Climate kook goes after the children

 Fox News:

A few days ago, Shannon Osaka, the "Climate zeitgeist reporter" at the Washington Post wrote a piece exploring the idea that having children is unethical as kids are bad for the climate. She doesn’t mean that kids are loud or messy, in which case I would have agreed they are bad for the environment, but that they do too much breathing and living, using resources and causing climate destruction for those of us lucky to have already been born.

Osaka quotes Travis Rieder, a "bioethicist" at Johns Hopkins University who wrote his own 2017 piece about how environmentally irresponsible it is to have children. Rieder wrote "Having a child imposes high emissions on the world, while the parents get the benefit. So like with any high-cost luxury, we should limit our indulgence."

Rieder, of course, has a child. He didn’t decide not to have any children but simply to "limit" his "indulgence" as if kids are a naughty chocolate bar before dinner.
...

Overall this line of thinking continues to be an attack on the idea of children and family. It’s part and parcel of the environmental movement that we need to absolutely uproot all the ideas that have held civilization together so far.

Just as the "Green New Deal" requires re-outfitting every single building in the country to fit a new environmental model with, again, slim evidence it will do any good at all, so too does this idea of limiting future children "for the planet" really just mean a rearrangement of the family.
...

The Climate Kooks have been serially wrong about their predictions of gloom and doom for decades.  Al Gore once predicted that the poles would probably be ice-free by about 2013.  Here we are 10 years after that date and they are still iced over.  It turns out that we do not have the ability to warm the planet that much outside of our living spaces.