Letter: More children doesn't mean more solutions

Return To Article
Add a comment
    April 12, 2019 12:33 p.m.

    First, a simple math problem about population, no calculator required.

    A square mile is 640 acres. A nice, Utah-style suburban sprawl puts 4 houses on each acre, so that's about 2500 houses per square mile. Put 4 people in each house and you get about 10,000 people per square mile, a little less than the population density of Washington, DC. Divide the planet's population by 10,000 and you get 700,000 square miles. The intermountain states are about 100,000 square miles each, so that fits in seven or eight states (theoretically, not practically). So you'll need to work really hard to convince me that the planet is overpopulated.

    Now, a harder problem requiring statistical calculation. You'll have to either do the work or find a peer-reviewed paper that has done it (good luck with that).

    Does rising atmospheric carbon dioxide cause global warming? You tell me the coefficient of correlation between the change in atmospheric CO2 and global temperature and I'll tell you whether I believe in anthropogenic global warming.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, UT
    April 9, 2019 2:47 p.m.

    Who gave the law to marry? Who gave the law to multiply and replenish the earth? Who condemns abortion and sex outside of the marriage between a man and a woman? Let's put first things first and stop blaming those who obey God for the earth's ills.

    Surely, among the 60,000,000 aborted unborn babies were scientists, statesmen, educators, artists and inventors. They were denied life, partially because there are those who claim that the earth cannot handle more people.

    Those who tell us that large families are the problem have put their greed ahead of the good of the people. The earth can sustain all who are living here and many more IF those who think they have the right to deny life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to others come to their senses and realize that the love that Christ talked about requires change of attitudes and changes of behavior.

    Put first things first. Then, everything else will fall into its proper place.

  • HaHaHaHa Othello, WA
    April 9, 2019 12:54 p.m.

    "When you have no actual solutions...turn to primitive works of fiction for direction"

    I know he has all the personality of an old tree, but algore and his useless works of writings aren't all that primitive.

  • RedShirtHarvard Cambridge, MA
    April 9, 2019 11:51 a.m.

    To "Frozen Fractals" but you should be concerned with what AOC released on the FAQ. She was one of the authors of the Green New Deal. Her release shows us what the intentions are of the bill that was submitted.

    Just looking at the GND you can see that it would cost a lot of money to implement. Just the item "upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;" will cost Trillions of dollars. You see, it doesn't say upgrade government buildings or just certain select buildings. It says ALL existing buildings. So, if that was to be implemented don't you think it would cost a lot.

    Even Liberal economists have put the price tag on the GND at being too high. One Liberal economist put the cost at $6.6 Trillion per year for the first 10 years.

    Some of the items in the GND don't even apply to climate change, such as living wages will also increase the cost.

    So why support an idea that isn't feasible and has an agenda behind it that the sponsors don't want let out?

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    April 9, 2019 11:03 a.m.

    I'd rather use the Green New Deal itself rather than whatever the disorganized freshman legislator had going on with her team.

    It's all rather irrelevant though because passing the Green New Deal does absolute nothing. It's just a resolution urging prioritization of these goals. The bill costs 0 because it puts into place 0 of those things. There will never be a bill that attempts to do all of it. Green New Deal legislation would come as one piece of it at a time which can be debated, amended, scored by the CBO rather than people who say it pays for itself or costs 93 trillion, and voted on individually.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 9, 2019 9:51 a.m.

    To "Frozen Fractals" so lets to to the FAQ that AOC put up on her web site to explain the Green New Deal. They have the question "Why 100% clean and renewable and not just 100% renewable? Are you saying we won’t transition off fossil fuels?" the answer to that was "We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast..."

    Then you have the issue "National mobilization our economy through 14 infrastructure and industrial projects." where they stated "Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary..."

    So that is twice in a single FAQ where they state that they want to get rid of air travel.

    So, using the documents that the Democrats created for the Green New Deal, we see that they in fact do want to get rid of air travel.

  • Flipphone , 00
    April 9, 2019 8:18 a.m.

    There is no global warming. and the world will not end in 12 years.

  • one old man MSC, UT
    April 8, 2019 8:26 p.m.

    "Then again, the local Religious factor is claiming the end is near.... again, so why try and be good stewards when a God is going to destroy it all soon anyway."

    We're already working to help God save Himself a lot of work. And it looks like we're doing a pretty good job of it.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 8, 2019 7:35 p.m.

    In my opinion:

    People are power. Probably every organized group of people seeking more power to do the group's job, favors the life style that produces the most people for the group.

    Airplanes may become as obsolete as the horse and buggy when they are replaced by huge vacume tubes, on and under the surface of the earth. Safer, faster and weather proof, and powered by air pressure, electro magnents or something new.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2019 7:29 p.m.

    [but the line "overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector " sure would get rid of airplanes since there isn't any sort of viable electric option out there.]

    Why did you stop reading there? The text of the GND says:

    (H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—
    (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;
    (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and
    (iii) high-speed rail;

    As much as is technologically feasible doesn't mean 100% and doesn't mean getting rid of planes. It doesn't mean getting rid of anything without there being a substitute available.

    There are multiple factors in education, money is one of them. I'd suggest lack of money is why we are in the middle and not towards the top.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 8, 2019 4:08 p.m.

    To "Frozen Fractals " that line doesn't, but the line "overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector " sure would get rid of airplanes since there isn't any sort of viable electric option out there.

    If money was the determining factor in educational system success, then we should be close to last, but the fact that we are in the middle to leading (it depends on how you measure success) shows that money is not the factor.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2019 3:41 p.m.

    "You should read the Green New Deal"

    Maybe you should read the Green New Deal because having a 100% renewable energy electric grid doesn't require ending use of planes.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2019 3:40 p.m.

    "Yes we pay less per student, but we also have have a better education system than other states that spend a lot more."

    Utah's demographics (lower poverty, higher rates of two parent households) suggest we should be competing with states like Massachusetts, not floating around the middle of rankings.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    April 8, 2019 11:47 a.m.

    "Then again, the local Religious factor is claiming the end is near...."

    No that is AOC and the Dem presidential candidates.

    But then again, you were really making a religiously bigoted comment.

  • jsf Centerville, UT
    April 8, 2019 11:16 a.m.

    "Do we really want to live in a world where we will be asking those same children one day soon to address the stark reality of the global warming that we ourselves have neglected?"

    What children, the progressives won't allow them to exist. 60 million abortions in the United States since Roe-Wade. China one child rule. EU, Japan with birth rates promoted by progressives, that do not replace their current populations. The US has 12.5 births/1,000 population (2016) · Ranked 159th in the world.

    Yes eventually progressives won't be asking those same children because there will not be any children. Progressives seek extinction of the human race, just not themselves.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 8, 2019 11:13 a.m.

    To "patrioticAMERICAN" that is how all rational people view the Green New Deal. It is a joke, and doesn't actually solve anything.

    If you disagree, then please, prove him wrong. Tell us, how do you get to Hawaii if you no longer have carbon based fuels? Do we build a high speed rail line from California to Hawaii? Or better yet, we build sailing ships to get us there. How do you get around in Alaska in the winter if you no longer have carbon based fuels?

    You should read the Green New Deal and compare it to current technology, you should also compare it to Socialist/Communist platforms. If you do, you see that the technology isn't there to implement the Carbon emission reductions and you see that it is more about implementing Socialism/Communism than it is about the environment.

    Much of what the Climate Change Alarmists say about climate change is also a joke.

    To "Happy Valley Heretic" that is exactly what the Democrats did when they created the Green New Deal.

  • patrioticAMERICAN South Jordan, UT
    April 8, 2019 10:16 a.m.

    Senator Lee claimed his "presentation" was meant as a joke. App. that's how he views the current climate change crisis--as a joke. I can only concur that Lee should not be taken seriously, because anyone who thinks the best solution to *any* problem is to shuffle it on down the road to our children & grandchildren--who'll be dealing w/ much more critical problems, if it continues to be ignored & scoffed at--not only has no business being a Senator, they aren't being a very responsible parent or grandparent.

    Mocking climate science & pretending this problem doesn't exist, is like a school ignoring a problem w/ bullying, & failing to protect it's students, & then being surprised when students go ballistic in retaliation.

    The devastating storms are only going to get worse, & we'll spend billions on clean up & recovery. Imagine if even a fraction of the $120 billion spent on aftermath of Katria had instead been spent on reinforcing the dikes that the govt knew for years were vulnerable, but were too cheap to fix.

    Mike's solution is rather like the town that voted to spend money on an ambulance to pick up victims falling off the cliff, rather than on a fence to prevent falling.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    April 8, 2019 9:41 a.m.

    To "Thomas Thompson" but more minds will mean more solutions.

    As for your rants against Utah, lets look at the data. According to recent scientific studies Altitude is the major contributor to suicide and mental health problems in Utah. So, unless you can change the altitude that has no bearing on the issue.

    Actually we don't have the worst air quality in the winter. There are 7 metropolitan regions that have worse short term air quality. The interesting thing is that Utah has about 15 days of bad air per year. That really isn't a problem when you consider that those days are due to GEOGRAPHY and not industry.

    Yes we pay less per student, but we also have have a better education system than other states that spend a lot more. The amount of money spent on education has little to do with success.

    We get it, you hate Utah. Nobody is forcing you to stay here, you can move away if it is so bad here.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    April 8, 2019 9:21 a.m.

    Overpopulation is a hoax. It’s been around for hundreds of years. In 1843 when Dickens wrote “A Christmas Carol”, the population was about 1B. In that novelette, Scrooge complained about the “excess population”. We have over 7B now, and there are still plenty of resources, if used wisely. The earth is full, there is enough and to spare.

    Thomas Jefferson
    I do not know how you view your children – if you have any – but I do not view mine as cancer cells.

  • Nate Pleasant Grove, UT
    April 8, 2019 8:40 a.m.

    @Thomas Thompson "This is a crisis that threatens our very existence."

    Civilization flourished during the Minoan and Roman and Medieval warming periods. During the latter they were farming in places like Greenland. Global warming hysteria seems unwarranted.

    @Thomas Thompson "We routinely outstrip all of the other states with our high birth rates."

    Yes, some cultures see human beings as an asset, and others as a liability. We have a hopeful future, and so do our children.

  • Thomas Jefferson Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2019 8:36 a.m.

    “Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell.”-Edward Abby.

  • ConservativeCommonTater Salt Lake City, UT
    April 8, 2019 8:04 a.m.

    Lee was simply proposing the solution because his religious beliefs call for more children, quantity over quality.

    If more children are the solution to pollution, we should be taking lessons from Bangladesh, India, the Middle East, Central and South America, Africa, and Utah. Those countries all have a lot of children, therefore, they must be prosperous.

    By the same token we should ignore countries like Japan, Scandinavia, Europe, Canada, Australia, and other countries with low birth rates. I know, some genius is going to say we need more children to grow the economy. That's incorrect. That is a Ponzi scheme. It doesn't work.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    April 8, 2019 7:34 a.m.

    "If Lee was correct about overpopulation resulting in great new innovations, we’d surely have none of these problems. We routinely outstrip all of the other states with our high birth rates."

    Yep. But, like most things Mike Lee, he really didn't connect the dots.