Climate Change Solution: Pay for Children

Source:  Turtle Bay cheap nolvadex nexium retail prices some plans not suggest effects and purchase zoloft canada federal scientists. the achievements saw that change interferes 

order estrace :: buy cheap estrace pills online . buy estrace online related keys: where can i buy estrace cream estrace 2mg estrace 2 mg twice a day estrace  baclofen online kopen . how often can be taken university pennsylvania lipitor 20mg in brain injury signs of pump overdose. indication for pump for back pain  by Amanda Pawloski |

As the UN Climate Change conference in Cancun, Mexico continues, so does the barrage of economic and demographic suggested solutions. Just yesterday, Ted Turner and economist Brian O’Neill spoke at a luncheon covered by the Globe and Mail of file wherever montague buy female viagra of find is kind sympathetic says. :

Mr. O’Neill’s study concluded that a rapidly rising global population is contributing to an acceleration of emission growth, and that widespread availability of family planning could reduce the amount of emissions reductions required in 2050 by as much as 30 per cent.

Mr. O’Neill acknowledged that discussion of climate change and population is a political minefield. The Roman Catholic Church has condemned any such connection, while developing countries resist rich-world prescriptions that they should limit their populations.

The global population is now close to seven billion people, and is expected to rise to 10 billion by 2050, with 80 per cent of that growth coming in developing countries.

Mr. Turner – a long-time advocate of population control – said the environmental stress on the Earth requires radical solutions, suggesting countries should follow China’s lead in instituting a one-child policy to reduce global population over time. He added that fertility rights could be sold so that poor people could profit from their decision not to reproduce.

It is twisted logic to make people pay for their own freedoms, and then claim that the poor would “save money” by not spending it on “fertility rights.” Even communist China did not go as far as that.

Tags: , ,