It has been hard for progressives to claim the moral high ground while shrieking that childrens lives should be snuffed out for the sake of convenience — excuse me, choice. But environmentalism once again provides the smokescreen of sanctimony that prevents the gullible from recognizing that the liberal agenda represents unadulterated evil. From Airstrip Ones The Guardian:
The worst thing that you or I can do for the planet is to have children. If they behave as the average person in the rich world does now, they will emit some 11 tonnes of CO2 every year of their lives. In their turn, they are likely to have more carbon-emitting children who will make an even bigger mess. If Britain is to meet the governments target of an 80% reduction in our emissions by 2050, we need to start reversing our rising rate of population growth immediately.
All children are bad, but Western children are particularly bad, because according to the Gaiaist religion,
the poorer you are, the less carbon you emit. By todays standards, a cull of Australians or Americans would be at least 60 times as productive as one of Bangladeshis. …one less British child would permit some 30 women in sub-Saharan Africa to have a baby and still leave the planet a cleaner place.
As usual, the role model for liberals is communist China, which is praised for reducing its population by hundreds of millions by dictating to parents that they can only have one child — a policy that often results in infanticide for baby girls.
If communism and Nazism could leave tens of millions dead, what will be the death toll if the evil freaks driving the environmentalism movement get the leverage to inflict their anti-Western and anti-human fantasies?
In the US, we already have a Science Czar who has advocated putting sterilants in the water supply. Why not use poison instead? After all, it may only be a matter of years before global warming inconveniences the polar bears unless the human race is reduced to a few barefoot peasants cowering before their socialist overlords.