Tweet
Here is how Obama is going to force you to have an abortion. Typical of the Left, instead of just killing the baby directly, they LITERALLY want to TAX it to Death!!!!
Revkin is a New York Times REPORTER" "At the event, Revkin said: Well, some of the people have recently proposed: Well, should there be carbon credits for a family planning program in Africa let's say? Should that be monetized as a part of something that, you know, if you, if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward an accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn't there be a carbon value to that?
And I have even proposed recently, I can't remember if it's in the blog, but just think about this: Should--probably the single-most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the lights or driving a Prius, it's having fewer kids, having fewer children," said Revkin."
Here is how it works: You will be taxed, heavily, a "carbon tax" for every child after the first--year after year, hundreds if not thousands of dollar for the privilege of having a child that is "killing" the planet by breathing and living.
No forced abortions, have a second child and the family is taxed to death. Nice. "In a Sept. 19, 2009 blog entry, Are Condoms the Ultimate Green-Technology? Revkin cited an August 2009 study by the London School of Economics that highlighted having fewer children as a solution to diminishing our carbon footprint.
The study was sponsored by the British activist group Optimum Population Trust, which advocates reduced population growth."
These are sick people--now you know why the NY Times is bankrupt and losing readers. Would you buy a newspaper that promotes the idea of taxing families for having children? Maybe she just gave a bad joke?
More...
Revkin is a New York Times REPORTER" "At the event, Revkin said: Well, some of the people have recently proposed: Well, should there be carbon credits for a family planning program in Africa let's say? Should that be monetized as a part of something that, you know, if you, if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward an accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn't there be a carbon value to that?
And I have even proposed recently, I can't remember if it's in the blog, but just think about this: Should--probably the single-most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the lights or driving a Prius, it's having fewer kids, having fewer children," said Revkin."
Here is how it works: You will be taxed, heavily, a "carbon tax" for every child after the first--year after year, hundreds if not thousands of dollar for the privilege of having a child that is "killing" the planet by breathing and living.
No forced abortions, have a second child and the family is taxed to death. Nice. "In a Sept. 19, 2009 blog entry, Are Condoms the Ultimate Green-Technology? Revkin cited an August 2009 study by the London School of Economics that highlighted having fewer children as a solution to diminishing our carbon footprint.
The study was sponsored by the British activist group Optimum Population Trust, which advocates reduced population growth."
These are sick people--now you know why the NY Times is bankrupt and losing readers. Would you buy a newspaper that promotes the idea of taxing families for having children? Maybe she just gave a bad joke?
More...