Baby tax needed to save planet, claims expert

[Aptrgangr]

Baby tax needed to save planet, claims expert


By Jen Kelly
December 10, 2007 01:00am
Article from:
Font size: + -
Send this article: Print Email

A WEST Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus "baby levy" at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.

Writing in today's Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated over each child's lifetime.
Professor Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and "greenhouse-friendly" services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits.

And he implied the Federal Government should ditch the $4133 baby bonus and consider population controls like those in China and India.
Professor Walters said the average annual carbon dioxide emission by an Australian individual was about 17 metric tons, including energy use.
"Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society," he wrote.
"Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour, a 'baby levy' in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the 'polluter pays' principle."

Australian Family Association spokeswoman Angela Conway said it was ridiculous to blame babies for global warming.
"I think self-important professors with silly ideas should have to pay carbon tax for all the hot air they create," she said. "There's masses of evidence to say that child-rich families have much lower resource consumption per head than other styles of households.
But the plan won praise from high-profile doctor Garry Egger. "One must wonder why population control is spoken of today only in whispers," he wrote in an MJA response article.

Baby tax needed to save planet, claims expert | NEWS.com.au


What next? Oxygen tax? Fines for farting?

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Aptrgangr

Baby tax needed to save planet, claims expert | NEWS.com.au


What next? Oxygen tax? Fines for farting?

Yes, I agree, and I think that this "professor" should pay such fines, because he farts with his mouth, every time he says something...

One can witness in the last months many self-important "experts", politicians, Al Gore-s, harping about this nonsense called global warming and carbon emissions, I see a clear increase in it lately. Maybe beginning of some new global agenda?

[Weltschmerz]

Originally Posted by Plethon

One can witness in the last months many self-important "experts", politicians, Al Gore-s, harping about this nonsense called global warming and carbon emissions, I see a clear increase in it lately. Maybe beginning of some new global agenda?

I heard this morning that the targets of an ongoing conference are the USA, India and China. Whether it is all nonsense or not, I think we can certainly consider it a new way for leaders to keep people busy with a bad conscience. Most of the "news" items on it are all about what the individual can do to limit his/hers emissions.

[Kalevi]

And what about it when a couple who had a baby cannot afford paying for it? Are they going to take the baby away and 'take it to the backside of the sauna', like we say here?

Yes, oxygen tax would be just a logical next step in our system that has incorporated some of the nastiest elements from both capitalism and socialism. After 50 years of similar development, it will be self-explanatory that the state owns the air that is flowing in it's airspace..

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Seekers

I heard this morning that the targets of an ongoing conference are the USA, India and China. Whether it is all nonsense or not, I think we can certainly consider it a new way for leaders to keep people busy with a bad conscience. Most of the "news" items on it are all about what the individual can do to limit his/hers emissions.

Really? Another confirmation that a new agenda is heating up.

Speaking about the leaders' playing their card with the bad conscience of people: I simply can't believe that any person with normal intelligence and reasoning abilities could possibly buy into this blather.

Though it is possible that many individuals of the modern mass society will gleefully accept such "advices" to lower their carbon emissions. It may give some self-importance to conceited, but empty headed, people.

"I am lowering my carbon emission, I am saving then planet." A statement like this could be both an indicator of how supposedly "caring" a person in question is, but can also indicate an excess of conceit and haughtiness (meaning: "Look how damn important I am, I am saving the planet...")

[Menydh]

Originally Posted by Plethon

Maybe beginning of some new global agenda?

Aptrgangr already reported a similar lunatic idiot, back in May. Some John Guillebaud, from University College London: Children 'bad for planet'

A right policy would be to remove all research grants to these good for nothing, wannabe scientists, and put that money to help families in Europe to raise their children.

Certainly I agree in that most of Europe is overpopulated and that this is an environmental problem (among other problems). But the odd thing here is that it is not overpopulated by Europeans.

[Señor Malo]

What's next?
"People who farth more than once a day should be taxed because they contribute to the gas emissions"

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Mynydd

Certainly I agree in that most of Europe is overpopulated and that this is an environmental problem (among other problems). But the odd thing here is that it is not overpopulated by Europeans.

Some countries and regions of Europe are overpopulated, others aren't.

In my opinion, it is rather the too dense concentration of population within certain areas of certain countries - while other areas of those countries are almost empty - that matters much more than the absolute number of the population in this or that country.

It is that what may be considered as an environemntal problem.

[Menydh]

What about a heavy tax on countries where gas emissions producing foods such as cabbages, cauliflowers, broccoli, brussels sprouts and beans are traditional?

I deserve a scientific research grant for the above!

[Marcus Marulus]

Originally Posted by Truth-Finder

People who farth more than once a day should be taxed because they contribute to the gas emissions

Don't be so cruel. In that case "professors" like Barry Walters and John Guillebaud would end up in bankruptcy and the entire humanity would be deprived of such brilliant and caring minds...

[Susi]

I don't see how this idea is viable. How would one tax every single human birth? It's just a stupid idea. Sure, there needs to be something done about the birth rate in certain countries, but that can be done with the introduction of modern methods of contraception as well as education (for example, the birth rate in Iran fell from 4+ in the 80ies to 1-2 ten years later or so because of this).