A modest proposal
 

There comes a point when one must admit they were wrong. For almost two decades I have vainly sought to educate people to what I thought was bad science in the theory of human caused global warming. I felt the past trends, the obvious uncertainty of data, the unknown variables and the unsupported models were enough to be skeptical, but I was wrong. As thousands of wealthy, and obviously smarter, people than I fly to Bali in their private jets in order to discuss how people like me can reduce our carbon foot prints it dawned on me. My degrees, my post graduate studies, my life long quest mean nothing compared to the vast popular knowledge that has assembled, in season, I, was wrong.

It is undeniable that humans are causing global warming, I know this know because I've been told I can't deny it. While such an error does embarrass me, it is time I try to fight the damage my misguided crusade has caused and make the planet greener, lest we all perish in some undefined but terrible way in the near future, be it freezing, or drowning, or starvation, we aren't sure, but its going to be my fault.

So I started to think, what ELSE can we do. What has been overlooked while the fiery specter of global warming descends upon us, and suddenly it dawned on me. It was so clear I wondered how I missed it all these years, but its the solution to the cause de'jour of only ten years ago before the horror of warmth spread its glow upon us.

I shall get to it momentarily.

Part of the solution to global warming is, as I am told by the expert politicians, is selling carbon credits. It seems there are those who COULD make more of the odious environmental poison carbon dioxide, but for good reason do not. These peoples are able to sell what they didn't use to others who do use it so as to keep the system from getting worse. Its amazing, but by passing money from one nation to another there is less of the foul carbon in the atmosphere. The problem solves itself.

Well as the populations of the Western Nations shrink, I saw what is perhaps more precious than the gold which is unused carbon emissions. The infertile wombs of our women folk. The population of the world is dangerously expanding, at least so I've been told many times by the fine and throughly researched publications that make up this lands news, and something must be done to curb this growing carbon footprint. We have created vast baby sinks in the west, with our birth control and smaller families. By selling these unused but fully potential babies to nations which are overproducing young, we shall defeat this problem. Every unfilled womb is now a treasure, every empty crib a blessing.

Save the world, save your nation, just so no to procreation!

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

I thought we were supposed to eat the babies?

Looks like I have some 'splaining to do...

Is Australia seriously considering such a measure? I guess that is their prerogative, but I would not support such a measure in the United States.

There is no denying the pressures that our population puts on the resources to sustain it, but the answer is not artificial limits on procreation. I am not blind to the environmental and resource issues involved in population growth, but I am confident that technological and social improvements are achievable to address the issues.

This is one of ustwo's favorite sources of news. It's just a bit less obvious than Murdock's US Fox News. With all of the obvious effort in producing the OP, I wonder why the effort was wasted in this forum? I love satire, and like Comedy Central, I would prefer to see it where it belongs.

Perhaps you can nominate yourself for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2008!

Two suggestions - change your name to Dr U2 and you might mistakenly get Bono supporters who dont know any better, and drop the "men in black" look and loosen up!

Absolutely hilarious OP.

...

Merit badges are cool but they don't elevate anybody to Jesus status.

Not even Jesus, really.

...

Baby tax? How about that "retroactive age tax" thing? I like that one.

http://www.vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm

I don't know if I agree with this, but it does intrigue me.

Passive aggressive much?

I don't think this should be in Tilted Politics... especially not the way the topic was framed.

Friends, lest yet get the wrong impression for my crusade.

I had the flash of inspiration for this idea prior to the fine Australian initiative. Perhaps it is true what they say that the times make the man, and across this globe another kindred spirit saw the problem for what it was, even if he didn't have my elegant solution. While his would impose a tax on the people of his own land, mine would reap substantial rewards from others. Perhaps that is the difference between a socialist and a conservative in these times I seek new ways to bring wealth to our citizens for their valiant non-efforts, while they seek to punish those who achieve.

edit

I think the logic is solid.
If it can work for one problem, why not another.

First, I'd like to point out how I enjoyed the OP. Good work on the satire. If we saw more of this in Tilted Politics, it would be a more interesting place.

I'm not sure how I feel about this tax on parenthood, but it's interesting to see that China isn't the only one with the will to do something like it.

Bottom line: The conflicting forces here are individual freedom and government's concerns over scarce resources.

I'm going to wait and see how this thread pans out.

A child tax is a great idea. I have always been in favor of it. Too many irresponsible and financially incapable people have kids when they shouldn't or can't. I think it would go a long way in resolving our social issues. The revers also has to occur. Tax breaks or incentives for adoption.

The problem with a child tax is that it would make it even more difficult for low-income families. In a sense, a child tax is a mode of eugenics. Why not tax food and privatize water while we're at it?

That's exactly the point though. If they can't afford to have children, then they shouldn't. I see it as a tool of accountability, not as a punitive measure.

I can't afford to buy a house (really) so I wisely did not fall for the sub-prime lures. As a result, I am financially stable and not looking at a foreclosure. If
I can't afford something, then I don't buy it. The problem with our memememe society is that everyone feels entitled and are financially irresponsible. I sacrificed and deferred gratification to be successful.

So since I can't afford to have kids, I won't. But I think many people don't think things through and then start having kids and then we have to pick up the tab. The situation the deteriorates.

I don't think taxing food is such a great idea but we already do here in California. Water is also privatized I believe. It is absolutely crazy here. My water bill is twice as much as all my other bills combined. And I don't even use much water (it's socialized privatized monopolized water). Anyways, I don't think it's relevant to a child tax though.

So making it more expensive through taxation is a solution? For what? Unless the tax money would be used for child care, I'm not sure what the purpose would be other than population control that would empower the wealthy and marginalize the poor.

I've been a proponent of this for years.

Well, the idea is that, if you knew you had to pay a tax for having a child, maybe you would give it more thought. Instead of currently, where people have more kids so they can get more money from the government. I would like to correct this. I don't see it as population control but rather, more like fiscal responsibility. Like living within your means.

As for the tax to go to child care, nah, not really. I don't think there is a national childcare system here. I don't see it as empowering the wealthy, it doesn't have much to do with them. They already have a low birth rate even though they can afford to have more children.

But if you throw in a tax incentive to adopt or foster, then that could be a good balancer.

The other alternatives, forced abortion, one-child etc I am not in favor of (to put it politely).

Interestingly I had this conversation with a European friend of mine.

My contention was that an abortion or miscarriage would be the same as an empty womb completely as the end result was the same.

Hers was a bit different and perhaps superior.

In the case of an abortion, there is an active desire to help the planet, as such this should be worth more than someone who never has a child in the first place. It is an excellent way to award and encourage this practice, not having a child is just passive and might be coincidental, while abortion is a positive step to thwart this impending catastrophe. Her recommended carbon credit would be an additional 3/5ths of a child, so an abortion would be worth 3/5ths more.

Using the same logic a miscarriage would mean that one was irresponsibility trying to have a child, and it was only lucky happenstance that this desire was not achieved. She thought it would be ludicrous to reward such behavior, and recommended an infertility pay out of only 3/5ths what one who never conceived that year in the first place would achieve.

I applauded her logic but my fear was that it would be very hard to monitor who in fact had an abortion or who had a miscarriage. Might not those who miscarry pretend to have never conceived at all in order to receive full payment?

She was a bit puzzled by this and could not understand how this would be an issue. I suppose this sort of cultural ignorance is expected and we had a good laugh after we determined our point of ignorance, which was the archaic health care system we have had imposed upon us in the United States. While she assumed the government would have full records of ones health at their disposal, I assumed that many in the system would be seeing outside 'private' doctors, only interested in lining their pockets and not interested in sacrifice for the common good. It should be simple enough to rectify this problem in the coming years with a more enlightened administration forthcoming, and I withdrew my objections to her solution.

According to Stats Canada, in 2005, around 12% of children were living in low-income families (avg. income of $22,800). The average income of two-parent families with children (with two or more earners) was $83,900. For lone-parent families, it was $35,900. So you tell me who this tax will hurt the most. The poorest of people only have 12% of the children as it is.

If anything, tax after one or two children only. Otherwise, this is eugenics. It encourages a privilege of having children to those with the money to afford a tax that may or may not go into caring for children. If you want to fight carbon emissions, you'd be better off increasing the taxes on all the crap that richer people buy. Why further marginalize the poor?

I'd support such an initiative.

edit

I am definitely not in favor of eugenics. It is not my intention to "hurt" low income families, rather to force an accounting of sorts. In other words, theoretically, it would be wise to wait until one had financial means before bringing a child into the world. I think it would be better for all involved. Once a couple was financially stable, they could better provide for their child instead of having lots of children in poverty which is not good for the child (talking in general terms to illustrate the concept). Incidentally, child poverty is actually still a problem in the US. I guess I am trying to encourage better family planning and management.

Your tax after one or two kids is a great idea actually, it seems more "equitable" which is nice. But my main concern was one of affordability. To me it is irresponsible and unconscionable to have kids when you can't afford to have them.

I appreciate your data from Canada, but I assumed we were talking about the US. I think we have different population pressures.

The funny thing is Baraka, I had totally forgotten this thread is about carbon emissions! We have drifted way off course here LOL

Are you aware Sir that the carbon emissions used to raise one child from infancy to age 12 is the equivalent to burning down 10 acres of old growth forest?

No Sir, you are on the right track, please continue your line of inquiry.

I think you're on the right track.

Are you aware that every person currently living is directly responsible for daily emissions of methane, a known greenhouse gas? Indeed, the regular customers of establishments such as Taco Bell have been consistently shown to be truly prolific methane producers. This is happening every day all over the world.

Something should be done about this. I would suggest a levy system on such production in addition to your proposed womb credits. Failing that, I think an outright ban would be appropriate. In the meantime I think we should all look first to ourselves in reducing these deadly emissions. Do your part to save the world.

Men, are quite obviously the source of all the worlds suffering, as the general nature of most men is to be belligerent and covetous. Sometimes I lament that I was born into the gender with such tendencies.

While permanently sterilizing oneself as a male is the socially responsible thing to do, males do not have the same inherent value as a female in the reduction of hungry carbon spewing mouths in the future. The females are the limiting factor in the equation as one male may have multiple spawn in the same period that a woman could have but one.

As such males will receive a one time tax credit as recognition of their effort, but only one time.

Blame men? Yeah, I got a cruiser motorcycle. It emits lots of carbon dioxide. And noise. And can set off the car alarm if I'm close enough to your Prius.

edit

Sir, have you not comprehended anything I posted? Your proposed action is socially irresponsible and the very root cause of the problem at hand. You are focusing only on yourself and your own problems and not thinking of the far more important goal of what is good for the planet. I perhaps should not respond to this ridiculous inquiry now as I am both flabbergasted and shaking with righteous anger that you would even contemplate such thing.

Do you have any idea of the ecological damage you would cause by blowing yourself up? There are far more ecologically friendly methods of suicide which are not only carbon neutral but beneficial to the earth as a whole. Instead you choose to use a method which in itself will produce noxious gases, but will also likely cause secondary fires releasing more atmospheric poisons!

So while I can condone your action in general I must condemn your method as horribly irresponsible.

So I guess carbon monoxide poisoning in the garage is out too?

edit

I think suicide by electric wood chipper would be best.. The remnants can be sprinkled on woodland areas in need of revitalization. Green all the way!

Undoubtedly powered by a coal plant somewhere! I fail to understand why people can not think of the big picture and the common good. Its all interconnected!

You are correct... maybe we can look to our brothers in the middle east.. and while their civilization may be primitive compared to ours in many ways, they are much more enlightened in others. I hear they have all natural ways of dispatching human life, using only what they find on the ground.

I'm a horrible creature: modern man. I can't kill myself with technology because it'll hurt the environment. Well, there's always gravity! Jumping is still free and very green.

I wanted to EAT the babies, not tax them.

They are tender and delicious, especially when slow-roasted over an open flame.

In regard to the OP:

I have no problem with a baby tax, especially in the United States, provided it goes to pay for government programs for kids, like Head Start, free lunch, and healthcare for kids. It might make people think twice about actually having kids, plus it would give us a funding source for these important programs. A baby tax is no guarantee that people are going to be good parents or worthy of raising children, or that the economic situation of the family will stay the same, and thus we must still make sure there is a safety net for kids.

Hooray Johnathan Swift!!