Sex causes global warming

This column began with an email forwarded from Wayne Leavitt, the Auto Shop teacher at Sunrise Mountain High School. That’s right folks, a conservative public school teacher. They do exist.

---

Sex causes global warming. At least that is what the folks up at Oregon State say:

“A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environmentally sensitive practices people might employ their entire lives – things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.”

Craig Edwards of the London Telegraph released a striking report on this discovery, “Not to be outdone by their American cousins, The London School of Economics released their “Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost” report on this world shaking revelation: “Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says. The report, Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, concludes that family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.” Let’s see if I understand their logic. If we reduce the number of kids being produced, we will also consequentially reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses being released into our precious oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere. What are these gasses? According to Wikipedia,

“Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range. This process is the fundamental cause of the greenhouse effect. The main greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere are water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.”

If you ask a Greenie, these gasses are vile, toxic destroyers of our mother earth and we must do everything within our power to eliminate their creation. Water vapor, toxic? Carbon dioxide, dangerous? I don’t know. Seems to me that a whole lot of people and animals exhale carbon dioxide and a whole lot of plants use that toxic noxious gas to…shall we say, inhale? Has anyone wondered what would happen if we managed to eliminate the carbon dioxide from out atmosphere? How about the water vapor? Aren’t clouds made up of that life-threatening substance? Ozone? I seem to remember that a few years ago these same Greenies were all upset about the use of certain aerosols because they could damage the ozone layer. Ozone was good back then? Come on folks. You're either lying now or you were lying then. What is it? Going back to this sex business, even the UN has jumped onto the bandwagon. Back in 1996 cognoscente UN observers saw the trend and that particular group of community organizers hasn’t changed its mind over the past 13 years. The Greenies and their buddies in the UN are using the pretext of Earth Concern to eliminate the American way of life. They say that if we reduce the number of children born to families, we will reduce the amount of vile noxious greenhouse gasses. But if you look closer, you will notice that only certain racial types are selected for depopulation. The oh so evil white race is at the top of the hit list and next are the uppity Orientals because they do too well in school competition. Did you notice the line about “unintended pregnancies”? The UN has had a warm spot its collective hearts for abortion ever since Bella Abzug took up the cause. Population control freaks claim that if we reduce the earth’s population by 40% we will save our planet. But the equation they use doesn’t work. According to most statisticians each couple needs to have 3 children just in order to maintain population equilibrium. China’s experiment of reducing the number to one has nearly eliminated the availability of girls for the boys to marry because most families wanted a boy. Girl babies were aborted by the millions. If we add in the factors of disease, accident and other dangers, the ideal birth rate for Greenies becomes an elimination of human life in a few generations. That’ll save the planet all right. Sadly, I think they are aware of the math. I think they are also aware of the hypocrisy of their stand. Right now the average white family averages 2.6 children per family; not enough to sustain the race. Mormon families skew this number a bit, but not enough to affect global population. Muslims, on the other hand, average about 8, nearly three times the needed number, but do we see any UN resolutions demanding Muslims control their population? Not on your life. How about Hispanics? They're hitting at about 6 per family. No? Now if it were Jews having that many kids we would see banner headlines condemning that people for their insensitivity toward Mother Earth. This error in reasoning goes way back to a certain Anglican Minister by the name of Thomas Malthus, 1766 – 1834. Malthus saw such ideas of endless progress towards a utopian society as vitiated because of the dangers of population growth: "The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man". As an Anglican clergyman, Malthus saw this situation as divinely imposed to teach virtuous behavior. Believing that one could not change human nature, and that egalitarian societies were prone to over-population, Malthus wrote in dramatic terms: "epidemics, pestilence and plague advance in terrific array, and sweep off their thousands and ten thousands. Should success be still incomplete, gigantic famine stalks in the rear, and with one mighty blow, levels the population with the food of the world". As one friend of mine says, “Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.” Not widely traveled, Malthus only saw the over crowding of urban centers with brief glimpses of countryside surrounding the city. He had no knowledge of the earth, its ecology or the incredible vastness that still exists today. Over population is an entirely different problem, and quite frankly we are not experiencing it. In Africa alone there is enough space for every single one of the 6 plus billion people currently on this earth to live comfortably on their own average size suburban plot of land. What this would do for global warming is another debate, but it could prove interesting. A simple search of the internet with regard to global warming will show any true intellectual (this excludes Greenies of course) that considerably more factors than jumping into bed can have an effect, and that the number of humans of this planet has little to do with the factors of earthquake, volcano, and solar flares. In other words, it cannot be predicted, not even by last century’s meteorological standards. It certainly cannot be controlled, not by any technology or recycling program that currently exists. The idea of committing cultural suicide or species genocide may appeal to those who consider capitalism to be the epitome of evil, but consider this, are they going to be the first ones to practice abstinence?