Oh no no no, its european people who have been slated to go first. You know, the ones who generally care most about the environment and pollute the least. I'm sure our Hispanislamic Negralotto successors will be the environmental stewards our planet needs -- that is, after the Chinese tame/enslave them and force them to ackrite.I agree, Climate Scientists. People are, by and large, the most emitting factors, and yes I think we need better population control.
So: when do we genocide China and India? That's like ~35-36% of the world's population right there.
"full gender equity"Here's the six policy goals from the study:
- Get away from fossil fuels in favor of cleaner energy, including wealthier nations helping to subsidize the costs of poorer nations in transitioning away from fossil fuels. They do mention nuclear as an acceptable energy source.
- Reduce pollutants, including methane, black carbon (soot), and hydrofluorocarbons. Okay.
- Protect and restore Earth's ecosystems, and curtail biodiversity loss. Makes sense, since forests, coral reefs, and other such ecosystems reduce atmospheric CO2.
- Reduce the global consumption of animal products and switch to more plant-based diets. Good luck with that one.
- End strip mining and overexploitation of ecosystems. Okay, but then they make this claim: "Our goals need to shift from GDP growth and the pursuit of affluence toward sustaining ecosystems and improving human well-being by prioritizing basic needs and reducing inequality." Not holding my breath there.
- Stabilize the rate of human population increase, or even better, gradually reduce it. This would be accomplished by strengthening human rights, including "family-planning services available to all people, remove barriers to their access and achieve full gender equity, including primary and secondary education as a global norm for all, especially girls and young women." Huh?
Nothing particularly new, to be honest. They still haven't learned that the wealthy and powerful are unwilling to fall on their swords to help third-world nations.
How is that helping? That increases the number of people in the workforce significantly, yes? Mother will be working, and they'll be employing daycare. Is that counterproductive towards those goals? Is a nuclear family the greenest option?