Environmentalist claimed having 'a single child' was right decision because of climate change

[Vambo]

Media

Mother frets her own daughter is 'bad for the earth' in WaPo analysis piece

A Washington Post analysis piece promoted climate guilt over having children, telling the story of one mother who "couldn’t shake the feeling that, by giving birth, she might be doing something bad for the earth." 

Meera Sanghani-Jorgensen, a mother of one 13-year-old daughter, claimed she "felt weighed down by the consumption of her children before they were even born" in a story headlined, "Should you not have kids because of climate change? It’s complicated."

The article also recounted Sanghani-Jorgensen’s carbon arithmetic on the cost of her daughter’s birth. "She thought about the diapers, the party favors, the toys, and the billions of tons of carbon emissions warming the planet every year." 

As a result, she and her husband "decided that having a child — a single child — could fulfill their desires without putting undue burden on an overheating world."

ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIVIST MEGHAN MARKLE SEEN BOARDING PRIVATE JET FOLLOWING FEMALE EMPOWERMENT EVENT

Marchers participate in a climate change awareness rally, in Denver, Saturday, April 29, 2017. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley)

But Sanghani-Jorgensen, as the Post said, "is not alone" in accepting that narrative on climate change. A generation of people living in the U.S. and other rich countries have become increasingly "preoccupied with how having children may worsen the world’s rapid warming," the piece declared. 

Multiple media outlets have also encouraged hopeful parents to rethink having children with headlines like this one from NBC News: "Science proves kids are bad for the earth." Or as The New York Times asked in 2021: "To Breed or Not to Breed?" 

'CLIMATE RACISM' HURTING MINORITIES, TAXPAYER-FUNDED OUTLET CLAIMS: ‘SO IMPORTANT TO HEAR THAT’

Young protesters during the climate change protest in Cambridge, England, Friday Nov. 29, 2019. (Joe Giddens/PA via AP)

But instead of recounting the benefits of children, the piece portrayed children as a "small carbon bomb waiting to go off," adding that there are "no doubt, environmental consequences of having children." 

The article also argued that "having one fewer child" is a serious question to consider, especially since "climate change needs to be addressed within the next few decades." 

The question of having children or not became a moral one: "Should you still have kids if they will grow up with smoke-filled summers and steadily rising sea-levels? Should you have kids if the developed, Western world will suffer minimal losses but developing countries will suffer hugely?"
 

[FairHooker11]

and yet with aborted children let alone this madness regarding climate change and its fight against having more children,

they* will be content with cutting off thier noses in spite of the faces when they realize that in those HUGE numbers of lost 

lives - were some of the worlds (someday) best and brightest minds to find solutions through innovation and new tech to the problems at hand.

*

 

[Westside Steve]

Not to worry, the people living in third world shitholes will continue to breed like flies. Unfortunately without a need for a large family to run the farm here in America; well let's just save it I think we've seen the last generation to work for a living. Vaya con Dios America. 

WSS