Is it offical mental day today or something? First we have the Turkish lawyer who is upset that his team lost so he's suing Inter-Milan. Now we have some mad aussie doctor writing to the Medical Journal of Australia saying,
Every family choosing to have more than a defined number of children (Sustainable Population Australia suggests a maximum of two) should be charged a carbon tax that would fund the planting of enough trees to offset the carbon cost generated by a new human being. The average annual CO2 emission by an Australian individual is about 17 metric tons,4 including energy usage. As the biomass of trees in a mature forest sequesters about 6 metric tons of CO2 per hectare (104 m2) per year,4,5 each child born should be offset by planting 4 hectares of trees, to allow for the time they take to reach maturity, and attrition through crop losses, bushfires, dieback and so on. This infers a levy per child of at least $5000 at birth (to purchase the land needed and plant trees) and an annual tax of $400–$800 thereafter for the life of the child (for maintenance of the afforestation project) (based on 1990 figures, and probably much more now).So nutty I don't know where to begin really. I suggest reading this excellent response on Spiked though. It sums up brilliantly (a) the flaws in the figures, and more importantly (b) the anti-human nature driving such idiocy. The scary thing is that Australia just voted in the socialists, they'll probably try to implement it.