Después de Live Earth, la solución el “calentamiento global” pasa por tener menos hijos. En Occidente, por supuesto:
Professor Guillebaud isn't the only one. Just ahead of the Live Earth flopperama, another "rational" man of "science," Professor Chris Rapley, head honcho of the British Antarctic Survey, turned up on the BBC to argue that population control is central to the environmental debate.
This is the logical reductio of climate-change fever: throw the baby out in order to save the bathwater. For a start, look at the "high birth rate" Professor Guillebaud is complaining about: Britain's current fertility rate is about 1.8 children per couple. Replacement rate — ie, what you need for a stable population staying pretty much exactly the same — is 2.1 children per couple. So the United Kingdom's population is already headed for long-term decline (and would be in much steeper decline without the higher birth rates of immigrant communities). In Europe as a whole, the fertility rate is a little over 1.3, which is what demographers call "lowest-low" fertility, from which no society in human history has ever recovered. The Spanish, the Italians, the Germans, the Greeks, the Bulgars and Ukrainians will be extinct long before the polar bears or the Antarctic krill or the Latin-American three-toed tree sloth or any of the other species these professors wants to protect.
How many Englishmen, Scotsmen, Greeks or Italians are around in the year 2050 will have no measurable impact on so-called "climate change." None whatsoever. Having fewer British or Spanish babies will do nothing for the polar bear on the ice floes posing for Al Gore's next documentary. But how many British and Spanish babies are born right now — this year and next year — will certainly have an impact on what Britain and Spain are like in the year 2050. These men of "science" have not called on Niger or Somalia or Afghanistan or Yemen — where women have seven or eight babies — to have one or even six less. Presumably the Optimum Population Trust (a magnificently totalitarian-lite moniker, by the way) feels the average Somali or Afghan has a more eco-friendly carbon footprint, and thus a world with fewer English and more Yemeni will be a more "sustainable and habitable planet for our children and grandchildren."
Este articulo muy interesante describe los vaivenes de la cobertura alarmista de los medios, desde el "Global Cooling" de los 70's al "Global Warming" de los 90's, hasta establecerse en el actual "Climate" Change que sirve para alarmar en ambas direcciones.
ReplyDeletePerlitas :
TIME Magazine, 1923 : “The discoveries of changes in the sun’s heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years have given rise to conjectures of the possible advent of a new ice age"
TIME Magazine, 1939 : “Gaffers who claim that winters were harder when they were boys are quite right... weathermen have no doubt that the world at least for the time being is growing warmer.”
TIME Magazine, 1974: Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.”
TIME Magazine, 2001 : “[S]cientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening, and almost nobody questions the fact that humans are at least partly responsible.“