A Washington Post analysis pieceClimate guilt promoted over having kids, telling the story of one mother who “couldn’t shake theFeeling that she may be doing something wrong by having given birth for the earth.”
Meera SanghaniJorgensen, mother of a 13-year-old girl daughterShe claimed that she felt “weighed down” by theConsumption herBefore they were even born, children” inA headline that read, “Should You Not Have Kids Because of Climate Change?” It’s complicated.”
The article also recounted Sanghani-Jorgensen’s carbon arithmetic on theCost of her daughter’s birth. “She considered about the diapers, theParty favors theToys, and theWarming of billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide theEvery year, planet.”
In the end, she was 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 inA rally to raise awareness about climate change in Denver, Saturday, April 29, 2017. (AP Photo/Brennan Linsley)
But Sanghani-Jorgensen, as the Post said, “isNot only inAccepting the climate change narrative. Living in the present: A new generation in theU.S. and other rich nations have become more “preoccupied with how having kids may worsen.” the world’s rapid warming,” the piece declared.
Numerous media outlets have encouraged parents with hopeful children to reconsider having them. One example is this headline from NBC News: “Science proves that kids are bad.” for the earth.” Or, The New York Times asked in2021: “To Breed or Not to Bree?”
‘CLIMATE RACISM’ HURTING MINORITIES, TAXPAYER-FUNDED OUTLET CLAIMS: ‘SO IMPORTANT TO HEAR THAT’
Young protesters during theClimate change protest in Cambridge, England, Friday Nov. 29, 2019. (Joe Giddens/PA via AP).
Instead of recounting, theBenefits of children the pieceThe author referred to children as “a small carbon bomb waiting for its turn,” and added that having children has “no doubt, ecological consequences.”
In the article, it was also stated that “having one less child” is a good thing. isIt is an important question to ask, especially considering that “climate changes must be addressed within”. theThe next few decades
The moral question of whether to have children or not was: “Should I still have children if they will grow-up with smoke-filled summers, and steadily rising sea levels?” If you are unable to have children, should you? theWhile the West and developed worlds will experience minimal losses, developing countries will feel huge losses.
Elon Musk speaks in Washington.
(AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)
CLICK HERE FOR THE FOX NEWS APP
Elon Musk is the Tesla CEO. the most prominent environmentalists in theWorld, repeatedly rejected population control and advocated forMore children for people. Back inMusk tweeted it May the”USA’s birth rate is below minimum sustainable levels” for ~50 years.”
news.google.com – * Source link