You know, I was told this would happen in a 2007 meeting with a British investment broker on a junket through Western Canada; personal emissions footprints.
Now in Great Britain (at least) a study has been carried out to quantify human, gaseous emissions. Test methodology and results were published in the PLOS ONE science journal in December of 2023 and the value of human life has just been quantified.
A few words from the study;
“Exhaled human breath can contain small, elevated concentrations of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which contribute to global warming. These emissions from humans are not well understood and are rarely quantified in global greenhouse gas inventories. This study investigated emissions of CH4 and N2O in human breath from 104 volunteers in the UK population, to better understand what drives these emissions and to quantify national-scale estimates.
We estimate a total emission of 1.04 (0.86–1.40) Gg of CH4 and 0.069 (0.066–0.072) Gg of N2O in human breath annually in the UK, the equivalent of 53.9 (47.8–60.0) Gg of CO2. In terms of magnitude, these values are approximately 0.05% and 0.1% of the total emissions of CH4 and N2O reported in the UK national greenhouse gas inventories.”
--
A Malthusian Cult
Everything else that British broker disclosed to our meeting sixteen years ago has come true so far; carbon valuation, carbon economy, reduction of fossil fuel use in energy and agriculture plus the quantification (and soon to be regulation) of personal energy consumption and emissions, all in the name of a climate emergency.
What he did not tell me was how zealous the climate emergency believers would be, or to what extent they would go to meet their goals of Zero Carbon.
In November of 2023, Augusto Zimmermann, Professor and Head of Law at Sheridan Institute of Higher Education in Australia wrote a short article which highlights this zealotry and wonders where exactly it will lead. Professor Zimmermann identifies the climate emergency believers as a religion and the observations he makes from this angle are quite disturbing. Here is a sample (full article linked below);
“History teaches us that some ancient civilisations killed their children to change the weather. They used to practice child sacrifice to appease their gods in an attempt to court their good graces. Those primitive peoples believed that through human sacrifice, the forces of nature could be coerced in their favour. For example, one of the ways the Aztecs honoured their gods was by killing people in a field with arrows so that their blood might fertilise the land.
The modern environmentalist movement is often compared to a religion. It certainly thinks that humans can change the weather, and it includes a vision of sin and repentance – damnation and salvation.
Above and beyond the presence of actual neo-pagans and Gaia worshippers in its ranks, the environmentalist movement itself is displaying characteristics of a nature-worshipping cult – and a remarkably anti-human one at that. Many of its supporters effectively believe that the world has a cancer, and that cancer is called the human race.”
Bad Case Of Humans (2 minute video) Link:
--
Too Damn Many Of You
Great Britain has been the Vatican of global climate worship for many years; my British investment broker from 2007 being a good example. So intent is the Royal family on fighting climate change that in 2009 they made public their belief that human reproduction must be reduced to meet carbon reduction goals.
In January of 2009 Jonathon Porritt, who chaired the British government’s Sustainable Development Commission, said that curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. It is his strong recommendation that political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of environmental harm caused by an expanding population.
“I am unapologetic about asking people to connect up their own responsibility for their total environmental footprint and how they decide to procreate and how many children they think are appropriate,” Porritt said.
“I think we will work our way towards a position that says that having more than two children is irresponsible. It is the ghost at the table. We have all these big issues that everybody is looking at and then you don’t really hear anyone say the “p” word.”
--
Mental Health & Child Sacrifice
So much fear has been generated by government and media claims of pending doom that women are using contraception and abortion to limit their impact on climate. Imagine sacrificing (aborting) your child because, as one woman describes her decision to abort;
“Having children is selfish … Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees, and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population.”
In 2017 the American Psychological Association doubled-down on that fear mongering with their publication of 'Mental Health and Our Changing Climate: Impacts, Implications, and Guidance'. It's seventy pages can be summed up by contributor Lise Van Susteren when she write that;
“Each day, our world devolves more quickly toward disruption from climate change. The news is coming at us from all sides— CO2 emissions climbing, record-high temperatures, oceans increasingly acidifying, coral reefs dying, ice sheets melting, failing nations, the massive displacement of people.
Those least responsible for the crisis will be hurt the most—the poor, the elderly, the disabled, the emotionally vulnerable. The psychological toll is becoming more apparent—but much is being overlooked.
I am seeing a growing number of climate Cassandras gripped by thoughts of future harm, suffering from pre-traumatic stress response (a before-the-fact version of classic PTSD) because they know the world has not heard the warnings forcefully enough.”
Lise Van Sustern need not worry because social media heard her warnings. In 2019 the news magazine Bloomberg interviewed Victoria Derbyshire on her creation of the newly formed 'BirthStike' movement, on Facebook.
Initially boasting a membership of 60 women and championed by Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the movement hopes to convince women that having a child means dooming that child, and every other child because it will contribute to climate change.
“Our planet is in a kind of collapse. The natural world is collapsing around us, and that’s actually happening right now,” Derbyshire fretted during her interview.
“And I’m so disappointed by the response by authorities to this crisis, and so freaked out by everything I’ve read that I’ve — I’ve basically last year I came to the decision that I couldn’t bring a child into that.”
(Imagine making family planning decisions based on what you are reading on social media... )
It appears to me that we are no longer being led to child sacrifice, we are already here; but we've been here before. As mentioned earlier in this post, the South American indigenous population of five hundred years ago sacrificed hundreds of children (and countless adults) trying to appease the weather-god(s).
Research shows the victims had their hearts cut out as a religious offering because the rulers of the day didn't understand how the cyclical changes in ocean surface temperature affected rainfall.
Our highly touted civilization of today is not so different when unborn children are pulled from their mother's wombs as a guilt offering to the leaders and influencers of society. It is a cruel fact that the most influential policy-makers know exactly how and why Earth's environment manifests cycles of temperature, humidity and composition; and it's not you or your cow.
Ancient South American rulers can be forgiven (somewhat) for their ignorance, but those today who would rather you and your children not exist, cannot be.
--
The Big Picture
This is a prayer to the world that you recognize the hubris in thinking that 8 billion humans, who make up just 0.0000000000007 percent of the total mass of this Earth are able to impact it, never-mind control it.
Children are priceless, life is priceless, talk is cheap, while this World is wider and deeper than you can possibly imagine. As Hamlet said, “There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
Something to ask yourself before deciding on any stand which you are asked (told) to take is; Would you spend your hard-earned money purchasing a product based on just the positive reviews? Or would you read the negatives to get a balanced perspective? Every choice should be so informed; especially that of your (our) future.
Thank you for reading!
Ted
Links:
Augusto Zimmermann Link: https://www.rt.com/news/587544-climate-change-cult-human-sacrifice/
PLSOne Link: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0295157
2009 Britain Link: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/02/fight_global_warming_get_an_ab.html
Mental Health Link : https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/03/mental-health-climate.pdf
BirthStrike Link : https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/04/birthstrikers-fear-global-warming-bloomberg-interview/
Thomas Malthus Link: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Thomas-Malthus
Heart-wrenching Image Credit: https://vk.com/@history_hannibal-zaglyanem-k-inkam-na-gulyanku