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.
No word on how many trees that would be, huh?
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.
Gee, sounds a bit like this post. I wonder how many 'carbon credits' sterilization will get you... If you make a surplus, I suppose you could resell them or go hog wild with your 'emissions'... After all, the Earth only likes the pollution we pay for.
And never mind the fact that a 'carbon credit' is a made-up, intangible, B.S. thing.
And he implied the Federal Government should ditch the $4133 baby bonus and consider population controls like those in China and India.
Ah, yes. China, the very pinnacle of human rights. What happened to government staying out of a ladies' uterus? *snerk*
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."
So does this taxation end at age 18, or do we take over our own payments as adults? Talk about paying for the sins of the father... And as our technology improves, do we get a reduced rate? A refund? Or must we still pay this tax on the very air we breathe?
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.
Amen, sister! Just for giggles, I calculated our own family of five's 'carbon footprint', and it is literally tons less than the average family of four.
Go figure. Anyone want to buy my extra tonnage?
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.
Um... Because it is fascist and inherently evil?
Tell me the global warming crowd aren't commies in green clothing!