Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Should australia move from baby bonuses to baby taxes ?

Expand Messages
  • edwardxderwent
    it would seem in the face of our climate change crisis that the biblical command to go forth and multiply , is just about the worst possible thing to do if we
    Message 1 of 1 , Dec 9, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      it would seem in the face of our climate change crisis that the
      biblical command to "go forth and multiply", is just about the worst
      possible thing to do if we val;ue the welfare of the next generation.

      a western australian professor suggests a tax on babies instead of a
      baby bonus as is presently paid in australia.

      very dumb and short-sighted governments continue to offer payments to
      their citizens to have babies, when what this earth needs is LESS
      babies, to save the planet and human life from short sighted
      procreators, who want to rob their kids of a good future.

      from the adelaide advertiser ( a rupert murdoch owned newspaper )


      Baby tax 'to save planet'

      December 10, 2007 01:15am


      A WEST Australian medical expert wants families to pay a $5000-plus
      "baby levy" at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.

      Writing in today's Medical Journal of Australia, Associate Professor
      Barry Walters said every couple with more than two children should be
      taxed to pay for enough trees to offset the carbon emissions generated
      over each child's lifetime.

      Professor Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine
      at the University of Western Australia and the King Edward Memorial
      Hospital in Perth, called for condoms and "greenhouse-friendly"
      services such as sterilisation procedures to earn carbon credits.

      And he implied the Federal Government should ditch the $4133 baby
      bonus and consider population controls like those in China and India.

      Professor Walters said the average annual carbon dioxide emission by
      an Australian individual was about 17 metric tons, including energy use.

      "Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of
      greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by
      breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of
      our society," he wrote.

      "Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and rewarding
      greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour, a 'baby levy' in the form of a carbon
      tax should apply, in line with the 'polluter pays' principle."

      Australian Family Association*** spokeswoman Angela Conway said it was
      ridiculous to blame babies for global warming.

      "I think self-important professors with silly ideas should have to pay
      carbon tax for all the hot air they create," she said. "There's masses
      of evidence to say that child-rich families have much lower resource
      consumption per head than other styles of households.

      But the plan won praise from high-profile doctor Garry Egger. "One
      must wonder why population control . . . is spoken of today only in
      whispers," he wrote in an MJA response article.

      *** note: the australian family association is a christian front
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.