Here’s the latest from the cult of “man-made” global warming alarmism:
—- The Daily Mail reports on women and couples who have either aborted their babies in the name of “reducing” their “carbon footprint,” or opted to be sterilized in order to prevent bringing a baby into the world who would do nothing but ‘unnecessarily suck up valuable natural resources’:
Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers – and a voice calling her Mummy.
But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.
Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.
Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible “mistake” of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time.
He refused, but Toni – who works for an environmental charity – “relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery.
Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way.
At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to “protect the planet”.
Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card.
While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal.
“Having children is selfish. It’s all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet,” says Toni, 35.
When Sarah Irving, 31, was a teenager she sat down and wrote a wish-list for the future.
Most young girls dream of marriage and babies. But Sarah dreamed of helping the environment – and as she agonised over the perils of climate change, the loss of animal species and destruction of wilderness, she came to the extraordinary decision never to have a child.
“I realised then that a baby would pollute the planet – and that never having a child was the most environmentally friendly thing I could do.”
Sarah’s boyfriends have been less understanding than Toni’s, with the breakdown of several relationships.
“I’ve had boyfriends who wanted children, so I knew I couldn’t be with them long term,’ says Sarah.
“I’ve had to break up with a couple of boyfriends because I didn’t think it was fair to waste their time.
“In my early 20s I had a boyfriend who I really liked, but he wanted to start a family as soon as possible.
“I was tempted to stay with him and hope he would change his mind, but I knew I couldn’t provide him with what he wanted so I walked away.”
Sarah started work for the Ethical Consumer magazine, and seven years ago she met her fiancÃˆ Mark Hudson, a 37-year- old health- care worker.
When they started dating in 2003, they immediately discussed their views on children.
“To my relief, Mark was as adamant as me that he didn’t want a family. After a year of dating, we started talking about sterilisation,” says Sarah.
“I didn’t want to have an ‘accident’ if contraception didn’t work – we would be faced with the dilemma of whether to keep the baby.”
While other young couples sit down and discuss mortgages, Sarah and Mark discussed the medical options for one or the other to be sterilised.
“We realised it was a much more straightforward procedure, safer and easier, for a man to be sterilised through a vasectomy than a woman to be sterilised,” says Sarah.
“In January 2005, Mark had a vasectomy and we both felt incredibly relieved there was no chance of us having a baby.”
Ironically, the couple who have decided to deny themselves children for the sake of the planet, actively enjoy the company of young children.
Sarah says: “We both have nieces who we love dearly and I consider myself a caring, nurturing person.
Hey, if these women and men want to make it so that there’s no chance they’ll ever have children, that’s fine by me, as it means at least as far as that part of their family goes there wil be one less generation of idiots we’ll have to listen to, but when it comes to the idea of aborting a baby supposedly for the ‘sake of the environment,’ we see once again in action the selfish intentions of so-called ‘caring’ individuals who view human life as nothing more than a parasite on themselves as well as the environment. I wonder if these morally bankrupt morons ever thanked their lucky stars that their parents didn’t view them as a hindrance to a healthy environment?
—– Hat tip to Rosslyn Smith at The American Thinker, who also writes about yet another instance of global warming hypocrisy from the Usual Suspects:
Along those same lines comes this release out of Bali that the airport there is expecting so many private jets for the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference that local officials will be making most attendees ferry their planes to four other airports in the region for parking as the local airport can only accommodate 15 planes. The closest airport to provide parking space for such jets is about 60 miles away, the furthest about 600.
I wonder how the projected future carbon footprint of the infant one of the women in the Daily Mail article aborted in order to “protect the planet” compares to that of deadheading a fleet of jets from Bali to Jakarta and back again?
And I wonder where the hell the outrage is over this excessive use of our natural resources by the very people who claim to care the most about the “carbon footprint” we leave for “future generations”? Probably buried with all the rest of the unanswered-for hypocrisy that has come from the likes of uber-greenies Al Gore, John Edwards, and Senator John Kerry, among other gw stormtroopers.
—- The SF Chronicle reported earlier this month that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District is considering a ban on the use of … residential fireplaces:
It would be illegal to use residential fireplaces on nights with poor air quality under a rule being considered by Bay Area air regulators.
Over the next three weeks, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District will hold workshops to gauge public opinion on the proposal, which would follow similar bans in Sacramento County, the San Joaquin Valley, and such Bay Area cities as Mill Valley, where people who disobey the city’s wood-burning law are already subject to stiff fines.
Spurred by growing evidence that shows smoke from wood-burning is as bad or worse than smoke from cigarettes, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District is trying to reduce the amount of harmful particulate matter that people breathe. Children, the elderly and those with respiratory illnesses are particularly susceptible to smoke particles that emanate from wood-burning fireplaces.
The minute particles, which enter nasal passages and lungs, can cause asthma, bronchitis, lung disease and heart disease, according to health experts.
The workshops, which start Wednesday in Oakland, are designed to solicit comments and explain the proposed regulation, which would cover wood-burning stoves as well as indoor and outdoor fireplaces. On days in the Bay Area when particulate matter is at its worst, wood-burning is the greatest contributing factor, accounting for 33 percent of the pollution, according to the air district. The problem is especially acute in winter, when fire-place use is high.
Last year, the Environmental Protection Agency strengthened its particulate standards, reducing by almost half the amount of such particles that can be released into the air. In the past 10 years, a growing number of Bay Area cities – including Oakland, Union City, Fremont and Los Gatos – have limited wood-burning devices. In Mill Valley, first-time violators are warned before facing a $150 fine.
[Air district spokesman Karen] Schkolnick said the Bay Area district’s wood-burning law would mirror the regulations used in Sacramento and the San Joaquin Valley. During the 2006-07 winter, the San Joaquin Air Pollution Control District – which covers San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings and Tulare counties as well as part of Kern County – issued 192 tickets to residents. The first fine is $50. Repeated violations can lead to fines of between $100 and $1,000, district spokeswoman Jaime Holt said.
In lieu of paying a fine, first-time violators can attend a two-hour “residential wood-burning compliance school,” where they learn about the pollution hazards of wood-burning, Holt said.
Most violators in the San Joaquin Valley are initially reported by concerned neighbors, Holt said.
I swear, you cannot make this stuff up. Most people burn their wood-burning fireplaces as either their sole source of heat or as an additional source of heat so as not to have a sky-high electric bill. So you’d think that it would be a good thing that people are utilizing wood-burning fireplaces, because using gas and/or electricity as a source of heat supposedly increases the size of your “carbon footprint.”
But in the Bay Area, it seems that you just can’t win.
St. Helena, CA resident and realtor Jeffrey Earl Warren has the best response yet I’ve seen to this latest instance of left coast nonsense.
—- Lastly, in semi-related news, Bush ally John Howard has been voted out as Australia’s PM, to be replaced by the ‘eco-friendly’ Kevin Rudd, whose Labour party was swept into power in this weekend’s Australian elections, effectively ending nearly 12 years of conservative rule. The AP reports that Rudd has already made gw a top priority:
SYDNEY, Australia – Australia’s Prime Minister-elect Kevin Rudd took advice Sunday on how to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on cutting greenhouse gas emissions and fielded phone calls from world leaders — starting in on work the day after a sweeping election victory.
The emphatic victory for Rudd’s Labor Party swings Australia toward the political left after almost 12 years of conservative rule and puts it at odds with key ally Washington on two crucial policy issues — Iraq and global warming.
After declaring victory late Saturday, Rudd attended church Sunday then held meetings with government officials about the mechanics of signing the Kyoto pact on global warming, an issue he made his top priority during the election campaign.
Britain, New Zealand and Indonesia said Rudd’s election would boost international efforts to address climate change. Ousted Prime Minister John Howard had refused to sign Kyoto.
Aussie writer Peter Day, writing for Pajamas Media, has more on the new Aussie PM-elect and points out that Rudd’s victory isn’t a total loss for conservatism in Australia, nor was it a referendum on Iraq, as some people may believe.
Cross-posted at Right Wing News, where I am helping guestblog for John Hawkins on Sundays.