Reality Check 101

           Oregon State University recently gave aggressive environmentalism and manmade global warming enthusiasts another reason to elevate the preservation of creation above the survival of  humanity.

            In their study, “Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals”, Paul Murtaugh and Michael Schlax have concluded, “A person’s reproductive choices must be considered along with [their] day-to-day activities when assessing [their] ultimate impact on the global environment.”

            To be fair, there has been no published quote from the study, which overtly questions human survival.  The dangers lie instead in the applications and assumptions of the research.

            The authors’ most basic assumption is that individuals are responsible for the carbon emissions of their unborn descendents.  This alone is an ethical minefield.  It is impossible to control those who do not yet exist.  The only possible solution is to, as the Optimum Population Trust (OPT) has put it, “forgo” them.  The standard for moral reproductive behavior becomes service to the earth, rather than honor to God’s design for marriage and sexuality.

            Murtaugh and Schlax claim that the environmental impact of each child is twenty times more important than any other environmental practice.  Because of this, having two children would destroy all other “green” efforts of the mother.  As Albert Mohler observed, “Human beings cannot be reduced to [the researchers’] ‘carbon legacy’ and the gift of children must never be seen as an assault upon the earth”.

            The timing for publishing “Legacies” could not have been better for environmental and climate change alarmism.  Already the OPT has called for the December climate talks in Copenhagen to link family planning programs to climate change funding.  OPT is also promoting what it calls “contraction and convergence” (C&C).  C&C applies a cap and trade scheme to human beings.

            The goal of C&C is to achieve a worldwide fertility rate of 1.0.  Since 2.1 is the replacement rate for any population, the intent and probable results of such a plan is clear, self-extinction in favor of environmental preservation.  Here again, the crown of  God’s creation, people, become the servants of creation, another shift to upside-down standards of environmental stewardship.

           Michigan and America could increasingly feel the impact of this when we can least afford it.  The Heritage Center has analyzed the recently passed Waxman-Markey cap and trade energy bill.  The Center found that if the legislation were to become law, the economic results between 2010 and 2030 could be crippling.  Above and beyond baseline predictions, gasoline prices would rise by another 58 percent, natural gas prices would rise another 55 percent and electricity by another 90 percent.  Aggregate GDP losses would reach $9.4 trillion with a loss of 2.5 million jobs. 

            The ruling party inWashingtonis aware of these potential consequences, yet they have chosen to favor ideology through regulation at the expense of their constituents’ welfare. 

            Liberal leaders are so convinced of their right to act that besides legislation efforts, they are moving to accomplish their ends through administrative regulation.  By July 30, 2008, the EPA had already published an 18,000 page “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” (ANPR).  If ANPR were fully implemented, the EPA would regulate carbon dioxide (a non-pollutant) as a pollutant.  This massive power shift from the private sector to a federal bureaucracy would target anything or anyone who uses energy, both mobile and immobile.

            Scientific consensus for manmade climate change is falling apart at the seams but politicians and activists do not seem as worried about science as they are about forcing a topsy-turvy environmental ethic on Americans.  As with so many other “crises” in the last eight months, it is time to slow down.