No kids, no cars, no meat, no flying!

From The Toronto Sun

First posted: Saturday, July 15, 2017 07:42 PM EDT | Updated: Saturday, July 15, 2017 07:46 PM EDT

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, his wife Sophie Gregoire, and daughter Ella-Grace wave as they board a government plane in Ottawa, Monday August 29, 2016. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Adrian Wyld

No kids,

no cars,

no meat,

no flying!

And even that won’t save you from man-made climate change

If Prime Minister Justin Trudeau really wants to save the planet from man-made global warming, he should tell Canadians to stop having kids, don’t drive, don’t fly and don’t eat meat.

Those are the four most efficient ways of reducing industrial greenhouse gas emissions linked to climate change in the developed world.

By contrast, the “solutions” pushed by Canadian governments and educators, such as recycling and switching to energy efficient lightbulbs, while they may be “feel good” exercises, are insignificant.

This as reported by University of British Columbia PhD student Seth Wynes and Prof. Kimberly Nicholas of Sweden’s Lund University, in their paper, “The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions” published last week in the journal, Environmental Research Letters.

The biggest saving by far comes from having no children, or fewer of them.

Every unborn child would save the average Canadian family 58.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions annually, compared to 0.213 tonnes by recycling.

Going carless saves 2.4 tonnes, compared to 0.1 tonnes by replacing incandescent lightbulbs with energy efficient ones.

Avoiding one transatlantic flight per year saves 1.6 tonnes of emissions, compared to 0.247 tonnes by washing clothes in cold water.

And switching to a plant-based diet saves 0.8 tonnes of emissions, compared to 0.21 tonnes by hanging your clothes out to dry instead of using a dryer.

Despite this, Wynes and Nicholas report, “we find that 10 high school science textbooks from Canada (covering seven provinces, with 80% of the population) largely fail to mention these actions — they account for 4% of their recommended actions — instead focusing on incremental changes with much smaller potential emissions reductions.”

Further, “government resources on climate change from the EU, USA, Canada, and Australia also focus recommendations on lower-impact actions.”

Thankfully, the researchers don’t recommend our governments force Canadians to have smaller families, although this is a common refrain among radical environmentalists, whose love for humanity is surpassed only by their hatred of people, save for themselves of course.

In that context, consider China’s “basic dictatorship” (which Trudeau says he admires), which only abandoned in 2015 the infamous “one-child policy” it imposed in 1979.

But that didn’t stop China from taking credit at international meetings on climate change for decades, arguing its one-child policy had prevented 300 million births, the equivalent of the U.S. population, and saved 1.3 billion tonnes of industrial carbon dioxide equivalent emissions annually, based on global average per capita emissions of 4.2 tonnes.

Read the full story at The Sun

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 18, 2017 3:11 pm

To sum it up, all man-made environmental problems have a root cause: There are too many humans on Earth. We are the new locusts. If we had a stable global population of about one billion, there would be much less pressure on the ecosystem… And everyone could easily find a free parking space…

Reply to  BernardP
July 18, 2017 3:17 pm

I’ll “see” your one billion and “raise” you by half a billion less.
Then there will be two free parking spaces, although there probably won’t be any cars.
So I’ll go one better and “raise” you by three-quarters of a billion less.
Anybody with a brain can see where this is going.

Reply to  RockyRoad
July 18, 2017 8:04 pm

“Then there will be two free parking spaces, although there probably won’t be any cars”
You forgot the most important thing:- there won’t be any people then either.

Reply to  RockyRoad
July 19, 2017 6:28 am

Always remember, the biggest most pressing population “problem” of all is, How do the Nice Rich White People get rid of all those annoying wasteful surplus Brown and Black babies?
Maybe they should ask one of the old Pharaohs how he handled a similar problem.

Reply to  RockyRoad
July 19, 2017 6:39 am

At a half billion, that means that only one out of 15 people would be left on Earth. My average high school class is 14 or 15, including me. Which means my class simply would be gone. A lonesome world, unless, of course, they still insist on cramming the few people left into concentrated cities. Most will be, however, in little human settlements, isolated from everybody else, vegan, unarmed, and with only hand tools. Subsistence farming while malnourished and oppressed—what a futuristic not-so-idillic vision—only the UN would have such and even try to make it happen. Oh, do not forget the slave camps, as the cities will need to have their supplies and luxury goods while they manage the world.

Reply to  RockyRoad
July 19, 2017 8:31 am

Notice that it’s always the already existing humans who champion the smaller family solution. Already safely on the live side of the equation, they can push for elimination of the chance for life of those not yet born. Self destruction would also help solve the problem, but it never seems to come to mind as an option.

Reply to  BernardP
July 18, 2017 3:18 pm

A stable global population.
About as likely as a stable global climate.
Humanity will find it’s own occupancy level on the planet. We just need to stop worrying about it.

M Seward
Reply to  BernardP
July 18, 2017 3:35 pm

And if that one billion were AGW skeptics we could rename the planet Heaven (or Valhalla if I had my way)

R. Shearer
Reply to  BernardP
July 18, 2017 3:36 pm

And Canada is too hot.

john harmsworth
Reply to  R. Shearer
July 18, 2017 4:12 pm

Yup! Second coldest country on Earth but somehow Jamaica is ok and Brazil is ok and Central Africa is ok but we’re too hot! Spectacular stupidity!

Reply to  BernardP
July 18, 2017 4:02 pm

You missed the point,
White people have fewer children. As white peopel are about 1 billion, they should have no kids. The other 6 billion can. Only when all white people are dead will they stop.

Joel Snider
Reply to  DaveKeys
July 19, 2017 12:07 pm

What makes you think that would be a stopping point?

Reply to  BernardP
July 18, 2017 9:46 pm

Exactly. On one day leftists say that we have to save the planet for future generations, we must think of the children. The next day they say there are too many people on the planet, we have to stop having so many children.
And they don’t seem to find these opinions contradictory in any way. Amazing.
I don’t know how these people get along each day, I really don’t.

Reply to  BernardP
July 19, 2017 12:45 am

If I were a Canadian, I’d be far more concerned about saving Canada from Trudeau than saving the earth from Global Warming. He is a real nut case and a threat to everyone who lives there.

Reply to  BernardP
July 19, 2017 2:39 am

To sum it up, all man-made environmental problems have a root cause: There are too many humans on Earth. We are the new locusts. If we had a stable global population of about one billion, there would be much less pressure on the ecosystem… And everyone could easily find a free parking space…

I guess you forgot the /sarc tag? Malthus peeks from under the carpet. The world total fertility rate was about 2.7 in 2000, and 2.4 in 2010. It does not take too long until global total fertility is under 2.0. That does NOT mean the world population will start to diminish yet. It just means the population growth is pretty well under control, and many industrialized countries have the opposite problem, population decline.

As white peopel are about 1 billion, they should have no kids. The other 6 billion can. Only when all white people are dead will they stop.

Leftists are too modest (read: self-hating) to say Western countries have already succeeded in stopping population growth. Instead, they seize the opportunity to embrace islamophilic migration. Said that, after having studied pigmentation as a biological feature, I cringe every time someone talks about white people. I’m White if you call me names, but I’m not white.

Ron Clutz
Reply to  BernardP
July 19, 2017 3:41 am

Ironically, insects like locusts put out way more CO2 than humans do with all our activities, including domestic animals.

Reply to  Ron Clutz
July 19, 2017 4:29 am

Ron, how much of locusts’ CO2 output is from fossil carbon, rather than part of the short carbon cycle? That is, how much is adding to atmospheric concentrations?
I am pretty sure this will be zero, but maybe you can demonstrate otherwise.

Ron Clutz
Reply to  seaice1
July 19, 2017 9:55 am

Don’t have a source for that. AFAIK insects get carbohydrates from eating plants. Microbes like bacteria, however seem to produce CO2 directly from organic material, especially in sea beds.
“The vast influence that microorganisms have on the climate is due to the fact that an astonishing 90 percent of Earth’s microorganisms are found in the muddy seabed.
“In fact, since 70 percent of the Earth’s surface is covered by water, the microorganisms make up between 10 and 30 percent of the Earth’s total biomass.
“The microorganisms feed on the mud, which consists of deposits of old organic matter which in some places reaches a thickness of up to one hundred metres.
“The bacteria in the seabed convert the carbon in the organic matter into CO2, and when we start adding it all up, the conversion that goes on down there plays a key part in the global carbon cycle – even though it all happens very slowly”, explains Lomstein.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Ron Clutz
July 19, 2017 12:08 pm

‘how much of locusts’ CO2 output is from fossil carbon’
Why exactly does that matter?

Michael 2
Reply to  Ron Clutz
July 19, 2017 8:04 pm

Ron Clutz asks: “Why exactly does that matter?”
People CO2 is bad. Animal CO2 is good. Simple formula. It stems from Orwell’s “Animal Farm”: Four legs good, two legs bad.
On a more serious note which I’m not sure its advocates consider, the carbon cycle is partly closed; but also partly open. For instance crustaceans take carbon out of the cycle relatively permanently and turn it into the White Cliffs of Dover (chalk). People take long-sequestered carbon (oil) and return it to the atmosphere. Once in the atmosphere it rejoins the normal carbon cycle. Eventually the surplus will make new carbonaceous stone, and presumably new oil but that’s tens of millions of years in the future.

Michael 2
Reply to  Ron Clutz
July 19, 2017 8:05 pm

Whups, wrong attribution. Joel Snider asked.

Reply to  BernardP
July 19, 2017 4:31 am

Why don’t you lead by example then?

Eyal Porat
Reply to  BernardP
July 19, 2017 4:45 am

“There are too many humans on Earth” – reduct the “too many” and you are on the spot.

Reply to  BernardP
July 19, 2017 8:16 am

It’s illogical. Does a dairy farmer think that things will be better for him if he kills all of his milk cows? If the elite globalists kill off all of the people that made them fabulously wealthy, then what happens to their wealth, and who do they get to rein over?

Tom O
Reply to  BernardP
July 19, 2017 11:04 am

You know, a very good first step would be for all those people that truly believe that the Earth just plain has too many people on it should lead by example and request euthanasia. We would be well on our way to world population reduction – or would we? Oh that’s right! It’s not THEM that are supposed to be eliminated, it’s the rest of us!
No one knows how many people are too many, but there are a lot that think their share of everything would be bigger and better if there was less competition. And no, they aren’t REALLY concerned with the environment, only their share.

Dave in Alabama
Reply to  BernardP
July 19, 2017 4:17 pm

You really should watch this:
We’re reaching a point (in less than a century) where the global population will go down, down, and down.
Richer people don’t want a bunch of kids. They love kids, mind you, just not more than a couple of their own.

R. de Haan
Reply to  BernardP
July 19, 2017 11:18 pm

Total BS. The entire world population could live comfortably in Texas. There are no serious man made environmental problems. The biggest diversity of species nowaday’s can be found in and near our big cities. You’re sounding like an UN Agenda 21/30 proponent. They have come up with a sustainable population of 500 million inhabitants. Just think before you you make statements like this.

david chorley
July 18, 2017 3:14 pm

Only you can save the world… by going extinct

Reply to  david chorley
July 18, 2017 7:44 pm

oh damn. I put 9 ton of mulch on my garden a few years back releasing 45 ton of CO2 as it decomposed.. I see the error of my ways, I should have cut down my garden and stored it in a sea container to prevent all those terrible carbons escaping and ruining the Gia. Bad me.

R. de Haan
Reply to  david chorley
July 19, 2017 11:26 pm

I really think we are her to save the planet from the next extinction event from outer space. We have the technology but the entire world is focussing on non problems. Time to grow up and face the real threats.

July 18, 2017 3:15 pm

This was obviously coming all along. Those silly conservation and recycle things were useless. However, if you recommend them first, then when they fail (and they must), you can impose more draconian measure that you wanted all along.
However, I’m only guilty of having a car and eating the occasional chicken or fish. Guess I’m a model of saving the planet. If it needed saved, which it does not.

Reply to  Sheri
July 18, 2017 3:47 pm

Too right.
More plant food.
Down with [UK, at least, Government-mandated] Diesel particulate emissions.
Sure having fewer kids helps – but what society are you in? If your comfort/survival in old age is dependent on children . . . . . . . . . .
Here in London, most folk seek to use public transport – unless buying a ton/tonne and a half of rockery stones. Surprisingly! [Mods – /SARC. don’t be shocked!]
Nothing else, generally, is viable.
And I am sure that is te3 case in other big/huge/’Chunquing’ cities around the world.
The watermelons seek a global population of below 750 million, perhaps below 500 million – if the latter will give them enough servants, slaves, and – politely – concubines.

Reply to  Sheri
July 18, 2017 4:01 pm

When I was born 60 years ago in 1957, black and white TV’s in the home were almost unknown in the UK.
In 1969 I watched the first moon landing on a, by then, commonplace, home installed, black and white TV.
Around 1973 we got one of the first colour TV’s.
In 1976 or so, my Dad had a novel, hand held calculator with a primitive display.
When I joined the Police in that year, I was handed a ‘personal radio’, a relatively new, and primitive means of communication between office and officer.
By 1978 or so, we had a primitive vehicle tracking device, manually operated when a postcode district was entered. We were, however, still using Telex machines for crime reporting to force HQ.
Technology seemed to stagnate around then in the UK.
BY 1982 or so, VHS and Betamax video recorders were at the cutting edge.
I left the job in 1987 and went into business. I bought my first Amstrad Computer in 1989 and in 1991 bought my first IBM clone 286 PC. Big mistake, the 386 could run Windows which came out a year or so later.
By 1989 or so I had my first Windows laptop (I don’t think Apple had a laptop at that time) complete with docking station.
Then we had reliable satellite TV stations.
Shortly after, I had an internet dial up connection.
Then we had cable installed in our street (the years are now becoming blurred) and we had fibre broadband and cable TV.
Around 1993 or so I bought my first mobile phone, second generation motorola flip phone. It made calls and could text, clumsily.
Then there was bluetooth, and if you could afford it, you could have it in the car for hands free calls.
And for several years we bumbled around with our Blackberries etc until around 007 when the iPhone hit. Another almost stagnant period within the comms industry but everywhere else, medicine, manufacturing, materials etc. the world was going haywire thanks to computers and comms.
But smartphones virtually changed the world of comms and productivity in the next ten years. A full blown computer in your pocket. They are now stagnating again, and we’re all waiting for the next Steve Jobs.
My point is, that I have seen more technological change in a few years than my parents saw in a lifetime.
Sensible scientists are dealing with cancer cures, dementia solutions, travel and living environments, not to mention food production and safety. Not mucking about with wacky climate predictions on computers no better than my first Amstrad.

Reply to  HotScot
July 18, 2017 4:20 pm

I was a very senior exec at Mot during the ’90s era of flip phones. My, we helped change the world. But what really changed it was the iPhone link to internet. Funny, the former assistant CEO (yup, real title due to weird corporate politics) and I had discussed the idea of an iPhone 6 months before it appeared ( and After I quit and he retired), and lamented that MOT had neither the imagination nor the software chops to pull it off. Crimminy, just put a now commercially available cell phone software stack on an iPod and make a better user interface. Something we had both tried and failed to fix in an analog hardware driven corporate culture. Mot is now for all practical purposes extinct. Darwinian evolution at work in a non-biological environment, but with perfect analogs to biology. At least I cashed out of Mot before the dotcom bubble burst.

john harmsworth
Reply to  HotScot
July 18, 2017 4:36 pm

I would argue that the advent of various apps for smart phones has reduced productivity well beyond the improvement we got from the initial introduction. They make people stupider!

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  HotScot
July 18, 2017 7:34 pm

I’m guessing you meant 1999 for the laptop. I don’t think they existed in 1989. Though I remember the “portable” Compaqs in the early 90s. The size of a large briefcase, with a 4 inch screen or so, and the “lid” was a keyboard. Had a 5 1/4″ floppy drive.
Something like the iPhone was the logical next step from Palm Pilots, iPaqs (Which I had when I first started consulting), and other PDAs. The only things they lacked at the time was a cell phone connection. You could already browse the web, but it was pretty primitive, and bulky. But I used to use my iPaq and a folding keyboard to take notes at meetings. I do the same thing now with my Android tablet and a bluetooth keyboard (still hate the soft keyboard).

Reply to  HotScot
July 18, 2017 7:48 pm

” I don’t think they existed in 1989.”

Med Bennett
Reply to  HotScot
July 18, 2017 10:37 pm

I got a Compaq “portable” for graduation in 1983. Two floppy drives and a 9 inch monochrome screen.

Reply to  HotScot
July 19, 2017 1:16 am

did it occur to you that comparable levels of advance have been made in renewable technology?
and especially in computing systems related to managing electrical demand

Eric H
Reply to  HotScot
July 19, 2017 6:45 am

Spot on. I see no reason why any modern society will still be burning fuel to make energy in 50 years.CAGW will be a footnote in history.

Reply to  HotScot
July 19, 2017 7:06 am

Griff, did it ever occur to you that you are delusional?

Reply to  HotScot
July 19, 2017 7:07 am

Eric, I see no reason why anyone would assume we wouldn’t be.

Reply to  HotScot
July 19, 2017 12:10 pm

the physical levels of turbine efficiency have already been reached, judged by our current understanding of physics. And they still fall short of what is required to power the world which is currently at single digit percentages of renewable energy.
And whilst computing technology progressed/progresses fitfully, it doesn’t leave entire regions of Australia blacked out because of reliance on those single digit renewables.
How insane is it that? Renewables in South Australia, operating at 3% or 4% (at the very most) of their entire energy base, caused the whole region to shut down?
Doesn’t that even register with you that there is a major problem with renewables.
All credit to the Aussies for trying, but they are a bellweather to the rest of us. Renewables may be an answer in the distant future, but right now, they are many disasters waiting to happen.
Social and technological change doesn’t happen by government intervention, it happens via public opinion and market forces. No government has ever forced anyone to adopt the iPhone, nor the internet, but they are dominating our lives, for good or bad, time will tell.
So if renewables are so good, why don’t we all have a wind turbine and solar cells in our gardens without taxpayer subsidy?

Reply to  HotScot
July 19, 2017 12:24 pm

Jeff Alberts
The first time I recall using one of the first ‘laptops’ was the Compaq referred to in other comments. It was around 1987.
I bought my Texas Instruments laptop around 1992 or 1993 and my friend had a Toshiba laptop from his employers around the same time. Nor were either of them cutting edge.
On a slightly different note. I bought a cheap, Chinese Android smartphone from Amazon last year, it cost me £150. It does everything my more recently bought iPhone 7 does at £700. A couple of years ago I bought my wife a Chinese Windows smartphone for less that £100. App restrictions apart, it was equally functional, but it died after a year. No big deal for under £100. I’ll wait to see how long the Android phone lasts, but so far, after around a year, it’s faultless other than Google maps in car, that’s why I bought the iPhone.

john harmsworth
July 18, 2017 3:15 pm

Trudeau is nothing but a vacuous hypocrite! He jets all over the world on Western oil preaching restraint and doing what he can to torpedo the economy of Western Canada. Hard to believe but as an enemy of Western Canada he’s worse than his old man! Apparently, arrogance and hipocrisy are genetic!

Timo, not that one
Reply to  john harmsworth
July 18, 2017 3:35 pm

“he’s worse than his old man! ”
Yup. Worse than Fidel Castro

Reply to  Timo, not that one
July 20, 2017 3:47 am

Ha! There is no doubt that Justin looks more like a young Fidel Castro than he does his father Pierre. He doesn’t have Pierre’s large brain either.
Sometimes I think that if Pierre were alive today he’d laugh his head off knowing that his empty-headed son could actually be elected PM.

Reply to  john harmsworth
July 18, 2017 6:52 pm

I can’t stomach this goofball or that cheesy French Canadian talentless menstral blood drinking wife of his.
I’m not kidding. These parasites are lower than earthworms.

Reply to  john harmsworth
July 18, 2017 8:16 pm

On the bright side, every minute he’s in Ottawa brings forward the day when the West secedes.

Reply to  john harmsworth
July 18, 2017 9:42 pm

Might not be western oil he burns when leaving from Ottawa. Eastern Canada burns conflict oil. Oil from the oil sands is ukky for them there green easterners.

Reply to  john harmsworth
July 19, 2017 9:39 am

he’s worse than his old man!
Jagger has his faults as well.

Reply to  john harmsworth
July 19, 2017 11:11 am

Global warming will bring more of Canada’s lands into agricultural production, that is why he’s flying everywhere

Janice Moore
July 18, 2017 3:16 pm

No kids,
no cars,
no meat,
no flying!

Reply to  Janice Moore
July 18, 2017 3:19 pm

…not a single luxury.
(We’ll be able to rename the planet “Gilligan’s Earth”)

Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
July 18, 2017 3:20 pm


Janice Moore
Reply to  Janice Moore
July 18, 2017 3:22 pm

Mod — I accidentally posted my 3:16pm post before I pasted my image jpg file into it. THEN, every image I tried (I searched for and tried about 5!) was encrypted….. THEN, in the meantime, RockyRoad commented. So, please excuse my mess. Aaaargh.

Reply to  Janice Moore
July 18, 2017 4:10 pm

My abiding theory is that if there is a God, this is hell, or at best, purgatory.
What Deity would conceive of such a mess if not to torture us for our sins?

Tom Judd
Reply to  Janice Moore
July 18, 2017 5:37 pm

No kids,
no cars,
no meat,
no flying,
Sounds to me like that’s worse
then dying!

Reply to  Janice Moore
July 18, 2017 6:12 pm

Janice it’s sort of worth exploring the “no kids” part of the equation. For many, f**cking is a low cost form of entertainment.

Reply to  Bartleby
July 19, 2017 9:42 am

For many, f**cking is a low cost form of entertainment.
Half the population find it low cost. The other half are men.

Steve Fraser
Reply to  Janice Moore
July 18, 2017 7:04 pm

The chorus to a very solemn dirge.

Tom Halla
July 18, 2017 3:20 pm

It is that the lumpenproletariat do without, not the elite. All you peasant scum have no rights the elite are obliged to respect.

John Leggett
July 18, 2017 3:34 pm

All those warmest can solve the problem by offing themselves right now.

July 18, 2017 3:34 pm

CO2 obsession seems to morph seamlessly into misanthropy and finally arrive at genocide and human extinction.

Reply to  hunter
July 18, 2017 3:53 pm

Well, warmists are the highest form of creation [they say . . . . . . . . .]
/Sarc. In case needed by Mods.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Auto
July 18, 2017 4:38 pm

What are they high on? That is the question!

Reply to  Auto
July 18, 2017 6:55 pm

Instead of worshipping God, they worship God’s creation.

July 18, 2017 3:53 pm

How amazingly dehumanizing climate extremists are. They reduce human life to nothing more than an estimate of CO2 production. Not what dreams that person may have. Not the creative potential of that person. Not the love. Not the vision of that person. No, climate extremists don’t see a person. They see a model projection of CO2 and believe that offsets that other person’s will, mind, dream, humanity. The climate consensus is the enemy if humanity.

Tom Judd
Reply to  hunter
July 18, 2017 5:39 pm

Sounds like Obamacare.

Reply to  hunter
July 18, 2017 6:15 pm

In the end it comes to population control. Always.

Reply to  Bartleby
July 18, 2017 8:02 pm

Didn’t Trudeau say recently that he wanted to import enough immigrants to Canada to increase the population to 100,000,000 by 2050?

Reply to  hunter
July 18, 2017 8:08 pm

I think of them every time I open a beer. I also own & operate a Soda Stream. Turns tap water into great water. I bake bread for therapeutics & think of the CO2 formed by yeast, giving my loaves their loft. It’s also cheaper than the bakery & tastes much better, especially with butter.

patrick bols
Reply to  hunter
July 19, 2017 12:34 am

Thomas Malthus roaring his ugly stupid head

Bruce Cobb
July 18, 2017 3:56 pm

The irony of all ironies is of course that the climate couldn’t care less what we do, since there is no evidence of any manmade effect on it. We are like fleas on an elephant believing we can control where the elephant goes. Sheer hubris on our part.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 18, 2017 4:53 pm

Actually, I’ve come to the conclusion that’s the gist of the belief–it is SO VERY FRIGHTENING to these people, the idea that nothing we do DOES control life on Earth; their hubris is so great that their Every. Tiny. Choice MUST move the waters of Heaven and Earth. The idea that they are nothing but irrelevant dust specks running around like fleas on a spinning dustball devalues their egos way too much.

Reply to  Goldrider
July 18, 2017 7:26 pm

People want to feel like they are in control of their lives. Some people want to feel like they can even control the weather.

John M. Ware
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 19, 2017 5:42 am

Actually, more like bacteria on the elephant–he may actually be able to detect a flea (unlikely though that is).
I was going to remark on the assumption that using cold water to wash clothes necessarily has something to do with saving the planet. I have used exclusively cold water in my wash for a couple of years now. First, the clothes don’t run colors in cold water. Second, they don’t shrink (though I think drying, which I also do on minimal settings, does more of that than cold water). Third, bloodstains and certain plant stains come out in cold water but are made all but permanent in hot water (I have occasional skin lesions that bleed; I’m taking Coumadin, a blood thinner; and I do a lot of gardening and other work outside, necessitating frequent contact with spines, thorns, and other sharp objects, so I bleed frequently, though never in large amounts). Now, if by using cold water, I am retarding the addition of CO2 to the atmosphere, I apologize . . .

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 19, 2017 11:21 am

Strange Schoders the investment bank said the evidence pointed to AGW going to be 4°C above present. Now this is a company that has no axe to grind on either camp and has enough funds to get the best independant advice as it depends on it.
So why stsate it?
FT 16 July 2017

July 18, 2017 3:58 pm

Aren’t these the same people that think Tesla is a great idea?

Reply to  Latitude
July 18, 2017 6:13 pm

Wealth and virtue signaling all in one.

Reply to  Latitude
July 18, 2017 6:18 pm

Tesla is an excuse.
They folks buying Tesla cars just don’t have the cojones to kill babies. That’s what it’s really all about.

Reply to  Bartleby
July 19, 2017 12:12 am

But ‘they” have no problem advocating for Infanticide but not calling it Infanticide or Baby Killing.
Rather they just wish to discuss it and call it as a well presented, researched debate.
‘…It is to present well reasoned debate…’Says one of the papers authors.
‘Australia. SMH. MARCH 2 2012.
Philosophers’ claim over moral right to kill newborns sparks outrage…by Julie Rowbotham.’
Try getting a University debate going on campus challenging any of the Luvvie Left Pet Topics. Warming…Gender/Trans..Feminism…Queer Theory and you will be shut and shouted down in a flash
However, if you argue for…’after birth abortion’ of disabled or even non-disabled infants… you can go for your life…though it’s not the babies life that they want …or believe that they should be debating but its lawful death after the healthy or moderately disabled child is born.
Gobsmacking. And if the Left and University Culture think I will ever accept a morality lecture from them they can go…take a flying…

July 18, 2017 4:05 pm

Green misanthropy knows no bounds. Of course, it goes skipping along hand in hand with green hypocrisy.

Gunga Din
July 18, 2017 4:07 pm

It’s hard for people to believe some of the things other people do. Deliberately killing their own child. Killing someone because they cut them off on the road. Volunteering to be a suicide bomber to kill people that don’t believe the same as they do. Insane. but they exist.
It’s also hard for people to believe that some with authority and/or money will lie, cheat and steal to gain even more authority and/or money. But they exist. They even have a club.

Reply to  Gunga Din
July 18, 2017 4:14 pm

But there remains, far more good people on the planet than bad.

Gunga Din
Reply to  HotScot
July 18, 2017 4:19 pm

Hence the desire to reduce the population to something more manageable.

Thomas Homer
Reply to  HotScot
July 19, 2017 5:17 am

HotScot: “But there remains, far more good people on the planet than bad.”
That’s an uplifting sentiment … yet we all accept locks, keys and passwords in our everyday lives because we can’t trust each other.

Reply to  HotScot
July 19, 2017 9:55 am

But there remains, far more good people on the planet than bad
Unfortunately the pathway to hell is paved with good intentions. The is perhaps no more dangerous person than the person that believes they are acting for your own good.

Reply to  HotScot
July 19, 2017 11:53 am

Gunga Din,Thomas Homer/ferdberple.
Well, what a depressingly miserable lot you are.
Humanity occupies around 5% of the planets land. Imposing artificial population control has been proven a failure in China with female babies being flushed down the toilet because they aren’t considered worth enough in the face of government punishments for exceeding the one child policy.
We accept locks and keys in overpopulated suburban areas. I can go back to Scotland any time, buy a house in a small community away from Glasgow and Edinburgh, and be quite certain nothing would be taken from my house were I to leave it open. And much of the rest of the world is the same, city conurbations are the problem, there is no community oversight, nor community involvement, it’s an anonymous environment and one by which the rest of the world is measured. Which is why regulations on diesel air pollution is foisted upon the rest of a nations countryside, when it does country dwellers no harm whatsoever. But they still have the taxes and inconvenience imposed upon them. PIN security is a fallout of technology, you can always stash your money under your bed, it’s your right, but it’s not caused by the majority of honest people on the planet.
The road to hell is paved with the best intentions of people who want to interfere in other peoples lives, uninvited, claiming the are acting on their behalf. In other words governments and bureaucrats.

john harmsworth
Reply to  Gunga Din
July 18, 2017 4:42 pm

It’s these awfulists who are so chronically unhappy. They should be the ones to self exterminate and leave the mess they perceive to us hopeful idiots who will just keep on plugging along with smiles on our faces. Too stupid to realize how doomed we must be! Lol!

Reply to  Gunga Din
July 18, 2017 5:22 pm

would that be congress you’re referring to G.D.??

Michael C. Roberts
Reply to  jvcstone
July 19, 2017 9:21 am

It may be The Club of Rome:
The font from which all things United Nations, such as ‘sustainability’, and the UNFCCC ( are born – down to your local municipality:
This is what i believe Gunga Din is referring to.
the tentacles of this thinking run deep, like a cancer invading a host.

Reply to  Gunga Din
July 18, 2017 7:28 pm

“It’s hard for people to believe some of the things other people do.”
There are a lot of mentally unbalanced people in the world.

Reply to  TA
July 18, 2017 7:40 pm

Why are so many of them here?

Reply to  TA
July 19, 2017 9:46 am

I think mentally unbalanced people are everywhere. About ten percent of any group you see.

July 18, 2017 4:12 pm

Acdemic pinheads like PhD student Seth Wynes and Prof. Kimberly Nicholas make me want to turn on my gas grill, not light it, and vent methane to the atmosphere for an hour or two.

john harmsworth
Reply to  David Middleton
July 18, 2017 4:43 pm

Cook some steaks with it David. Delicious CO2 producing beef! Mmmmmm!

Reply to  David Middleton
July 18, 2017 5:01 pm

Far better. Turn it on lit and grill a bunch of methane producing beef. Then turn it off but leave vent on to cool while eating delicious beef. A warmunist twofor.

Ben of Houston
Reply to  David Middleton
July 18, 2017 7:20 pm

Well, at least they are honest.
I can accept people being honestly wrong. They at least understand that what is being proposed won’t work and are trying to propose something that they think will work. If they examine and learn, they can change fairly easily to the right path.
I cannot stand those people who make trivial changes, feel good, and do nothing of import. They are worthy of contempt, and cannot be changed. Either they are fools think they are helping by doing nothing, or they are hypocrites who want everyone else to make sacrifices, or they are pretentious and just want to look good.

Reply to  David Middleton
July 19, 2017 11:25 am

Sorry, since they changed to methane from coal gas if you breath it you wil not die, only if you light up a cigarette after wars.

Mike H
July 18, 2017 4:19 pm

Whoever wants to save the world by lowering the surface population is welcome to lead the way.

July 18, 2017 4:42 pm

Let’s get Justin to only fly Air Canada. In short order he has a good chance of reducing the population, reducing the number of children he has and reducing his future airplane flights.

July 18, 2017 4:46 pm

… the infamous “one-child policy” …

I’m no social scientist or sinologist but I think the importance of the one child policy is overblown. There were lots of exceptions.

… 36% of China’s population was subject to a strict one-child restriction … link

The population that was subject to the strict one child policy was mostly urbanized and urban populations don’t breed much anyway. link

Reply to  commieBob
July 18, 2017 7:29 pm

Read your own link. 89% of the population was subject to either a 1 child or 2 child policy.The 2-child was only allowed if the first child was a girl.
Also, please note that the Chinese government actively edits its own Wikipedia pages, and so anything on that site should be considered a press release.

Fred of Greenslopes
Reply to  benofhouston
July 18, 2017 8:25 pm

Better the Chinese government than AGW true believers.

Reply to  benofhouston
July 19, 2017 1:22 am

A two child policy is not the same as a one child policy. Just saying.

Reply to  benofhouston
July 19, 2017 9:50 am

Didn’t China end up with millions of lonely bachelors because there was a shortage of females because of the one-child policy, which ended up favoring males over females?

Reply to  benofhouston
July 20, 2017 9:21 pm

The two-child modification only came in very late in the piece.

Reply to  commieBob
July 18, 2017 9:48 pm
Reply to  commieBob
July 20, 2017 9:19 pm

A Chinese-American writer traveling to see how females were treated witnessed how girl babies, in the poorest rural areas where even an extra food bowl was not available, saw newborn females shoved headfirst into a human waste bucket, to die, often babies born at night are held up to a lantern flame, genitals are often accidentally burnt, and THEN the girls is shoved in the crap bucket. Now of course there are 20+ million males who can never find a wife, the poorest Vietnamese village girls are imported, sold into wife-dom…it’s a mess.

Ross King
July 18, 2017 5:01 pm

Justin Trudeau narcissistically fancies himself as not only a rising-star national leader but also an International Leader. Therefore, he should be advancing his cause by volunteering to have his testicles snipped lest …….
Would this be a case of Rising-Star Hubris being cut-short by the threat of drooping reality?
Step up to the plate, Justin, and set us proles an example. Real balls vs. superfluous and inessential ones.

Tom Judd
Reply to  Ross King
July 18, 2017 5:53 pm

Are you sure he’s got testicles? Have you checked? You never know what’s hiding where the sun don’t shine.

Reply to  Ross King
July 18, 2017 7:04 pm

He said that his daughter could be the first female PM of Canada. Not realising that Kim Campbell was the first.
Don’t forget, he is a first year engineering dropout. Either has his mother’s brains or was smoking too much dope in university to get the math.

Reply to  Mick
July 19, 2017 9:41 am

You pack a lot of stuff into your comment. 🙂 I’ll pick one thing.
First year engineering dropout.
Engineering schools have traditionally had a miserable failure rate. It came to a head at the University of Waterloo one year when someone realized, “Hey, all our students had high school averages above 90%, why are we flunking half of them?” The biggest thing the school changed was to be fussy about who they let teach the first years. Many students had been the victim of bad teaching. Here’s an example of how things should work.
Even if a student is passing all the courses, dropping out of engineering could be an intelligent decision. It appears that most people who graduate from engineering aren’t working as engineers, and it isn’t that they found something that pays better. link

According to the 2011 NHS, only about 30 per cent of employed individuals in Ontario who held a bachelor’s degree or higher in engineering were working as engineers or engineering managers. Fully two-thirds of engineering-degree holders were not working in engineering at all. Many had jobs that didn’t necessarily require a university degree. OSPE considers this unacceptable, and an indicator of significant underemployment of those who hold engineering degrees.

Before the dot com bubble burst, all kinds of people were entering computer engineering programs who should never have been there. Depending on how you looked at it, it was sad and pathetic or really annoying.
In light of the above, dropping out of engineering may have been a sign of good judgement on Trudeau’s part.

Peter Morris
July 18, 2017 5:12 pm

They’re just following the “helpful” advice left on the Georgia Guidestones.
Bunch of weirdos.

July 18, 2017 5:28 pm

This article goes a long way in explaining how Trudeau got elected and the mess we’re in up here.

July 18, 2017 5:45 pm

For an answer, Canadian alarmists should look to the lemmings when the prospect of destroying humanity’s earthly future is intolerable. Remember, only you can prevent climate change.

July 18, 2017 5:54 pm

Canada has “Pepe Le Pew” in charge while the Philippines has “Yosemite Sam” and the USA has “Foghorn Leghorn”. I am so jealous. You guys get all the fun leaders and we are left with a prancy pretty boy who just follows orders from his masters. Sigh. Election is years away.

July 18, 2017 6:08 pm

Go to the First Nations folks in the North and Arctic. and tell them they can’t hunt, fly or have kids.
I wanna watch…
Oh and tell them it’s warming up.

Reply to  tgmccoy
July 18, 2017 7:06 pm

We say dot indians or teepee indians.
Keepin it real

July 18, 2017 6:12 pm

I don’t think there is any chance that Trudeau or any other environmentalist will act to ban air travel.

July 18, 2017 7:09 pm

If you believe all the hype regarding CO2 and climate change I doubt that if all Canada stopped all CO2 emissions altogether that it would have any effect on global climate change. But let us get real here. According to the paleoclimate record and work that has been done on modeling, one can conclude that the climate change we are experiencing today is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has no control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. There is no such evidence in the paleoclimate record. There is plenty of scientific rational to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. If CO2 really affected climate then the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years should have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but such has not happened. The AGW conjecture is full of holes the larges of which is that the radiant greenhouse effect, upon which the AGW conjecture is based, has not been observed anywhere in the solar system including Earth. The radiant greenhouse effect is sceince fiction so the AGW conjecture must also be science fiction. But even if we could some how stop climate change altogether, extreme weather and sea level rise would continue because they are part of the current climate.
If the burning of fossil fuels is so bad then the government must ban the use of all goods and services provided for by fossil fuels. The only food we would be allowed to eat would be food we obtained ourselves through hunting, fishing, gathering, and farming all performed mannually and transported mannually or by horse powered transportation. Cities were created primarily by the use of fossil fuels. They should be abandoned and turned back into forests.

Reply to  willhaas
July 19, 2017 12:05 am

No horses, horses fart methane. Unicorns only.

Reply to  Mjw
July 19, 2017 3:28 am

So do all mamals including humans. Mankind should evacuate all of Canada and leave it as one huge nature preserve but so doing will have no effect on global climate.

July 18, 2017 7:30 pm

Every unborn child would save the average Canadian family 58.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions annually
This is predicated on the assumption that the family doesn’t spend ANY of the money they ear on ANYTHING else, EVER, since they don’t need it to feed and clothe the child. Yeah. They’ll just put it in the bank. No extra trips, no new cars, nothing. Right. That’ll work.

Brian McCain
Reply to  davidmhoffer
July 19, 2017 7:10 am

This statement in the study didn’t make sense to me. Canada is about 14 CO2 tons per capita. So a couple having first child goes from 28 tons per year to 87 tons per year? That just defies logic. Do they need 25 cars to drive the toddler around? Maybe they’re counting the extra Methane emissions from the tyke?

July 18, 2017 7:33 pm

“Every unborn child would save the average Canadian family 58.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions annually”
“Going carless saves 2.4 tonnes,”
A baby causes more CO2 emissions than a car? Annually?

Reply to  TA
July 18, 2017 9:17 pm

I am surprise they do not advocate killing our youth yet… Mind you Libs are pushing Pot laws…

July 18, 2017 7:38 pm

The boy child is all for reducing the number of children you have in order to save the planet and all for importing Muslims for diversities sake (or whatever). How many children does the average Muslim have? Think rabbits.

tom s
July 18, 2017 8:02 pm


July 18, 2017 9:16 pm

The Trudeau picture is the perfect illustration of the green globalist hypocrisy!

July 18, 2017 9:30 pm

Okay Global TV Vancouver on weather. Vancouver think LA when it comes to “climate change”. Anyhow BC is having a major forest fire season, before that it was raining and flooding, lots of snow, cold temps in the winter. You see the weather has been getting crazier, just crazier I tell ya. Well here is the cause to all that, realigning jetstream. The meteorologist, Christie Gorden seems to imply this “weather” is caused by “climate Change”. So there you have it all this freaky weather simply explained, hey Christie you nailed it. No other information required.
I always voted CBC #1 in fake news in Canada but I will know place Global TV Vancouver in that spotlight.
Look for, jet stream changing, on global web page. I guess the jet stream has never changed before.

Reply to  nc
July 19, 2017 10:03 am

The jet stream constantly changes. The jet streams look fairly normal for this time of year. The summer season seems to be progressing normally, although a little cool so far, but that may be changing as a high-pressure system builds over the central U.S.
High-pressure over the U.S. is normal during summertime as the jet stream moves north up along the U.S./Canadian border. The jet stream is what moves weather fronts across the U.S. If it moves north into Canada, then that allows high-pressure systems to stall over the U.S. which causes high heat underneath the high-pressure system.
What separates a normal summer from an extremely hot summer is how long the high-pressure systems remain in place. If the jet stream doesn’t push them out, they don’t move much and the heat builds up underneath them. If the jet stream pushes on them, then they won’t remain over one spot too long and it won’t get all that hot.
Here is a link showing high-pressure building over the central U.S. (marked):,60.25,296/loc=-98.757,37.680

Reply to  TA
July 19, 2017 12:49 pm

Why Globull BC is getting all excited is because of all the fires in BC this year. Me thinks they drink too many high caffeine beverages.

July 18, 2017 9:56 pm

Stay home, use birth control, eat corn and beans…sorry, too much carbohydrate. Not enough fat. Our neural sheaths (white matter) depend on the insulation. Fat also modulates the toxic effects of sugar, particularly high fructose corn syrup, which is ladled into everything from cheese doodles to mayonnaise.
Current human superstitions in rough order of perniciousness:
Carbon dioxide. If it worked like the possessed believe, the oceans would have boiled off in the Cretaceous.
Fat. Midriff protuberance is far more from carbohydrate.
Sodium. Chloride is the culprit.

July 19, 2017 12:13 am

Nah. Le’s drain the swamp instead.

July 19, 2017 12:21 am

no retirement plan => need kid support to survive during old age => 4 or 5 kids per family
Methink this is the equation for human population growth

July 19, 2017 12:40 am

It was Lorrie Goldstein’s editorial opinion, purposefully provoking it seems to me, concluding with the following:
We could concentrate on expanding the practical clean and green energy sources we have now, in addition to hydro power, which are nuclear energy and natural gas, the lowest emitting fossil fuel, instead of wasting our money on wind turbines and solar power, which are decades away from being able to efficiently power modern, industrialized economies like ours on demand.
Or, we can go on pretending to tackle the problem by electing politicians who are pretending to solve it, while picking our pockets clean.

July 19, 2017 12:48 am

Why not just build a couple of nuclear plants and live like modern humans?

Reply to  arthur4563
July 19, 2017 12:55 am


Reply to  arthur4563
July 19, 2017 1:18 am

It is too expensive and takes a long time.

Reply to  Griff
July 19, 2017 4:03 am

“For all the costs of going green — estimated by Ontario’s auditor general to total $170 billion over 30 years”
“takes a long time”…takes a long time for what?
In Ontario, we could have had 170 billion and 30 years – that is a lot of reactors.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Griff
July 19, 2017 5:28 am

Only due to ignorance and fear. Can you imagine, in today’s world, if someone were to propose that anyone could drive up to a station and, without training or supervision, be allowed to pump several gallons of a highly flammable substance into their vehicle then simply drive off with it? I don’t think that would be allowed.

Reply to  Griff
July 19, 2017 7:14 am

Tom, it isn’t in Oregon.

Reply to  Griff
July 21, 2017 11:10 am

“It is too expensive and takes a long time.”
Only because of the opposition of ignorant, uninformed bedwetters like you.

July 19, 2017 4:43 am

Justin Trudeau should lead by example, go on live TV and kill his wife, his child and then himself. Show the world how it is done. Instead he jets about the globe, living a luxurious life style and sucking up resources while spewing tons of pollution. What a scumbag.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
July 19, 2017 5:47 am

Clearly we have too many PhD students …

July 19, 2017 6:21 am

So are we supposed to explode the children or drop them off skyscrapers with the polar bears?

Dr. Strangelove
July 19, 2017 6:59 am

To all tree huggers, drink this and you will save the planet

July 19, 2017 8:52 am

Why are ‘we’ humans here? That is an oft-asked question with an answer that is often rooted in one’s religion of choice, seems to me. But my answer comes from observing every other creature on this earth. What are all creatures busy doing, all the time, while alive? Surviving to reproduce. Like all of earth’s life, we are here to survive and reproduce, and as humans, hopefully to prosper. That’s the mandate. If you don’t reproduce, you are not fulfilling your natural-given purpose. Anyone who claims that human reproduction must be curtailed in order to save all of nature, ‘the planet’, needs to do some serious soul searching. There is much self-delusion, self-importance about our purpose, our place in the natural order of things.

Reasonable Skeptic
July 19, 2017 9:40 am

This is why being green is so bloody easy. You can spout your green creds knowing that this is socially advantageous and ignore what really needs to be done. The people that have a backbone and understand what really needs to be done are either deniers (because they found out it was bullshit) or far left people that want to take down the west.
If you run into a green, tell them that society has to reduce all of the 4 things mentioned to make a true impact because anything else is irrelevant, then ask them how they plan on forcing people to do what is required.

July 19, 2017 10:15 am

Every unborn child would save the average Canadian family 58.6 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions annually
Where is my carbon tax credit for every child I don’t have? Isn’t the UN giving away money to people to not cut down trees or build a factory, based on how much CO2 it saves? So with the new carbon tax, Canadians should get a tax credit each year they don’t have children.
At $30 a ton, that is $1750 for every child you don’t have. National Geographic says men product 1500 sperm per second, which a whole lot of children they are not having.

July 19, 2017 10:49 am

Sigh. Universities are certainly headed downhill. They’re clearly not even remotely considering that Canada’s immigration policy is geared to maintaining, if not increasing, the Canadian population. Most “Canadians” i.e. the descendants of all the people that moved here from just prior to WWI to shortly after WWII aren’t replacing themselves in terms of having children. You want to see a Canadian family that is ignoring the notion of having less children, look at those that have immigrated to Canada in the last ten years.

July 19, 2017 12:28 pm

No kids? Tell it to the Pope, who pretends to be an advocate of extreme efforts to stop global warming.
It’s worth noting that ” People of the Book” of fundamentalist persuasion, whether Christian, Jewish or Muslim, share the goal of reproducing their flocks at maximum rate. Don’t know enough about Hindus and Bhuddists to comment on their position.
Heaven help those of us accustomed to doing our own thinking if all the fundamentalists were to realize how many biases they share and combined forces to wipe out their common enemy.
As for savings from plant-based diets – if you hunt wild game for your larder, as I did for three decades, there’s no environmental advantage to switching to a vegetarian diet.

Mickey Reno
July 19, 2017 2:28 pm

No kids, no cars, no meat, no flying….
and what’s worse, no personal jet packs and flying cars! Damn those regulators!

July 27, 2017 6:14 pm

While the elite tell the unwashed masses the need to not reproduce and better yet, commit suicide (now), what they AREN’T telling the unwashed masses is that the elite have been ‘taking care of business’ for at least 75 years now. Most people simply aren’t aware of it because the World Health Organization (and similar unelected bureaucratic organizations) haven’t declared an emergency. And an emergency hasn’t been declared because the elite are DELIGHTED with how the plan is progressing. No crisis here, folks.

Verified by MonsterInsights