By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

PERTH, December 11, 2007 ( – The Medical Journal of Australia has published a widely-publicized article by a medical professor advocating draconian taxation for parents who have more than two children, in order to offset the carbon emissions the child is likely to generate and contribute to “global warming.” The article is the latest of an increasing number of public statements from global warming advocates calling for world de-population as one crucial solution to the program.

The peer-reviewed article, written by Professor Barry Walters of the King Edward Memorial Hospital in Perth, advocates requiring the parents to pay an upfront tax of $4,390 USD for each child born after their second child, and up to $700 annually thereafter.

The article argues that “Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society.”

“Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behaviour, a ‘baby levy’ in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle,” Walters continues.

Walters also implies that the infamous “one child policy” used in China, which has resulted in numerous coerced late-term abortions and postpartum infanticides, should also apply to Australia:  “I believe we deserve no more population concessions than those in India and China,” he writes.

The article, however, offers the olive leaf to those who agree to sterilize themselves or use contraception to avoid procreating: “By the same reasoning, contraceptives, intrauterine devices, diaphragms, condoms and sterilisation procedures should attract carbon credits for the user and the prescriber that would offset their income taxes, and lead to rewards for family planning clinics and hospitals that provide such greenhouse-friendly services.”

Walters seems to be disgusted with the Australian government’s policy of giving a substantial “baby bonus” financial award of over $3500 to parents who have additional children. Australia’s population is only 21 million and its fertility rate is below the 2.1 per family replacement level.  As a consequence, the country faces significant immigration pressure from Asian nations.

Although it is Walter’s profession to treat the illnesses of human beings, he ranks them second in importance to “the environment”. He approvingly quotes David Attenborough, who said that “instead of controlling the environment for the benefit of the population, we should control the population to ensure the survival of the environment.”

The article is followed by a peer comment by Dr. Garry Egger, Professor of Health Sciences at Southern Cross University in Lismore, Australia: “I agree with Walters. One must wonder why population control, which was such a popular topic during the 1970s, is spoken of today only in whispers.”

The appearance of such proposals in a respected medical journal reflects the increasing influence of the theory of catastrophic global warming, promoted by failed US presidential candidate Albert Gore and a host of international agencies, especially the United Nations. 

Although a majority of scientists do not seem to believe that possible future warming will have the serious consequences claimed by Gore in his book, “An Inconvenient Truth”, his alarmist campaign has frightened many into accepting the population control agenda that has long been promoted by the United Nations and the major western powers (see National Post coverage of scientists who reject catastrophic global warming at…).

In a similar vein, British media recently reported on two women who have decided not to have children in order to reduce their “carbon footprint”, a trendy reference to the supposed effect of carbon emissions on global warming caused by human activity (see article at…).

Commenting on the proposal in the “full comment” blog of the National Post, a Canadian newspaper, John Turley-Ewart opines that “It’s one thing to want to reduce green house gases. It’s quite another to advocate for a world straight out of Nineteen Eighty-Four that dehumanizes children and casts them in the same light as pollution. If this is the future, I will gladly endure Global Warming.”

See Full Text of Article:

Personal carbon trading: a potential “stealth intervention” for obesity reduction?

See National Post Article:…

See related previous LifeSiteNews articles:

300 Million US Population in Light of Kyoto, Global Warming and Other Created Hysterias

Care for Creation Yes, But Why is the Vatican Backing Climate Change Theory?

Evangelical Leaders Warn Against Christian Involvement in “Climate Change” Hysteria

Healthy Skepticism of Global Warming Alarmism Recommended