Carbon Tax On Children? Environmentalists Push Population Control

The carbon tax has finally been taken to its logical/illogical conclusion by anti-human environmentalists and the result is population control through taxation. 

Carbon taxation schemes have always been about social control, using global warming to justify punishing productive businesses with taxes that funnel massive sums of money into government. 

But now liberal elites have begun to discuss the carbon tax in terms of a carbon tax on human beings themselves.  

In a recent keynote speech at Planned Parenthood, the radical feminist Gloria Steinem somehow succeeded in linking abortion with climate change in a way that is both antihuman and deeply disturbing.

According to Steinem, "Forced childbirth is the single biggest cause of global warming". For Steinem, not only is protecting the right of a woman's unborn fetus now a "forced childbirth", but it is the single greatest catalyst for global warming. 

Her logic is simple, and chilling in its implications: people produce carbon, thus more people will bring greater carbon emissions while fewer people will bring lower carbon emissions. 

But what about the stated goal of several environmental radicals like Bill Gates who claim to want to reduce carbon emissions to zero?

Steinem, and the radical left she represents, attempts to equate the idea of the family with destruction of the environment in her attempt to push her agenda of sexual liberation, abortion and promiscuity. 

The result is to turn traditional values on their head in the name of global warming. As reported in the Memphis Flyer, Steinem asked openly, "Why is it that the same people who are against birth control and abortion are also against sex between two women or two men?" 

Without noticing the absurdity of her words, she could not help adding (falsely) that those on the right, "are against any sex that cannot end in reproduction." 

Yet Steinem is far from the only radical liberal to equate traditional morality, and even human life, with destruction of the planet.

Travis Rieder, a professor of moral philosophy at John Hopkins University recently published the book Toward a Small Family Ethic that lays out the case against humanity in cold, mathematical terms that make clear that the world would be better off without humans to pump out carbon dioxide. 

He relies upon a formula known as the Kaya Identity that aims to calculate the climate impact of nations. This formula has four components:

- The carbon density of specific fossil fuels

- Energy consumption for its actual GDP in a given economy

- The GDP per capita in the economy

- The total population

The first point can be addressed through advances in fuel technology and the second point by developing more efficient production. But the third point can be answered only by decreasing GDP and the fourth, by reducing population. 

It is the fourth point that Rieder sets his sights on in his book, a point that even radical environmentalists are reluctant to make. For those who believe in this perversion of science, people themselves have now become the problem.

Extreme environmentalists like Steinem and Rieder would use the power of government to tax having children as a form of population control. The more money a parent has, the higher the tax, because the greater the children's carbon footprint will be, or so they try to reason. 

At a time when China is abandoning its one child policy as a failure, and developed nations from Germany to Japan are providing incentives to increase family size because the falling birth rate threatens both cultures and economies, those in the radical left talk of having children as if it were a crime.

When pressed on the moral implications of blaming children for climate change and accusing religions of destroying the planet, Rieder responded in an interview that if a person chooses to have a large family, "Well, then they really better be doing their darnedest in all sorts of other ways. When you make that choice, there's a cost. You have to pay for it in some way." 

Thus the family itself has become a sin for which we must pay in progressive carbon taxes that increase according to one's income. So goes the liberal agenda.

Under the assumption that higher income families will have a greater impact on climate change, the argument is then in place for taxing the children of educated, wealthy and productive members of society at a far higher rate than those without the means. 

The first objective of this agenda is to collect greater revenue, but the second is to cause far higher birthrates among the impoverished sectors of the population than the most well-off, a sure recipe for disaster. 

The math is simple: if greater population equals more climate change then population control, crushing taxes and more restrictive government are the answer. 

As education, wealth creation and traditional morality are punished, money can be funneled into the coffers of liberal governments, thus producing an easily-controlled underclass.