Climate change won't be solved till mandatory restrictions are placed on Women's need to breed and their increasingly enshrined EQUAL right to have as many children as it takes to raise themselves from the obscurity of the 'singles' pile to social power and 4WD prestige.

The very fact that women are mostly the ones carrying the "Stop Climate Change"
placards and writing form pieces is an outrage. They are the unequivocal drivers of climate change and environmental destruction because humans cause climate change and women are preoccupied with making more humans. This iniquity erodes JUSTICE in society.

The whole undebated question of who wants to have the children and who must pay most for them is evidence of a gross injustice perpetrated by economicic GROWTHIST world Governments. This nonsense was started by Bill Clinton as a means to stop Federal expenditure on unmarried mothers by forcing males, whether they were the parent or not to pay for unwed mothers. All world governments have embraced it since setting up unprecedented Gender War that creates spending, ECONOMIC GROWTH .. and INJUSTICE.

This INJUSTICE will lead to WAR as history shows time and again. Only then will climate change be solved because there will be fewer (around 4 billion fewer based on modern warfare techniques) humans left to pollute and deforest and kill nature in the name of HUMANITY, civilisation and WOMEN's RIGHTS.

morganzola,

stop at once with this violence nonsence.
TSI people building deliberately below high tide level ? Absolutely not ? No-one's building there. It's generally the PNG $5/hr labourers to the islanders who are designated to the low lands.
In the 40's the islands were inundated & both the Govt AND the islanders could forsee the problem & moved to the mainland. Foresight 70 years ago, today we don't have that despite the benefit of hindsight. They (Bureucrats) keep providing millions of Dollars worth of infrastructure because quote "rising sea levels aren't going to happen before we retire" un-quote.
Btw who the hell is Heather Bruer ?

@ individual:

It was you who wants to give an academic a good "clip behind the ear", as I recall. Last time I heard striking someone on the head constitutes violent assault. Maybe it was just a turn of phrase, but it's very hard to tell from what you write - like, it only now becomes clear that your beef is one small section of a brief summary report. Like I said, did you read the words? What are you sources - presumably you talked to different Islanders than they did, since you don't refer to any records?

Sounds like a bunch of hearsay to me, combined with a big dose of very "negative attitude". I think I'll believe the report over your anecdotes unless you can provide some actual documentary and/or scientific references, thanks anyway.

Lastly, Helen Bruer is the author of the article that this discussion is supposed to be about. Looks like that's another report you haven't read either. Are you here for a discussion based on issues raised in Bruer's article, or are you just using it as a platform for your own ill-informed rant?

Correction: I meant Heather Bruer, of course.

Unless someone can convince me that Heather speaks of reducing the world's population in this piece, I'm afraid I've lost my appetite for more environmentalistic philosophizing. I don't see a word about it in this review.

Just to address over-population’s worst effect, global warming:

To reverse it, we have to emit less in greenhouse gases than we did in 1999, Al Gore's baseline year.

There are two ways to do it: 1) Reduce per capita emissions (all the energy-saving ideas we read about every day); and/or 2 ) Reduce population (which we virtually never read about).

Here's the danger of putting all eggs in Basket No. 1: If the US met our goal of cutting CO2 emissions in half by 2050; if only half of the Chinese and Indians -- who were emitting essentially nothing in 1999 -- became "industrialized," and matched our per capita emission level; if world population reached the UN's projection of 10.1 billion by 2100 -- the world's yearly total of CO2 emissions would be twice what it was in 1999! (I won't belabor the arithmetic here; suffice to say that anyone can do the calculations by looking up commonly available data. What's important is to think about it!)

Yes, some dream of cutting emissions to zero. Don’t count on it. We ignore the PRIMAL factor -- population -- at our peril.

Julie P
The pro-AGW IPCC has been searching for the scientific evidence linking anthropogenic CO2 emissions with dangerous global warming for over 20 years, but has failed to find it. As the best it can do is assert, there is little point asking you to document that evidence.