Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

Why this professor's climate-crisis solution is rankling Twitter: 'The worst thing you can do is have a child'

An academic is adding her voice to the rising chorus of climate-crisis alarm bells with a newly published manifesto that has been attracting widespread attention for its radical ideas — particularly “antinatalism,” or the end of reproduction as a way of phasing out of the human race.

“I mean, it’s a really basic idea: In terms of carbon footprint, the worst thing you can do is have a child,” Patricia MacCormack, a philosophy professor at Cambridge’s Anglia Ruskin University, tells Yahoo Lifestyle. “And it’s the one taboo that nobody wants to speak.”

MacCormack’s argument centers on overpopulation — if human beings cause climate change by creating greenhouse gases, then more humans mean more emissions. One study, for instance, found that that the “carbon legacy” of just one child creates 20 times more greenhouse gas than one can save by recycling, or driving an electric car. It’s something plenty of families have been taking into account for years — even Prince Harry, who said recently that he and Meghan Markle would have two children, “maximum,” for the sake of the planet, noting, “We are the one species on this planet that seems to think that this place belongs to us, and only us.”

It’s a controversial stance, however, and MacCormack says that since the release of her book, The Ahuman Manifesto, the teacher, researcher and “old-school goth” London DJ has received “hate mail, death threats, ‘go kill yourself,’ stuff like that,” she says, adding that an Italian news outlet called her “delusional.” Others have dug up photos of her in full-goth getups, “thinking it’s insulting.”

MacCormack, who largely stays away from social media, says she’s found the angry reaction intriguing. “I simply propose people not reproduce, and it automatically translated into acts of violence,” she says. “So, somehow, I want to kill children, which is ridiculous. Somehow, I’m proposing eugenics or some kind of ethnic population control … and I think that what that shows is there is an anthropocentric — or a human — impulse to read acts of grace as, automatically, acts of violence. And that says a lot more about the people not reading the book and just taking over the message.”

The vitriol is understandable, though, she says, because, “when people are confronted with something that makes them afraid of the tenuous nature of their own position … they have a choice: to either go through their fear and lose themselves, and perhaps enter into a creative relationship with the opposition so that both parties come out thinking new, or, that fear transforms into aggression in order to maintain their sense of self and that position.”

That idea, of people having to confront ideas that they’ve always believed to be right and true, is “triggering,” MacCormack says. “And rather than engage with the possibility that there are multiple truths in certain scenarios, they have to defend the precarity of their own identity. And they use threats and violence to do so.”

In fact, says a doubling-down MacCormack about the concept of antinatalism, “Not only does having a child really increase your carbon footprint, but we are living on an earth where there are a lot of organisms — human, non-human — that are in desperate need of care. And so, for me, if people want to care for children, for animals, whatever, there are cries for care everywhere.” In light of that, she says, “I’m asking us to reflect on this idea that we need to reproduce.” Further, she believes such a lifestyle would come with great freedom for women.

“We have to start thinking about what liberty does it give women when they no longer have to explain why they don't want children? When they no longer have to sneak off to a different state to get reproductive freedom? When they are no longer defined by the maternal roles?”

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 69February 22, 2020 5:10 AM

She stresses that the book — which has been praised by fellow scholars and activists for being “a passionate, insightful meditation,” a “delightful provocation” and “an unrelenting and exacting takedown of the violent self-interest of the human species” — is not legal blueprint or set of demands, but a hopeful, unselfish and oddly optimistic manifesto.

“That means that it's a call to action,” she says. “So, by its nature, it has to propose action, and it has to propose action that radically displaces the systems we have now to work with.”

Among its tenets, besides antinatalism, is veganism — specifically, “abolitionist veganism,” which is the belief that all sentient beings, human or non-human, have the right to not be treated as the property of others.

“So, being an abolitionist vegan also has far-reaching consequences for feminism, for anti-racism, for queer theory, because it's all about each individual fighting for a space for the other, to allow the other to simply be,” MacCormack says, explaining that this belief system supports another: abolishing false hierarchies.

“Human exceptionalism is using the Earth, exhausting the Earth, treating the Earth as if the Earth is for us as a resource. We don't act as if we are part of the Earth. And nonhuman animals are beneath us in this schema,” she says, echoing Joaquin Phoenix’s recent Oscars speech in noting that it needs to change. “And then certain animals are more valid than others. And our measure is based on the equivalence to us rather than on the fact that they are on the Earth … and then within human, we have a similar hierarchy, where white, heterosexual, usually rich men are at the top and then arguably, you know, the rest of us.”

What MacCormack is pressing for, at the heart of her manifesto, is for people “to start thinking about all lifeforms as worthy — simply because they are here. … We need to make unnatural kin. We need to make participations with all life forms, without a hierarchy that's based on proximity to our so-called bloodline.”

And if all of this talk makes you quake with fear over the nearing of the apocalypse, the professor says to forget all that — because really, the apocalypse is already here.

“There are people living in the apocalypse right now — especially non-human animals, who have born into an apocalypse. They live to suffer and then they're murdered,” she points out. “But there are people living in refugee camps. There are people who, by virtue of being born a woman, by virtue of being born queer, their lives are apocalyptic, because they never achieved that level of subjectivity that counts.”

So instead of the cinematic idea of the apocalypse being some sort of “rupturous event,” she believes, “every era has its own apocalyptic age. And we, I think are feeling quite apocalyptic, because every morning we wake up and there's something in the news where we think, ‘Oh no, humans haven't done that, have they?”

Still, if we focus too much on impending doom, the professor suggests, “We're not attending to the people who are experiencing the apocalypse right now,” and it can lead to deep despair. Which, in turn, can lead to doing nothing. “But doing nothing is an act,” she says. “It's an act for which we have to be accountable. So, instead, I'm advocating doing something —whatever we can do. Everyone is capable of doing something.”

And to those who are horrified by her suggestion that we throw in the towel and kiss the human race goodbye, MacCormack says, “Our race is done if we keep acting like we act.”

by Anonymousreply 1February 16, 2020 8:28 AM

The fraus are going to be raging mad.

How DARE you tell me that I shouldn't have children!

Cover your ears, Jadyn and Madysen!

by Anonymousreply 2February 16, 2020 8:29 AM

Who knew Morticia would be against having children? Poor Pugsley and Wednesday must be crushed.

by Anonymousreply 3February 16, 2020 8:32 AM

Send a copy of her book to the pope. Seriously, quit having all those kids.

by Anonymousreply 4February 16, 2020 8:50 AM

Why, Patty, you sure have changed!

Well, I NEVER would have expected YOU to turn Goth.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 5February 16, 2020 9:44 AM

She’s correct.

Last week a colleague jokingly berated me for drinking from a disposable coffee cup. She has four children.

by Anonymousreply 6February 16, 2020 9:52 AM

"Climate change", "global warming", "climate crisis" are all euphemisms used because it's politically and culturally taboo to say OVERPOPULATION.

by Anonymousreply 7February 16, 2020 10:06 AM

She's right, and that's why I don't feel bad about flying Business Class.

by Anonymousreply 8February 16, 2020 10:24 AM

Too many people don't understand that when living in an overpopulated world having a kid is a privilege and not a right.

by Anonymousreply 9February 16, 2020 10:25 AM

Abortion should be mandatory if you exceed your quota.

by Anonymousreply 10February 16, 2020 10:26 AM

Nobody should be making anyone feel bad about it having children. I DESPISE that attitude. Too many people are having too many.

It’s going to be impossible to override that biological imperative to procreate. That urge was turned into a mandate by Christians, Jews and Muslims, to create more worshippers for their gods, and to populate the earth with them. It’s fucking insane.

by Anonymousreply 11February 16, 2020 11:11 AM

Some antibiotics work not by killing bacteria, but by rendering them unable to reproduce.

Since the same is being done stealthily to us, I think it’s a pretty humane approach to overpopulation. Of course, rich people get around it with IVF and some monsters still have whole litters of children (Donald, Eric, Ivanka, Tiffany, Barron) who will each do 400 times as much damage to the planet and humanity as your average poor person ever could do.

by Anonymousreply 12February 16, 2020 11:24 AM

She ugly.

by Anonymousreply 13February 16, 2020 11:52 AM

It’s hard to take her seriously in that getup

by Anonymousreply 14February 16, 2020 11:58 AM

She’s right. Fraus and rad fems on this site will hate this.

by Anonymousreply 15February 16, 2020 12:10 PM

She’s upsetting.

by Anonymousreply 16February 16, 2020 12:15 PM

I’m for respecting all life, but if an insect gets in my house, the fucker’s dead.

by Anonymousreply 17February 16, 2020 12:17 PM

It’s not just rich people using IVF, R12. My company’s insurance plan actually covers up to three rounds of IVF treatments (which can cost up to $100,000 per round). It’s ridiculous.

by Anonymousreply 18February 16, 2020 12:53 PM

I'm in total agreement with her and I've been feeling this is the natural and logical rebuttal to the abortion debate for a long time. It should be a moot point, by now, that abortion is considered anything other than a solution, or that birth control shouldn't be available to all and in rampant use. We are overpopulated and the Earth isn't going to be able to sustain us for much longer.

by Anonymousreply 19February 16, 2020 1:07 PM

She's absolutely right. Anyone with common sense agrees with her

by Anonymousreply 20February 16, 2020 1:16 PM

The problem no one will address is that of the four billion or so people who are projected to be added to the planet by the end of this century, three billion are coming from Africa, which can't feed itself now.

Harry's and William's kids aren't the problem.

China had to ditch its One Child policy because even its birthrate couldn't keep up with the need to replenish its younger workforce or to take care of its rising population of elders.

Take a look at the rate of dementia in, say, South Korea, where children as young as eleven are being taught to take care of what Koreans call "Ghost People", i.e., aging grandparents with Alzheimer's.

The problem is not as simple as it looks. Who takes care of old people without children? I've had some experience with the billion dollar business of the warehousing of elders, and it's not a pretty one.

Women in Africa are still being valued primarily for their fertility. Children go to work early in rural and pre-industrial cultures where cattle herding and raising food are still the way people leave. You can't tell those people they can only have one child.

It's never quite as simple as it looks, and a sibling for Archie Mountbatten-Windsor isn't the real problem. The birth and replacement rates in the West are falling well below replacement levels.

It's the Third World and particularly Africa that is the problem, but no one wants to go there.

by Anonymousreply 21February 16, 2020 1:20 PM

^*still the way people live (not leave)

by Anonymousreply 22February 16, 2020 1:21 PM

It’s true

by Anonymousreply 23February 16, 2020 1:23 PM

People are terrified of this discussion because it has implications tied to reproductive choice, cultural values, colonialism, and race. I get it and I empathize.

But the simple truth is that the earth will not support population growth at its current rate, especially as globalism places billions more people closer to the runaway consumption levels in highly developed parts of the world.

The current population growth rates are leading to geo-political instability and environmental ruin.

Humans need to cut their consumption of resources, move away from fossil fuels, and stop having so many fucking kids.

R21, I think the pyramid scheme of requiring a growing young population to care for the elderly, and perhaps more urgently, keep the consumption models of economy running, needs to be re-evaluated. I’m hopeful that AI can help in both caring for the aged as well as transition us into a world less dependent on consumption of goods and energy.

by Anonymousreply 24February 16, 2020 1:27 PM

Heterosexuality will be the end of all of us.

by Anonymousreply 25February 16, 2020 1:31 PM

[quote]Who knew Morticia would be against having children? Poor Pugsley and Wednesday must be crushed. —Lurch

Agreed! Amazed Morticia Addams is still looking so good these days.

by Anonymousreply 26February 16, 2020 1:33 PM

[QUOTE]It’s going to be impossible to override that biological imperative to procreate. That urge was turned into a mandate by Christians, Jews and Muslims, to create more worshippers for their gods...

That was the case in ancient times. Now the ones promoting and supporting unfettered procreation are corporations just so they can have more customers to fuel their "continuous growth" ideal.

Greed is what's killing this planet.

by Anonymousreply 27February 16, 2020 1:38 PM

[quote]Children go to work early in rural and pre-industrial cultures where cattle herding and raising food are still the way people leave. You can't tell those people they can only have one child.

In most of the world, not just in rural societies, children provide social acceptance and cohesion and financial protection. The more children parents have, the more money earners they have, the greater the social status and wealth of the parents and the more people the parents have to take care of them in their old age. Children are commodities to be used (and abused) as the parents see fit.

by Anonymousreply 28February 16, 2020 1:40 PM

I honestly don't know where I stand on this debate.

What if people just want to have a family?

One or two kids, and that's it. Doesn't seem so awful to me.

by Anonymousreply 29February 16, 2020 3:19 PM

Agreed, R29, one or two isn't bad for most people. It's a question of what's a sustainable population for Earth w/o destroying wild animal habitats and eliminating thousands of other species. And of course, that's to assume that diversity of species is inherently good, as I think it is. It's arguable that 7 billion humans is already too many.

by Anonymousreply 30February 16, 2020 4:25 PM

She is 100% right.

by Anonymousreply 31February 16, 2020 4:30 PM

[quote] 'The worst thing you can do is have a child'

J’adore!

by Anonymousreply 32February 16, 2020 4:59 PM

What on earth has "colonialism" got to do with this?! Herding and farming and the need for children to become part of the home's labour force have been in place for a couple of thousand years.

You think homesteaders and crofters and Native cultures were any less interested in having lots of children to help them wrest existence out of the land before white Europeans set foot in India, China, and Africa?!

Children were always valued and always desired. They ensured unpaid labour, care in old age, and the continuance of DNA, the latter one of the most powerful drives in nature. Infertile women still feel "less than".

The children of the modern First World family are an anomaly: luxuries living through the end of their twenties in a state of perpetual adolescence, burdening parents and caregivers through graduate school.

Urbanisation is the other big story: this is the first time in history that more humans are living inside rather than outside cities. Space is scarcer in cities: people have less children when all they can afford is a two bedroom flat and the overriding element in selection of neighbourhood is the quality of the local comp.

This is just a much more complicated issue than many are comfortable admitting. Colonialism only comes into it insofar as the former colonialists don't dare point the finger where it really belongs, for obvious reasons. But in fact the birth, fertility, and replacement rates in the First World are dropping like stones.

It's the Third World that is jacking up the numbers, not the Borough of Kensington.

by Anonymousreply 33February 16, 2020 6:27 PM

The wrong people (intelligent, conscientious) will listen to her. Idiots and assholes will keep on breeding.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 34February 16, 2020 8:22 PM

Ah, Patricia MacCormack., I cited her in my PhD, but not on this topic.

She argues well, and she's right about how angry people get when their fundamental values - their sense of self - are questioned. Try being a socialist or an anarchist.

I don't see how she makes the leap to 'the human race should die out' however,. Why not argue for people restricting themselves to two children only?

As for the Third World/First World problem, economic development is associated with a steep decline in the birthrate. When people get educated and have access to contraception, they choose not to have so many children. Funny that, eh, fraus? Demographers expect these trends to continue in the third world too, allowing the world population to stabilise by the middle of next century.

In the meantime, rich western countries solve the problem of who will care for the elderly by allowing more migrants to enter the country: suck it up Trump voters.

by Anonymousreply 35February 16, 2020 8:45 PM

it's true. adopt. fucking don't procreate

by Anonymousreply 36February 16, 2020 8:49 PM

Or do neither. Many adoptees have a huge problem with the institution of adoption.

by Anonymousreply 37February 16, 2020 8:51 PM

This is what happens when a plastic surgeon watches too many Tim Burton films.

by Anonymousreply 38February 16, 2020 9:02 PM

R35 - We aren't talking about "who will care for the elderly" in terms of staffing "senior living communities" or nursing homes: we're talking about fucking family members who care enough about their parents to put that warehousing off as long as possible and give them back love and compassion, and make the best decisions possible for them.

Getting old alone without close family is no joke.

by Anonymousreply 39February 16, 2020 10:00 PM

R39 OK, but think of all those old people currently dumped in homes by their 'close' family members and who never receive visits.....

by Anonymousreply 40February 16, 2020 10:02 PM

R40 - Believe me, I've seen it as I cared for my own father during his descent into Alzheimer's. But mostly, I've seen and talked to other family members struggling with the ever-increasing bills, the slow moves from independent to assisted living and then finally to real "memory" units. At every stage, my sister and I had to negotiate, help smooth my father's moves, every one of which cost him more confusion - but by the time he died, he had spent one last Christmas holiday that he understood was a Christmas holiday, with my sister and I and her two children around him. He had difficulty recalling all our names periodically, but he was at least "home" and with family.

The whole issue of the elderly and their care could have a thread of its own. All I am saying is that having a family isn't just about numbers. It's obtuse and cruel not of this academic not to realise that what she's advocating will never come to pass because most people are acutely in touch with a more immediate reality and need: family ties, support, a sense that one goes on . . . these are things you cannot root out with "theorecticals" like these.

I am childless myself, as an eldergay, but thankfully, I have a loving relationship with my sister and my niece, and the latter's two children.

The professor's recommendations are absurd in the fact of the reality of lives, individual lives. Where would my poor father have been without me and my sister to struggle for him?

The human race may go the way of the Dodo, anyway, eventually. But it won't save itself at the price she suggests.

by Anonymousreply 41February 16, 2020 10:58 PM

She isn't wrong.

by Anonymousreply 42February 16, 2020 11:11 PM

The birth rate in the developed world is already in freefall.

by Anonymousreply 43February 16, 2020 11:32 PM

You’re negating your message, dear. Why not dress as Ronald McDonald?

by Anonymousreply 44February 16, 2020 11:43 PM

I came here hoping for a post from Mrs. Patsy Ramsey (formerly of Boulder, Colo.), and I am *not* disappointed.

by Anonymousreply 45February 17, 2020 12:14 AM

She is absolutely correct but realistically nothing is going to change. One thing that might be more practical is encouraging people to have fewer children, rather than none. Good for her for at least being honest about her beliefs. The Goth look is a little silly but still less annoying than another cupcake making yoga mommy instaho on her 5th kid.

by Anonymousreply 46February 17, 2020 12:39 AM

[quote]The Goth look is a little silly but still less annoying than another cupcake making yoga mommy instaho on her 5th kid.

I love her look. Wished more women still dressed with a sense of drama.

by Anonymousreply 47February 17, 2020 5:36 AM

R47 - I'll mention that about dressing for drama to the wife of one of my acquaintances who is a barrister hoping to take silk one of these years.

by Anonymousreply 48February 17, 2020 12:23 PM

[quote]economic development is associated with a steep decline in the birthrate.

In most of the world, tribalism and despotism precludes "economic development". If people don't have enough food and/or basic commodities depends on the goodwill of the dominant clan/tribe, the populace doesn't have the wherewithal to challenge the reigning power. Given this, it is no coincidence that much of Africa and Asia produce nothing but humanity.

by Anonymousreply 49February 17, 2020 12:37 PM

Here's the thing, in the westernized world including the U.S., UK, Australia, France, Japan et al birth rates are already declining. Japan in particular is seeing an extreme shortage of new children.

by Anonymousreply 50February 17, 2020 4:00 PM

and how is that a bad thing, r50?

The media always portrays that as a bad thing. But take your example of Japan. They are probably the leading society on robotics research. They are going to have the robots and AI provide a lot of care to the elderly. That's the future, folks. If we don't do that, what is left? Going to 8, 9, 10, 11 billion people? That's just not sustainable in a world of finite resources.

by Anonymousreply 51February 17, 2020 7:59 PM

So if I suck off a straight guy instead of him getting a woman pregnant, does that help?

by Anonymousreply 52February 17, 2020 8:05 PM

R52, you're a GIVER!

by Anonymousreply 53February 17, 2020 9:13 PM

Average birth rate per woman in Somalia as of 2016: 6.27

Average birth rate per woman in Great Britain as of 2016: 1.80.

First World people having no kids will not stop the population explosion, but it will ensure that they die out and are replaced by somebody else who doesn't give a fuck about this woman's bullshit

by Anonymousreply 54February 17, 2020 10:48 PM

Why crowd up your life with kids...just because 54 is a racist?

by Anonymousreply 55February 17, 2020 10:53 PM

It's another inconvenient truth that requires too much sacrifice or effort for most. So, let's stop using plastic straws instead. Anyhow, it's too late.

by Anonymousreply 56February 17, 2020 11:18 PM

Something will trigger a civilization crash. There are a ton of ancient viruses under the melting permafrost.

by Anonymousreply 57February 17, 2020 11:30 PM

R55 - Oh spare us the old race card, will you?

The birth rates speak for themselves. If saving the human race is the issue, Europe isn't the problem.

by Anonymousreply 58February 17, 2020 11:53 PM

Oh, and do tell us what is racist about pointing out that in poverty stricken countries who can't feed themselves women are having six kids each whilst in the developed world, women are having less than two?

P.S.: Somalia is listed as the worst place in the world to be born female. I wonder why?

by Anonymousreply 59February 17, 2020 11:56 PM

Have you evidence to show that second-generation immigrant communities differ significantly from others in the developed world in their birth rates, R54/R58/R59?

by Anonymousreply 60February 19, 2020 12:41 AM

Is attempting to reduce the carbon footprint a viable legal defense?

Asking for a friend.

by Anonymousreply 61February 19, 2020 12:46 AM

Africa isn't the problem. They don't have much of a carbon footprint. An American with two kids is far worse for the environment than a woman with 6 kids in Africa.

by Anonymousreply 62February 19, 2020 4:08 AM

R62 - Except when the ravages of climate change persuades them all to head north to Europe. Have you any idea what is happening to sub-Saharan Africa?

And, the Third World wants its slice of the pie, too.

What happens with the African family with six kids gets to Britain, France, Denmark, Sweden, and Germany?

by Anonymousreply 63February 21, 2020 6:22 PM

Listen to the experts!

by Anonymousreply 64February 21, 2020 6:24 PM

Professor of Goth Studies and Adam's Apples.

Of course she is right but only the developed world *might* listen, and the unchecked numbers of third world children will in time will want all that same first world plastic shit.

by Anonymousreply 65February 21, 2020 6:30 PM

R60 - Mixed bag of outcomes, see below:

https onlinelibrary.wiley.com doi full 10.1111 padr.12037

" . . .The few existing studies show that the descendants of immigrants from high‐fertility countries usually have lower fertility levels than their parents’ generation, but fertility levels for some groups remain high relative to the fertility of the host population (Coleman and Dubuc 2010; Dubuc 2012; Milewski 2010b; Sobotka 2008)

. . . While most research on immigrant and ethnic minority fertility tends to emphasize the importance of cultural factors, education and employment‐related factors may play a key role in shaping the fertility behavior of the descendants of immigrants. Successful structural integration suggests that high educational aspirations and increased opportunity costs of childbearing may lead to a lengthy postponement of family formation and smaller family size among ethnic minority women, thus following the trends for natives in European countries. In contrast, poor employment prospects among some ethnic minority groups due to inferior education and discrimination in the labor market may promote early onset and high completed fertility. Young ethnic minority women may decide to choose the motherhood track to find meaning for their lives and justify their lives to others. For example, research in the UK shows that women of Pakistani and Bangladeshi ethnic origin equate being a housewife and mother with high status (Salway 2007). While such a belief may be consistent with traditional gender roles in South Asian communities (Hennink, Diamond, and Cooper 1999), it could equally be explained by the poor employment options among ethnic minority women."

Please note early in the second paragraph "successful structural integration" as one of the factors that speed up immigrant women's lower birthrates and emphasis instead on higher education and its opportunities.

This has been held back by a misguided emphasis on "multiculturalism" which doesn't encourage that kind of "successful structural integration".

Hence, the issue of the "repeat first generation" found in many Pakistani communities in Britain.

The whole issue is far more complex than mere population numbers.

Africa cannot feed itself now. It is home to most of the world's poorest countries. It's specious to say the problem is two kids in France when the six kids in Africa are either asking the West for money and food constantly, or heading for Europe if they can find the money to pay people traffickers to get them there.

In 2015, the last year for which I could find stats, the average Afghan-born woman living in the UK has 4.25 children and the average Somali-born woman has 4.19 children, compared to the less than 2 children of the native British born.

by Anonymousreply 66February 21, 2020 6:32 PM

She's not wrong, but I wouldn't mind if she took herself out to set an example of easing the burden on the planet.

by Anonymousreply 67February 21, 2020 6:33 PM

Frankly, at this time I think it's all moot. Anyone see the JPMorgan economist's paper released on The Guardian today (the BBC has since picked it up)? It's pretty much too late so far as I can tell. I don't know how to post links, but here is an excerpt from the BBC coverage:

"Human life "as we know it" could be threatened by climate change, economists at JP Morgan have warned.

In a hard-hitting report to clients, the economists said that without action being taken there could be "catastrophic outcomes".

The bank said the research came from a team that was "wholly independent from the company as a whole".

Climate campaigners have previously criticised JP Morgan for its investments in fossil fuels.

The firm's stark report was sent to clients and seen by BBC News.

While JP Morgan economists have warned about unpredictability in climate change before, the language used in the new report was very forceful.

"We cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is threatened," JP Morgan economists David Mackie and Jessica Murray said.

Carbon emissions in the coming decades "will continue to affect the climate for centuries to come in a way that is likely to be irreversible," they said, adding that climate change action should be motivated "by the likelihood of extreme events".

Climate change could affect economic growth, shares, health, and how long people live, they said.

To mitigate climate change net carbon emissions need to be cut to zero by 2050. To do this, there needed to be a global tax on carbon, the report authors said.

But they said that "this is not going to happen anytime soon".

Developed countries were worried that cutting emissions would affect competitiveness and jobs, while less developed countries "see carbon intensive activity as a way of raising living standards."

"It is a global problem but no global solution is in sight," the report added."

Note the mention of the Third World wanting its slice of the pie before cutting carbon intensive activity.

by Anonymousreply 68February 21, 2020 9:45 PM

[quote] Poor Pugsley and Wednesday must be crushed.

Literally I hope.

by Anonymousreply 69February 22, 2020 5:10 AM
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.

×

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!