Many demonstrators at a climate change march in California agreed with the idea of having women sign a pledge to not have children as an action step to help “save the planet.”
The idea was posed by conservative nonprofit thinktank PragerU, which brought up the absurd proposal to see if today’s global warming alarmists would jump on board an initiative to keep women from having children to reduce the world’s population and curb pollution.
Extreme measures for questionable goal
Despite much research indicating that the climate warms and cools due to the Sun’s cycles – and not primarily from manmade pollutants – today’s environmentalists are more than willing to have a child-free society to try and have the Earth drop a couple degrees, believing it will laughably save polar bears from drowning and keep beachfront property and low-lying islands from disappearing due to rising sea levels caused by melting icecaps … which are actually growing, by the way …
“PragerU's Will Witt visited a climate change march in Los Angeles and discussed the notion of pledging to stop having children until climate change is fixed,” TheBlaze reported. “Witt approached people on the street and presented the outrageous option.”
Coined as a climate change “denier” or “skeptic” by the green left, Witt was able to get many demonstrators on board with the extremist idea of coaxing women to commit to giving up their right to procreate and raise a family.
"Children are destroying the environment,” Witt said to those on the streets at the rally as a setup for his questioning. “They're coming into this world and eating food and driving cars and using emissions, so we are asking people to pledge to stop having children until climate change is solved."
Bypassing children to save the polar bears?
After being approached with the proposal, various responses and opinions were offered, which were described by TheBlaze’s Sarah Taylor as ranging anywhere from “appreciation to outright mania.”
“I think this is a big deal, so I'm glad you guys are doing this,” one grateful green activist told Witt, according to TheBlaze.
Another climate change advocate was in agreement that a woman’s innate desire to have children is an egotistical, self-centered sin – in the ultra-environmentalists’ worldview.
“As a woman to hear that – that you shouldn't breed, because it's natural … but I kind of agree with it in some ways,” a female attendee answered. “It's selfish to have kids in a way.”
Other “solutions” to keep the Earth from burning up were offered.
“Yesterday, I delivered a vegan baby! … A sustainable baby!” one demonstrator exclaimed – as if an apology or justification for choosing to have a child.
Diverting from the rest of the field, one participant felt demeaned by the thought of being asked to not have children.
“That's disrespectful to a woman,” one climate change advocate replied – not fully on board with wholeheartedly committing to the green agenda. “I feel disrespected by it.”
But others were more devoted to the call for an ultra-green lifestyle …
“We don't need regulations on abortions,” another at the march argued. “We need regulations on emissions.”
One rally demonstrator asserted that posterity not embracing the climate change agenda is not wanted – considered a liability to the Earth – and not an asset … like clear-minded and thoughtful environmentalists.
“We don't need any more unmindful children on the planet,” a committed march supporter asserted. “I think we need conscious children.”
Forget kids and get out your wallet
One of today’s biggest go-green activists – even upstaging former Vice President Al Gore – is Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), whose proposed $10-trillion Green New Deal would fleece the world to pad the pocketbooks of those behind the green agenda – which many climate change skeptics say would put more green in wallets than in forests.
AOC admitted that $10 trillion is a lot of money to get the world tuned in to her green agenda, but to sell her policy, she argued that one cannot put a price tag on investing in the Earth’s survival from soon-impending doom.
“I think we really need to get to $10 trillion to have a shot,” the vocal environmental activist told The Hill. “I know it’s a ton."
Essentially, AOC says she believes the planet will cease to exist as we know it unless people invest $10 trillion – now.
"I don’t think anyone wants to spend that amount of money – it’s not a fun number to say,” Ocasio-Cortez conceded. “I’m not excited to say we need to spend $10 trillion on climate, but ... it’s just the fact of the scenario.”
As the 2020 election nears, the 29-year-old ultra-left Democrat is rallying to get presidential candidates to get on board with her bankruptcy-inducing plan.
“Ocasio-Cortez – who helped popularize a set of principles known as the Green New Deal – said that of all the climate plans from the Democratic presidential candidates, she was most supportive of proposals from Gov. Jay Inslee (Wash.), which surpassed $5 trillion, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), which included a $2 trillion green manufacturing element,” The Hill reported. “She said she was also encouraged that 2020 Democratic front-runner Joe Biden had put out a $5 trillion climate plan – though she criticized the former vice president's proposal for having less-ambitious goals and timelines than others.”
Responding to arguments from conservatives, moderates and liberals alike – that her exorbitant plan is excessive and overpriced – the rookie Congresswoman maintains that funding her Green New Deal price tag is the only way to avoid cataclysmic environmental disaster.
“I think the entire field of climate plans still needs to be pushed,” AOC stressed. “I think it just needs to be pushed in terms of the scientific scale – that is scientifically supported in what we need to solve this problem. It’s not popular, it’s not politically popular. People are going to call it unrealistic, and I just don’t think people understand how bad the problem is.”
Even greener than $10 trillion?
AOC’s new climate plan assumes the unproven claim that manmade pollution is quickly heating the Earth to catastrophic levels, and she is pushing this unsubstantiated – and widely debunked claim – as fact, giving deadlines for governments to abide by if the Earth is to evade imminent destruction.
“The Green New Deal removes all debate, asserting that ‘human activity is the dominant cause of observed climate change over the past century,’” Breitbart News informed. “It poses climate change as a ‘direct threat’ to national security and calls to eliminate ‘pollution and greenhouse gas emissions’ – and ultimately fossil fuels – by 2030.”
And it turns out that to implement AOC’s Green New Deal, nearly 10 times the amount she is asking for will be required.
“According to an analysis conducted by the conservative nonprofit American Action Forum (AAF), the ambitious plan could cost the U.S. up to $93 trillion in the next 10 years alone,” Breitbart’s Hannah Bleau pointed out. “The bulk of that cost would come from implementing the plan’s big government economic agenda.”
More accurate and researched figures than what Ocasio-Cortez presented were provided – amounts that dwarf her declared $10 trillion price tag.
“AAF wrote that the Green New Deal figure includes between $8.3 trillion and $12.3 trillion to meet the climate activists’ plan to eliminate carbon emissions from the power and transportation sector, and $42.8 and $80.6 trillion for its economic agenda, which will provide jobs and health care for every American,” Bleau noted.
AOC’s apparent favorite for the 2020 White House run against the climate change skeptic President Donald Trump is from the Evergreen State, while she sees the running mate of former President Barack Obama as not aggressive enough on climate change.
“Recently, Ocasio-Cortez issued glowing praise to Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s (D) plan to combat climate change, calling it the ‘gold standard,’” Bleau added. “He’s calling for 100 percent renewable energy by 2035. Former Vice President Joe Biden’s (D) plan calls for $5 trillion in spending and aims to reach net-zero carbon by 2050.”
She argues that the Earth does not have enough time wait for Biden’s environmental measures to achieve their goal in 30 years.
“Scientifically, anything that is less than helping us cut carbon emissions in half by 2030 is going to be too late,” Ocasio-Cortex impressed, according to Breitbart.