Contraception cheapest way to combat climate change

Once again, human beings are the enemy, and we must get rid of as many of them as we can.

Roger Martin, chairman of the Optimum Population Trust at the LSE, said: “It’s always been obviously that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions – the carbon tonnage can’t shoot down as we want, while the population keeps shooting up.”

UN data suggests that meeting unmet need for family planning would reduce unintended births by 72 per cent, reducing projected world population in 2050 by half a billion to 8.64 million.

Got to get rid of those “emitters, as well as their individual emissions.”

Wanna bet they will include abortion in this as well?


And yet they’ve never established a link between carbon emissions and climate change.

No historic data supports it, no testing confirms, computer models “supporting” it have been proven consistantly wrong and yet we should alter the earth’s population because of it.

We are carbon based creatures. Mankind has always been an “emitter” as they define us in this article. But all of a sudden, we are the enemy of the earth. If we could just get rid of mankind, the earth would be a beautiful place, safe for all living creatures.

Where is this “religion” coming from?

Why is it that those who favor reducing the population for the sake of the planet never do the obvious?

Be careful of what you ask…

Because it’s obvious to them that they aren’t the problem… it’s the rest of us. :rolleyes:

It was a rhetorical question. :slight_smile:

Just more proof that battling “climate change” is not about saving people, but more about reducing the population. Notice how the UN is so supportive of abortion, contraception, as well as battling climate change.

Ted Turner (a huge UN backer) came clean on this with his PBS interview with Charlie Rose, by saying the reason we have “global warming” is because there are too many people. Interestingly enough, Turner, a huge population control advocate, has 5 children himself.

Once you realize the connection, that the push behind it is not about saving people, but rather getting rid of them, you’ll start to see how crafty and sinister the Culture of Death really is.

And interesting enough is that it is not just about getting rid of people but getting rid of a certain group of people. Notice how the UN and the other population control people love to push contraceptives into areas like Africa and other poor areas. One needs to really wonder why that is.:blush: :frowning:

Gee, if we’re serious about global warming why not a nice thermonuclear war?
We can get rid of hundreds of millions of “emitters” and all their nasty emissions all in an afternoon, knock the 1st world’s industrial base back to the early 20th century and as an extra, added bonus maybe some nuclear winter to cool the planet off.

Actually I shouldn’t joke. Some human-hating planet-lover might read this and go, “Hmm . . .”

Of course. But what fun would it have been to just let it go?:smiley:

Contraception is being pushed in so-called Developing Countries that are experiencing population growth. But keep in mind, only a few years ago, the business press was warning about looking at one billion Chinese people the wrong way. The problem? Most of the population are “not economically active.” Translation? They’re poor. P O O R. After the recent Wall Street financial debacle, a Chinese city worker said, I’ve lost my money in the market, I’m going back to the farm.

The Culture of Death obviously views life as the problem. And I’ve seen too many articles about so-called “sustainable growth.” The media is playing the Fear Card all the time. Billions of dollars are paid to American farmers to grow nothing every year.


Mary, thanks for this link…how sad!
The human race is being relabeled to ‘emitters?’ Are we cars now? :frowning:

Sme facts about world population growth:


haha I’m sorry I can’t help but laugh whenever I hear people freak out about “global warming” or ahem excuse me, “climate change.” Get a day job please…or better yet, admit that we humans are helpless without God, who kinda made this earth btw :smiley:

It certainly isn’t funny though that people are seriously considering terminating people for the sake of this planet. :rolleyes: Or at least preventing more people from being born into this world. It’s only going to get worse sadly, before it will get better. Jesus have mercy on us all :frowning:

an annoying, fallen angel who loathes each and every one of us :thumbsup:

No, we’re worse! I saw a letter to the editor calling heterosexuals “breeders.” We’re not considered cars, we’re COWS.

Well I guess I will probably be the only person in this thread who thinks that pushing contraception is probably one of the cheapest ways to combat climate change. I mean more people means a lot more potential co2 going into the atmosphere. *and no I am not talking about from breathing but from industrial activities and car driving and what not. Of course simply trying to keep the human population in check isn;t all that needs to be done to combat the current climate change. But most of the other solutions tend to be far more costly.

When Jesus came to save the world, He didn’t look for the “cheapest” way to do it.

While I’m all for being frugal, being “cheap” costs more in the end. And that’s what contraception does–it “cheapens” humans, and costs more in the end. Jesus already paid a price for us and our sins–and it wasn’t cheap! Yet in the name of Green, many will dismiss His sacrifice and look for another way to “save the world” that doesn’t involve sacrifice. Ironically, the search for a way to “save the world” without making any personal sacrifice, leads people to sacrifice their children. :frowning:

There are other reliable methods to contain population. And they are free. Most people forget that while they obsess about “getting some.”

If there were no more people on the planet than today, the CO2 will go up anyway due to the improvement in standard of living. More cars in China, India, Africa… More off shore production that has no pollution constraints. Etc. And let us not forget the burning of the jungles due to poor farming techniques.

And one good volcano can pump out more CO2 in a few minutes than most countries do in years. To be prudent with our resources is very important. Avoiding children isn’t what encourages that.

Nuclear weapons are very harmful to the environment (all the radiation/“nuclear winter”). Believe it or not, I’ve read that scientists who work on making nuclear weapons have actually looked for ways to make the manufacturing process “greener.”

A much more earth-friendly way to destroy all humans is with a genetically engineered virus.

Actually the volcano thing isn;t true just to clear something up.

Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon ©, rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes–the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)

And yes co2 would still go up due to increased standard in living…but that doesn;t mean that still more people will likely mean a even bigger increase in the amount of co2 going into the atmosphere.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit