My Photo
Mobilise this Blog

Google

InvestigateDaily

INVESTIGATEMAGAZINE.TV

Kiwiblog

New Zealand Conservative

InvestigatePodcast

AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] investigatemagazine.com and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« How does wearing an airplane on your head help save the planet? | Main | Maybe Homo sapiens could evolve more sapience »

Comments

dad4justice

Professor Barry Woffle would emit more greenhouse gases every time he opens his stupid cake hole than the entire population of Sydney .

If only there was a way we could harness the energy that is produced by nutbar academics spurting insane rhetoric ? Many Universities act like they have claimed hothouse privatization through the ramblings of people who need meds, and a bed in a ward in a psych hospital, asap .

The traditional family and children are under constant attack by a destructive force initiated by Professors of crap !!

KevOB

Perhaps gaia goes all green when it hears of another child being born which will use up resources. Very loving...

peter

Over-population of the world is a serious problem.

The old Roman Catholic approach is not appropriate any more, and is now widely ignored.

How do you justify a baby bonus? I suspect that this suggestion is more to refute the baby bonus than anything else. Provocative.

peasant

Of course none of the "carbon taxes" will change the climate one iota, it will go to politicians and bureaucrats who are rubbing their hands with glee at finding another way to separate the peasants from their hard earned cash. What a have. If governments were serious about the issue they would be clamping down on big business, not the little guys. But they are too gutless to do that so old muggins cops it yet again. As Ann Coulter said, a fairy tale of our time is that we can changed the ocean temperature by turning off a few light bulbs. Another victory for the nanny state! Poor Australia.

peasant

Apparently it doesn't take much for the nanny state to become the gulag.

Ryan Sproull

I missed the part of the article that said the guy was representative of a large group, or that his government is about to act on his personal recommendations.

peasant

Over-population of the world is a serious problem.
POVERTY is a serious problem. In case you haven't noticed, wealthy western nations are experiencing population decline (except America). Also, the poorest nations are the worst polluters. Solve poverty and spread Christianity, and the world will be much improved.

peasant

Over-population of the world is a serious problem.
POVERTY is a serious problem. In case you haven't noticed, wealthy western nations are experiencing population decline (except America). Also, the poorest nations are the worst polluters. Solve poverty and spread Christianity, and the world will be much improved.

peasant

Over-population of the world is a serious problem.
POVERTY is a serious problem. In case you haven't noticed, wealthy western nations are experiencing population decline (except America). Also, the poorest nations are the worst polluters. Solve poverty and spread Christianity, and the world will be much improved.

Ryan Sproull

POVERTY is a serious problem. In case you haven't noticed, wealthy western nations are experiencing population decline (except America). Also, the poorest nations are the worst polluters. Solve poverty and spread Christianity, and the world will be much improved.

Exactly! Except for spreading Christianity.

Poverty equals overpopulation. Impoverished people have less access to birth control, have kids to support them in their later years, believe in religious imperatives to have lots of kids, and the women often don't have a lot of options.

The worst polluters are not Third World countries, though. This is a common myth. I wonder why?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

Maynard

Perhaps he was being facetious? By suggesting such an outrageous scenario, which is the logical conclusion any forward thinking person would come to if this nonsense of greenhouse emissions and carbon footprints is allowed to continue, he was trying to highlight the absurdity of it all.

It's not even an original idea, it's been postutlated by many individuals in the past to support their arguements for or against whatever issue they have, not just global warming.

Far scarier than this "suggestion" is the governments comittment to persue the "carbon market" economy model. Buying, selling, and trading "carbon credits". Pure genius! Carbon (from which we are all made) is now a liability, a poison, it is bad, no one wants it. So lets create a market economy to buy and sell it, buy and sell this liability no one wants. How is that going to work?
Simply put, it won't.

A few will get rich off it, most business, industry, farming and forestry will get shafted, and the Labour Govenment gets another big shiny new bureaucracy, with powers enshrined in leglistation to rule and tax us all more.

peasant

Ryan, I'm talking general pollution and environmental damage, not just CO2. Third world populations exploit their meagre resources as much as possible, in order to survive.

AVG

I believe that Maynard has 'hit the nail on the head'. Just another Nanny State move.

Ryan Sproull

I believe that Maynard has 'hit the nail on the head'. Just another Nanny State move.

Sorry, what is? The guy in Australia making a suggestion?

peasant

Ryan, articles like these represent the gramscian socialists testing the waters for the next stage in their perfidious totalitarian plan.

andrei

The worst polluters are not Third World countries, though. This is a common myth. I wonder why?

Your link points to carbon dioxide emissions.

Since when was CO2 a pollutant? It is a natural component of the atmosphere. It is also vital to plant life.

Incidentally Ryan according to the United Nations own report there is more forestation in North America and Western Europe today than there was in 1900. The reason is simple , material wealth and modern farming techniques mean less land devoted to agriculture - less land can feed a great many more people. Unlike subsistence farming in the third world or the slash and burn agriculture common amongst "indigenous" peoples.

Of course combine harvesters, pesticides and fertilizers are all bad despite the fact that they free up land for other uses or allow it to return to forest, prairie or whatever.

Ryan Sproull

Since when was CO2 a pollutant? It is a natural component of the atmosphere. It is also vital to plant life.

Yes, and water is a natural component of the human body. Disbelieve in drowning yet?

David W

Oh no,

Andrei has been taken in by a slick advertising campaign


Most people would define pollution as a substance which when emitted/released has damaging effects on the environment. Clearly at this time in history CO2 that is not going to be mopped up in the carbon cycle fits that description (or do you deny CO2 is even a greenhouse gas?).

One of the nice bits of Al Gore's Nobel lecture was making it clear CO2 is a pollutant.

Psycho Milt

"Ryan, articles like these represent the gramscian socialists testing the waters for the next stage in their perfidious totalitarian plan."

Oh yes, that's so much more plausible than "articles like these represent somebody's opinion."

peasant

As noted earlier, Most social engineering has its basis in the towers of academia, spreads through their enthusiastic, eager to learn charges, infects our lower educational institutions and is hence imposed on the masses by stealth.

The comments to this entry are closed.