Is Climate Change just a Biden & Leftist Excuse to make the Poor Poorer while Attacking the Catholic Teaching on Procreation?
Pope Francis: No Catholic need to breed like 'rabbits' - BBC
“Massive amount of thinking–like truly stupendous amount of thinking–has gone into sex without purpose—without procreation. Which is actually quite a silly action in the absence of procreation. It’s a bit silly.” - A conversation between Elon Musk and Fridman centers
Joe Biden and the left use climate change as an excuse for expanding abortion without limits and attacking the Catholic Church teaching against contraception by media fear mongering on global warming while blaming procreation.
Elle News explains their thinking on procreation:
Birth Strikers: The Women Refusing To Have Children Because Of Climate Change
A growing number of women have vowed to abstain from procreation in response to the environmental crisis. [https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/a27162032/birth-strikers-women-children-climate-change/]
Why do these poor souls think this way?
Foreign Affairs shows that it is leftist politicians and apparently their media propaganda machine that drive these poor souls to insanity:
Climate change may or may not bear responsibility for the flood on last night’s news, but without question it has created a flood of despair. Climate researchers and activists, according to a 2015 Esquire feature, “When the End of Human Civilization is Your Day Job,” suffer from depression and PTSD-like symptoms. In a poll on his Twitter feed, meteorologist and writer Eric Holthaus found that nearly half of 416 respondents felt “emotionally overwhelmed, at least occasionally, because of news about climate change.”
For just such feelings, a Salt Lake City support group provides “a safe space for confronting” what it calls “climate grief.”
Panicked thoughts often turn to the next generation. “Does Climate Change Make It Immoral to Have Kids?” pondered columnist Dave Bry in The Guardian in 2016. “[I] think about my son,” he wrote, “growing up in a gray, dying world—walking towards Kansas on potholed highways.” Over the summer, National Public Radio tackled the same topic in “Should We Be Having Kids In The Age Of Climate Change?” an interview with Travis Rieder, a philosopher at Johns Hopkins University, who offers “a provocative thought: Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them.” And Holthaus himself once responded to a worrying scientific report by announcing that he would never fly again and might also get a vasectomy.
Such attitudes have not evolved in isolation. They are the most intense manifestations of the same mindset that produces regular headlines about “saving the planet” and a level of obsession with reducing carbon footprints that is otherwise reserved for reducing waistlines. Former U.S. President Barack Obama finds climate change “terrifying” and considers it “a potential existential threat.”
And yet, such catastrophizing is not justified by the science or economics of climate change. The well-established scientific consensus that human activity is causing the climate to change does not extend to judgments about severity. The most comprehensive and often-cited efforts to synthesize the disparate range of projections—for instance, the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the Obama administration’s estimate of the “Social Cost of Carbon”—consistently project real but manageable costs over the century to come. To be sure, more speculative worst-case scenarios abound. But humanity has no shortage of worst cases about which people succeed in remaining far calmer: from a [interestingly] global pandemic to financial collapse to any number of military crises. [https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2017-03-21/problem-climate-catastrophizing]
Is climate change also an excuse to make the poor poorer?
Economist Mark Hendrickson who is a fellow for economic and social policy at the Institute for Faith and Freedom explains that leftist climate change insanity hurts the poor the most:
There are times when politics resembles the theater of the absurd. This is one of those times. We just witnessed the spectacle of heads of state gathering in Glasgow trying to find ways to curtail the production and consumption of fossil fuels at the very time when the people they supposedly represent face a grim, potentially lethal winter due to shortages of those vital fuels.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the average price of gasoline in the United States has risen more than 62 percent in the last 12 months, and the price of natural gas for heating homes will rise as much as 45 percent. Bank of America is predicting $120 a barrel of oil this winter. A harsher than average winter could trigger additional rises in the cost of heating our homes—a development that would be especially harsh for the poorest among us. The last time natural gas prices were this high in the United States, “one-third of American households already had difficulty … adequately heating and cooling their homes—and one-fifth of households had to reduce or forego food, medicine and other necessities to pay energy bills,” according to The Heartland Institute.
The situation is far direr overseas...
... In Germany, not only have energy prices to homeowners risen to record highs, but their power grid has become increasingly unstable. One power plant in Germany had to close because of a lack of coal—coal being needed to compensate for the insufficient wind energy production. Germany faces a full-blown energy crisis this winter.
“Schools, hospitals and clinics could also be much chillier—and deadlier. At 11¢ per kilowatt-hour (average U.S. business rate), a 650,000-square-foot hospital would pay about $2.2 million annually for electricity. At 25¢ per kWh (UK), the annual cost jumps to $5 million; at 35¢ per kWh (Germany), to $7 million! Those soaring costs would likely result in employee layoffs, higher medical bills, reduced patient care, colder conditions, and more deaths,” Paul Driessen wrote for The Heartland Institute.
In Britain, the host country for the U.N.’s anti-fossil fuels confab, as many as 9,700 people typically die from cold in their homes each winter. There are fears that this winter’s death toll from cold (and from food shortages stemming from fertilizer shortages stemming from natural gas shortages) could be much larger. Several elder care homes have warned that crippling energy bills could force them to close, leaving their residents homeless.
The severity of this energy crisis is largely attributable to short-sighted government policies. Tilting at the windmills of an imaginary future global warming catastrophe, governments have impeded and restricted the production of fossil fuels. I’m willing to grant the possibility that so-called “renewable” energy sources (more accurately, “intermittent” energy sources) may someday replace fossil fuels, but the policies that have been restricting fossil fuel production before intermittent sources have come online fast enough to meet the global demand for energy are inhumane.Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the Biden administration (or is it the third term of the Obama administration?) is proceeding full speed ahead with an anti-fossil fuels agenda. Earlier in the year, the president canceled the completion of the Keystone XL pipeline, banned drilling for oil in the Arctic, and greatly curtailed the issuance of leases for companies to develop fossil fuel resources on public land. Now, as winter approaches with energy prices surging and the world facing a severe energy crisis, Team Biden left Glasgow with a plan in place for the world’s major banks to restrict investment in companies that produce fossil fuels. [https://www.theepochtimes.com/winter-2022-a-season-of-painful-enlightenment_4107522.html?slsuccess=1]