IGM Global warming strategy

Inter-Galactic Memo
To: All Personnel
Fr: W. “I did my bit” Leavitt
Re: Global Warming Strategy
9-09-09 (Hey . . . that’s pretty cool!)


I ran across an interesting article at Telegraph.co.uk this evening. The London School of Economics has crunched the numbers, not to mention sanity as we know it, and concluded the following:
Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says.
In other words, having fewer kids will reduce emissions more efficiently than . . . well . . . reducing emissions other ways. This makes perfect sense to me. The logic is irrefutable; reduce the population and we will reduce the insidious, harmful, toxic greenhouse gasses, for which only humans are responsible. Oh wait, did I say toxic? I meant inert. Did I say harmful? I meant the gas all animals exhale as part of the natural cycle of life, and all plants inhale as part of that same process. And did I say insidious? I meant necessary, life-sustaining percentage of the atmosphere. (I realize this is a grossly oversimplified generalization. I’m taking a page from the environmental movement’s playbook.) But I’m sure we can work the kinks out of this simple, brilliant, straightforward plan. Besides, it’s even endorsed by the UN! Look here:

The report, Fewer Emitter, Lower Emissions, Less Cost, concludes that family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended.
That sounds like an endorsement, right? And since they brought it up, let’s talk about unintended consequences. Right now, according to every report I’ve seen in the last ten years, including the UN’s, approximately all of the First World is failing to have enough children to maintain its various cultures. This includes France, Germany, England, Spain, Italy, all of Scandinavia, and most other European countries, including the former Eastern Bloc. We aren’t even replacing our work force. The US is only holding things together because of our several million illegal but hard working, family-oriented aliens. The math is pretty simple. (And it really has to be for me to say that.) two parents need to have two children in order to replace the two parents when they die. And that only keeps things even. Accidents, disease, and Zombies still make the overall population drop. That’s why the magic number is 2.6 children. Lower than that and a culture cannot be maintained. It will be replaced by whomever is having 3 or more. Which has long been a secret plan of us Mormons, even before we started converting Central and South America, but now the Muslims have beaten us at our own game. They are averaging an astounding 8 kids per family worldwide. See? The math really is simple.
So, yeah, reducing the population by 40% will undoubtedly reduce greenhouse emissions, but it will destroy civilization as we know it as an “unintended consequence”, kind of like all those unintended pregnancies are responsible for global warming. Who knew?
Certain factions of amazingly gullible and irresponsible people, who seem to share a compulsion to join groups based on irrational ideas, have been trying to reduce the world’s population for several hundred years, all the way back to Thomas Malthus. They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now. It is not and has never been about over-population. It is about over-crowding, which mimics over-population.
I hardly need to mention that by now it’s pretty well established that global warming can neither be predicted, purposefully caused nor controlled, right? Which means that drastic reductions in population are not only stupid, but unnecessary and cultural suicide as well.
But hey, as long as we First Worlders are able to maintain our shallow, self-absorbed life styles, and get ours, it’s all good.