Blog

Let’s Save the Planet …From Ecologists

By Miguel Vidal Santos

Can you help me? I’m circling this phrase:

“A person’s reproductive options should be considered when assessing their final impact on the global environment.

“If read by a person on the left, will you understand that practicing sex aggravates climate change?

“If read by a right-wing person, will you understand that having children harms the environment?

Has this phrase been written by a progressive journalist, a scientist or an SS doctor ahead of his time? Well, it has been written by academics from several universities and means that having children harms the environment.

Let’s save the Planet of ecologists!

Because that begins to be the best option to preserve the ecological future of the Earth: get rid of environmentalists. You may remember that phrase of Clemenceau, who was prime minister during the Third French Republic: “War is too serious a matter to be left to the military.” Well, with the preservation of the Planet, the same thing happens: the future of the Earth is too serious a matter to be left to environmentalists.

Having children hurts the environment

The Global Environmental Change publication, belonging to a lot of gentlemen with positions in universities around the world, is defined as a “revised international journal that publishes high quality articles, theoretically and empirically rigorous, that promote knowledge about human and political dimensions of global environmental change. ”Global Environmental Change has published a study with complicated calculations, graphs and equations entitled Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals. Among other things, these “theoretically and empirically rigorous” gentlemen say the following: “The additional fossil carbon dioxide emissions that an average individual causes when choosing to have children.

The aggregate emissions of a person’s offspring, weighted by their relationship with him, can far exceed the lifetime emissions produced by the original parent. Each child adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average woman, which is 5.7 times her lifetime emissions. A person’s reproductive options should be considered along with their daily activities when assessing their final impact on the global environment. Our basic premise is that a person is responsible for carbon. Each mother and father is responsible for half of the emissions of their offspring and 1/4 of the emissions of their grandchildren. ”

After reading this, let’s say “study”, an honest reader (and adequately conditioned by the catastrophic climatic information to which we are subjected) concludes that having children is irresponsibility. “Clearly, an individual’s reproductive choices can have a dramatic effect on total carbon emissions ultimately attributable to their genetic lineage. Ignoring the consequences of reproduction can lead to a serious underestimation of an individual’s long-term impact on the environment. ”(Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals, published by Global Environmental Change) The Global Environmental Change is not the only study that promotes demographic suicide with the excuse of climate change. In reality, these types of proposals based on supposedly scientific calculations proliferate alarmingly. You may not know them, as happened to me until now, but they have important distribution circuits, they begin to directly influence specific people and in some countries the memes of Pedro Sánchez are shared as much as in Spain.

“Researchers at the University of British Columbia, in Canada, and the University of Lund, in Sweden, identified four recommendations to substantially reduce the annual emissions of each person. One of them is having ‘one child less’, which would have an impact on a reduction of 58.6 tons of CO2 per year, on average. The other three recommendations are: do not use cars, avoid air travel, eat a plant-based diet. ”(“ I have decided not to have children to help combat climate change ”) Of course, international organizations are at the forefront of this suicidal climate terror by relating the planetary apocalypse with children.

For their part, politicians boldly and irresponsibly promote planetary apocalypse. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, ascending figure of the US Democratic Party and referent of the United States left: “There is a scientific consensus that children’s lives will be very difficult. This leads young people to ask themselves a legitimate question, is it okay to have children? ”(“ I feel too afraid of climate change to have children ”)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-children-climate-change-aoc-instagram-young-people-a8797806.html

In Spain, Alba Gordó, Councelor for Climate Emergency: “[To reduce pollution] the responsibility is both individual and collective. Many things can be done individually and the first is not to fly or have fewer children. ”(“ It’s a sustainable mobilization, there is no other way ”) And after politicians and their international parties and organizations, the media spur the planetary apocalypse and promote demographic suicide as the only responsible consequence: Some (international organizations, certain governments and numerous lobbyists) set the table and others swallow what they put in front of them: “For example, for Audrey García, a 39-year-old from Barcelona,‘ it is unethical to have biological children. It is not in an overcrowded world where there is a lack of water and food for many people, where we are destroying the environment, where we do not stop consuming more and more resources, ‘he told BBC Mundo in March 2018. “(” I have decided not have children to help fight climate change ”) “Among [the people we interviewed] there is a feeling of being trapped in very painful ethical questions that previous generations did not have to face. Some worry about the quality of life that children will have when the coast floods, forest fires become more aggressive and extreme weather becomes more common.

Others are fully aware that having a child is one of the actions that has the most environmental costs. If it weren’t for climate change, Allison Guy said, she would stop using contraceptive methods tomorrow.

However, scientists’ forecasts, in case no immediate action is taken, are not “consistent with a stable society,” said 32-year-old Guy, who works in Washington. ‘I don’t want to bring a child into the world wondering if it will be for me to live in a kind of dystopia in the style of the Mad Max movie.” (Not having children because of climate change? Some people are considering it)

The symbols and emblematic references of young people, the singers who listen, the actors they admire, the series they watch, nothing helps break this apocalyptic pressure. Unlike. This is what singer Miley Cyrus says after a fire in her Californian mansion in Malibu: “The Earth is furious. We have been doing to Earth the same as women. We just drink and drink and hope it continues to produce. And she is exhausted. Can not produce. We’re getting a planet crap and I refuse to leave something like that to my children. I will not bring another person to the world. We don’t want to reproduce, because we know that the Earth cannot handle it, ”(In the face of climate change, I decide not to have children)

The consequence of such a disinformation campaign is panic. It’s about people being afraid. And from fear will be born submission. Nothing new under the sun. All tyrannies have used the same procedure. Although now we use social networks and everything looks very beautiful and clean.

https://www.lavozdegalicia.es/noticia/biodiversa/2019/03/18/siento-miedo-cambio-climatico-quiero-tener-hijos/00031552931720094187249.htm

We face a new facet of climate terrorism, perhaps the important one, which we ignored because it was hidden, the dream of anti-Natalists: the surrender of the species, the claudication of the human. “I decided that I didn’t want to have children last November. I am very concerned about the loss of living beings, desertification and floods. In the future there will be massive famine, resource warfare, violence, a continuous increase in fascism and people displaced from their homes. My mother cried but she is proud because she understands the threat. My sister has a daughter and is supporting me. My father says we still have a chance but he supports my fight. The most difficult time for me was when I told my husband that I didn’t want to be a mother. I explained that with all the information I had I could not act as if nothing. I discovered that there were many people who felt the same. ”(“ I feel too afraid of climate change to have children ”) They say that what begins in the United States ends up happening in Europe. A study by Bussines Insider points out that almost 40 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 believe that climate change determines the decision to become parents.

The international climate agitation group Extinction Rebellion promotes, among others, the BirthStrike campaign, which has been targeted by people who have decided not to have children to avoid “the ecological crisis.” Meanwhile in Madrid there are twice as many dogs as children under 5 years old.

Ecological trend, pollutes

But these are not the only environmental proposals to curb climate change that produce an even more damaging effect. As of 2021 plastic shopping bags will be banned in Spain. Although a recent study shows that where this prohibition is already in effect, its effect is to increase pollution. It happens that we reuse plastic shopping bags (for garbage, for example) and where there are no more, as in California, the sale of plastic garbage bags has multiplied. And that’s not all: “In 2018, a report from the Danish Ministry of Environment and Food had already been very critical of replacing plastic bags with those made of other materials. When analyzing the effects of the production and use of organic cotton bags, he concluded that one of this material would have to be used up to 20,000 times to have a lower environmental impact than a plastic one taking into account very diverse indicators, especially those related to climate change. If it is a paper one, it would have to be reused 43 times. ”(Neither rice nor paper: why banning plastic bags will not end the problem)

Funerals for the water

In Iceland, state funerals are already dedicated to frozen water, including speeches, minutes of silence and death certificates. The first case was the official funeral by a glacier.

Polluting cows

A few days ago the United Nations threatened us: if you eat meat, you are a damn polluter. “Meat consumption is one of the most destructive ways in which we leave a mark on the planet. For example, due to the decomposition of organic matter, livestock is one of the main sources of methane emission, a relatively potent greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming. To get an idea of ​​its scope, just imagine that if the cows formed a country, it would be the third in greenhouse gas emissions. ”(UN News) Do not eat more meat and also end up with the killer cows. Let’s do it! The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) believes that we should become vegetarians as soon as possible. And with the return to school, since this month, it is already forbidden to eat meat in places like the University of Goldsmiths, in the United Kingdom.

The environmentalist Camelot

Santa Greta of the Planet has already arrived in the United States after its 15-day cruise to avoid contaminating. Here we have her struggling with herculean effort for the planetary future: The Swedish girl is actually “an instrument of energy lobbies”: “The character of the green pija girl has been created by the green energy lobby with enormous economic support that puts public relations agents at your service paid by the powerful environmental movement.

The main allied lobby is called “We don’t have time” and is run by Ingmar Rentzhog, the promoter in the networks of the strike for the environment that Greta conducted at his school. Rentzhog, who had previously worked for Al Gore’s “Cimate Reality Project” made that number go viral. Miss Thunberg, at 16, has been dedicated by her parents to work for an ideological, not scientific, but perhaps legitimate cause. But I wonder: What would the media in the whole world say if a party like the PP or the US Republican Party had a minor defending his ideology full time before television cameras? Would you accept that your smile unfold on the front pages of television news and newspapers? Could a minor girl work for the Spanish Episcopal Conference promoting the values ​​of the faith that most Spaniards share? ”(The green pija girl) You are right.

Santa Greta of the Planet is actually the montage that hides a great business. That is, marketing. Marketing: “The Greta phenomenon has involved green pressure groups, public relations, eco-academics and a group of experts founded by a rich former Social Democratic minister from Sweden with ties to the country’s energy companies.

For the energy titans in Sweden, as elsewhere, saving the planet means government contracts. Green energy lobbyists are using populist fear tactics and a children’s crusade to avoid elected representatives. But destiny is technocracy, not democracy; benefit, not redistribution. Greta, a daughter of awake capitalism, is being used to facilitate the transition to green corporatism. ”(‘ The Times ’accuses Greta Thunberg of being an instrument of energy lobbies) Green businesses on the one hand … and the usual ones on the other, that is the climate apocalypse campaign we are living: Any ideas on the right, even for a change? And one last consideration: why has the right left the green battle in the hands of the left? Because the pure denial of some (say that I speak of Vox and its “there is no climate change”) and the following of others (say that the PP and its “do not touch what the left”), do not constitute a program, no proposal, not even a minimal idea regarding this matter.

Whereupon, again the right looks the other way and yields the mobilizing flags to the left. Any ideas? Arguments that move to action? Proposals that encourage joining? Zero! Quote Paco Robles: “Since they can no longer exhibit that Marxist argument, nor promise heaven in this world with a different economic system, the left will lead all the causes that allow it to be branded inhuman to the right. It doesn’t matter that Chernobyl was on the other side of the iron curtain, that the mafias traffic with the immigrants, that the woman has achieved her more than inalienable rights in the bourgeois democracies they so hated. ”

May God deliver us from the salvapatrias and the planets!

This article is a translation from Actuall, the leading site in Political incorrect news in Hispanic America. You can read the original in this link Salvemos el planeta de los ecologistas

If you enjoyed this post, don’t forget to like, comment and share. Sharing is caring!

Photo Credit: Swedish photographer Anders Hellberg

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: