A west Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus “baby levy” at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.
Writing in today’s Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child’s lifetime.
Professor Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and “greenhouse-friendly” services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits.
[blockquote] “I think self-important professors with silly ideas should have to pay carbon tax for all the hot air they create,” [/blockquote]
As we have seen in earlier comments, the end point of all the global warming arguments must be the elimination of people. Forget the “God gave man dominion” crowd.
I don’t think that there was ever any doubt that the extinction of the human race would end our contribution to global warming. However, I think that in this case the proposed cure would be worse than the plague.
As I mentioned over at MCJ:
Perhaps there should be carbon credits given for offing yourself as well. After all, one less obstetrician in King Edward Memorial Hospital means that much more carbon for everyone else to consume. Haven’t you already consumed your fair share of carbon, Prof Walters? Perhaps it is time for you to think of others.
carl
Just one question I’d ask…. with all that CO2 that is being produced, along with all the forests and grasslands being destroyed, why is there still an abundence of oxygen to breathe?
[blockquote] But the plan won praise from high-profile doctor Garry Egger. “One must wonder why population control is spoken of today only in whispers,” he wrote in an MJA response article. [/blockquote]
And one also wonders why it is only mentioned in reference to the beginning of life. Carbon use is one thing, but there is real money to be reclaimed by terminating people in their (shall we say) less productive declining years. Too many people means just that – too many people. It doesn’t mean too many little people. There are some significant “population efficiencies” to be achieved if we can sell this concept.
carl
Good to see that Malthus is alive and well and just as wrong as ever. This gentleman should fear any proposals for an Idiot Tax.
It is odd that this sort of thinking could be found in a vast & underpopulated continent like Australia. If it further infects the culture, over the next century Australia will still grow, but most of the inhabitants will be Asians, not the descendents of today’s Australians. They will largely be displaced, as they previously displaced the Aborigines.
perhaps the good Doctor could set a good example and commit suicide? that would be one less carbon consumer.
This “medical expert” needs to go back to his area of expertise. He is clearly over his head in the field of sociology and politics.
OT: [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/8129/#153217]Prophecy[/url]
And here we were, thinking that secular humanism was the problem.
What shall we call this, secular inhumanism?
The more I think about it, the more I think this proposal is exactly bacwards. We shouldn’t be taxing birth. Newborns haven’t gotten their fair share yet. Instead we should be taxing old age – say a yearly $1000 poll tax for each year lived past 55. That way those who have already consumed their fair share of carbon will be encouraged to make way for the more productive next generation. Maybe we could even add a nice tax credit for the estate of those who exercise this noble and selfless option.
carl
“Professor Walters… called for condoms”
Perhaps Prof Walters should be placed in a very large condom so that he does not exhale too much CO2.
So, what kind of carbon credit is the professor planning to grant monasteries and convents?
There have been at least “3” known Major Ice Ages and numerous “mini-Ice Ages” as late is the 15th century through to the 19th century when the snow didn’t melt in Europe during the summers. For those who have not yet understood the reality, [b]Global Climate IS NOT Static, It’s Dynamic . . . Very, Very Dynamic!!![/b]
Of course the climate is changing, maybe even warming up, but that is a given on this planet. Solar spots, volcanoes, meteors, rotational paths, etc., all impact climate. Why would this nonsense make even a lick of difference, except in our minds?
What next? Supporting the Death Penalty as good for the enviroment? and encouraging its use more often?
I’m sure there is an eco-friendly way to execute someone …. hanging perhaps? Re-use of rope rather than using more electricity? 🙄
If these ideas will rid the gene pool of pinheads like the esteemed perfesser, then maybe it’s not all bad.
Remember when the hippies sang “Up With People”?
Now it’s “Down with Humanity!”
What the heck are they smoking these days?
I think we need a FAT tax. FAT people are brining all the expenses up! That would work wonders!
“Baby tax needed to save planet, claims expert”
“Gas tax needed to restrain bloviating expert”
Do we need much more proof that we truly have an Enemy at large in the world? Our God hates nothing that He has created. But we know who does…
Our gracious Lord must truly weep at how we treat his gift of life.
Australia may be vast, Wilfred (#7), but most of our continent is arid and not fit for anything except fantastic desert scenery and a series of Survivor. The thin coastal strips are struggling to cope with growing populations and an insufficient water supply.
That said, the article is ridiculous.
#15 Indeed. All you have to do is look at what people wore in the fifteenth century to see that. They wore layers – lots of layers.
#24. I came across an interesting article a year or so ago where some physicists from Tennessee arrived at a stunning conclusion regarding the production of the famous Stradivarius violins. They concluded that their rich sound may very well be attributed to [i]”the density of the wood used by craftsmen with extraordinary skills.” [/i]
Yes, it seems that the “density of the wood” is attributable to “the mini-Ice Age” (beginning around the 15th century) I had mentioned previously. Even though I read about this some time ago, I had little problem locating an article about it on the net. It’s interesting reading for sure. [i](National Geographic, nonetheless). [/i]Moreover, the underlying research mentioned here lends credence to what I had posted previously regarding “the cause and effect of solar activity and global climate.” You can read the article at: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/01/0107_040107_violin.html
Do they include the gains that will be made when the entire baby boom generation when they finally kick it?
What a sick selfish generation. I thought this was all for “the children”?
I don’t think the Pope agrees with this guy….
The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom
I just ran across the link at Accuweather.com to a great article on Global Warming. The whole article can be found at: [url=]http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article3223603.ece[/url] Here’s an interesting excerpt.
[blockquote] Today’s climate change consensus is that man-made greenhouse gases are warming the world and that we must act to curb them to reduce the projected temperature increase estimated at probably between 1.8C and 4.0C by the century’s end. But throughout the 20th century, solar cycles had been increasing in strength. Almost everyone agrees that throughout most of the last century the solar influence was significant. Studies show that by the end of the 20th century the Sun’s activity may have been at its highest for more than 8,000 years. Other solar parameters have been changing as well, such as the magnetic field the Sun sheds, which has almost doubled in the past century. But then things turned. In only the past decade or so the Sun has started a decline in activity, and the lateness of cycle 24 is an indicator.
Astronomers are watching the Sun, hoping to see the first stirrings of cycle 24. It should have arrived last December. The United States’ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted it would start in March 2007. Now they estimate March 2008, but they will soon have to make that even later. The first indications that the Sun is emerging from its current sunspot minimum will be the appearance of small spots at high latitude. They usually occur some 12-20 months before the start of a new cycle. These spots haven’t appeared yet so cycle 24 will probably not begin to take place until 2009 at the earliest. The longer we have to wait for cycle 24, the weaker it is likely to be. Such behaviour is usually followed by cooler temperatures on Earth. [/blockquote]