Limbaugh still advancing false claims about NY Times reporter Revkin's "thought experiment"
Rush Limbaugh falsely claimed that New York Times environmental writer Andrew Revkin was "thinking seriously about capping families at one child to reduce carbon emissions." Limbaugh has previously advanced a similar falsehood while suggesting that Revkin "just go kill" himself; in fact, Revkin made it clear that he was engaging in a "thought experiment, not a proposal" which did not involve "capping families."
Limbaugh falsely claimed Revkin was "thinking seriously" about proposal to cap families "at one child to reduce carbon emissions"
From the October 29 broadcast of his radio show:
LIMBAUGH: You know, I just realized I forgot to mention today Andrew Revkin, the New York Times reporter who's thinking seriously about capping families at one child to reduce carbon emissions, and I urged him, "Show us how it's done, you know. Go die." Yeah, he was profoundly offended by this. I was going to address it today, I forgot, I got it right here. So I put it on top of tomorrow's stack. I'll get to that.
Revkin made clear he was simply engaging in
a "thought experiment, not a proposal." In his
September 15 Times blog
post, Revkin specifically stated that he was conducting a "thought
experiment": "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." Similarly, in an October 14 panel discussion,
Revkin stated of such carbon credits: "And obviously it's just a thought
experiment, but it raises some interesting questions about all this."
Revkin's "thought experiment" never
envisioned "capping families." As he wrote in an October 20 Times blog
post, Revkin's
"thought experiment" was about "carbon credits for avoided
kids" - not
"capping families at one child," as Limbaugh suggested.
Revkin to CNS: "I wasn't endorsing any
of this." On October 19, the conservative website CNSNews.com reported that in a statement,
Revkin denied "endorsing" such credits:
"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.
"By raising the notion of carbon credits for, say, single-child American families," he continued, "I was aiming to provoke some thinking about where the brunt of emissions are still coming from on a per-capita basis."
Limbaugh previously used IBD editorial's falsehoods to attack Revkin
Previously, Limbaugh parroted IBD
editorial, asked why Revkin doesn't "just go kill" himself.
On the October 20 broadcast of his show, Limbaugh read an October 19 Investor's Business Daily
editorial, which, as Media
Matters for America has documented,
falsely asserted that Revkin
"proposed" instituting carbon credits for having
fewer children. After reading the editorial, Limbaugh stated: "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?"
Revkin responded to Limbaugh: "This
might be funny, in a sad way." In response to Limbaugh's
attack, Revkin wrote on in an October 20 Times blog
post: "I'd like to think that Rush Limbaugh was floating a thought
experiment, and not seriously proposing something, when he told millions of
listeners the following: 'Mr. Revkin, why don't you just go kill yourself, and
help the planet by dying.'" Revkin continued, quoting Limbaugh's
comments and saying: "This might be funny, in a sad way, if it weren't for the
fact that my mailbox is already heaped with hate mail."
There are quite a few supporters of the AGW theory who express their support of this position, that "something must be done with all the people".
Your text to link here...
http://www.cooperationearth.com/earth/2009/02/quotes-about-climate-change-and-population-control/
The real question is how this will be accomplished and by whom. If someone doesnt have children by willful choice this is perfectly acceptable. If in this nation we ever get to the position that it is mandated how many children you will have, or if you are elderly and sick if you will be allowed to live or not, our country will not be the same, nore will our Democracy.
Your text to link here...
I think it is dangerous when someone says "there are just too many people", because the insinuation is that someone needs to "get rid of the extra people". Of course, anyone who says or thinks this, is not considering themselves to be "one of the people" that are in excess. Most likely, it will be someone else.
If you took the entire population of earth, and housed them in quarter acre lots with four people living in each of those lots, the global population could be houses in an area the size of Alaska, with room to spare for some growth.
http://www.wisegeek.com/how-big-are-the-states-in-america.htm
696,241 square miles (size of Alaska) multiplied by 640 (acres per square mile) multiplied by 4 (four houses per acre) multiplies by 4 (four people per house) equals 7,129,507,840. (the earths population is six billion plus. Alaska represents 1.2% of the earths land area.
Of course, many areas of earth, including large areas of Alaska, and not habitable, but you get my point, the earth is a big place and it can hold a lot of people.
The countries with the lowest population growth are developed countries. The countries with the largest population growth are developing countries. Clearly, one way to get population from growing is the help the developing world to become more like the developed world. One startling statistic is that Western Europe and Japan (when you discount immigration) are losing population from low birth rates and they will lose many millions of population in the next several decades because of this.
Unwarranted assumptions:
These people will require zero land for food (plants and animals)
The waste products of these people will require zero land
People do not require more land than they can stand on, or walk/travel only a very limited distance
Manufacture of consumer items requires zero land.