an American, the total metric tons of carbon dioxide saved by all of those measures over an entire lifetime of 80 years: 488. By contrast, the metric tons saved when a person chooses to have one fewer child: 9,441.
Here, look at this stat:
Go figure. There are even proposals in Germany to pay a woman $80,000 if she gets to 50 years old having not borne any children. Our elites are seriously and dangerously stupid.
