Australians: could this be the stupidest idea ever?

Question

An Australian professor has suggested we pay a $5000 levy to offset the carbon emissions of your child!

yeah so you get the $4133 baby bonus from the government and then you pay back $5000 of it to offset your children's umm smells. actually they have even suggested

it seems that children are a problem, like a dog you have to clean up after, a commodity you pay for rather than love. a deadly chemical plant you have to shut down. What a load! anyone seen "Children of Men"? this is where we are headed folks. Population control will be the next big thing.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22896334-2,00.html

Answer 1

It's better than trying to give kangaroo stomachs to cows and sheep to fight global warming.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22879806-29277,00.html

Answer 2

I'm not Australian but I do know about carbon emissions and some of the ideas put forward to reduce and offset them.

Imposing a levy doesn't seem to be a well thought out idea and I'm not sure where the idea came from (can you add a link?). It appears to start from the premise that humans are the problem and that each person is equally responsible for contributing to global warming. It's also an approach treating the symptoms and not the cause.

Rudd made it very clear during his election campaign that he was all in favour of tackling climate change and placed the environment firmly on the government aggenda. I would have thought a better approach would be to follow that of many countries around the world and address the underlying problems. Here in the UK for example, the government seem likely to announce plans to massively expand power generation from renewable sources, so much so that by 2020 all homes will be powered by wind generated power.

Implemented on such a scale there is undoubtedly a huge capital outlay but in time this will be more than offset by the reduced cost of electricity production. Rather than penalising people the system is financially beneficial and of course, is better for the environment.

- - - - - - - - - -

Population control isn't necessarily the answer. The problem isn't specifically the number of people but what the people do.

Each of us produced carbon dioxide through respiration and methane through passing wind, the total we produce is less than the amount of emissions that can be handled by natural cycles. If people simply existed and didn't do anything there wouldn't be a problem. It's when we start using fossil fuels, implement intensive agricultural practices, clear fell forests etc that the problems arise - all of thse things have alternative solutions, if we were to adopt the alternatives then the population of the planet could double and it wouldn't have an effect on global warming.

Answer 3

WOW. Australia is really trying to get down CO2 emissions. They've only been the biggest CO2 contribute for two minutes and they have already begun ways to reduce emissions. I kind of wish the USA would do something about there CO2 emissions.

And yes i have seen "Children of Men" and read the book. I do agree with you that population control could be a problem. there are so many books with the plot following the population control story.

Answer 4

why not offset the birth of children somewhere else?

After all Australians are not the problem, their birth rate is rather low.

Why not agree ton invest in more birth control for the third world where birth can be avoided at lower costs???

You talk about using market instruments to fight CO2 instruments? I RATIONALIZE THEM !!!! :-)

Actually I would like to see birth control in third world countries as "clean development mechanism"

Answer 5

Why dint they pay us not to have kids.

Answer 6

welcome to the real world
yes it is but they need money otherwise they go on a rampage

Answer 7

its already happening here
its called ABORTION on DEMAND