Register for an account

X

Enter your name and email address below.

Your email address is used to log in and will not be shared or sold. Read our privacy policy.

X

Website access code

Enter your access code into the form field below.

If you are a Zinio, Nook, Kindle, Apple, or Google Play subscriber, you can enter your website access code to gain subscriber access. Your website access code is located in the upper right corner of the Table of Contents page of your digital edition.

Environment

The Population Tinderbox

Newsletter

Sign up for our email newsletter for the latest science news

Population has long been the third rail of environmental discourse. So while a lot of people are rightly incredulous at Rush Limbaugh's ugly rant against Andy Revkin's suggestion that people should perhaps be rewarded for having less children, I can't say that I'm all that shocked by it. Really. First of all, this is Limbaugh being Limbaugh. He's addicted to being outlandish and offensive. In the same segment he suggested that Revkin help reduce population on the planet by committing suicide, Limbaugh also offered this gem on Obama and his team:

Can you think of any other administration in this country where a president or a communications specialist or anybody else would run around and start praising Mao Zedong as a role model, as a philosopher to follow?

But more to the point, millions of religious conservatives have a gag reflex to this hypothetical idea by Revkin:

Should you get credit "” if we're going to become carbon-centric "” for having a one-child family when you could have had two or three.

Revkin is to be lauded for being willing to pose this "thought experiment." As a long-time environmental journalist, he's surely aware of the inflamed passions--from both the left and right side of the political spectrum-- that often seems to overtake any discussion on population issues. Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to soft pedal what Limbaugh said. It was despicable. In fact, I thought Tom Yulsman captures the disgust felt by many, myself included, with this post. On a related note, I should say that I find myself in agreement with Joe Romm on the supposed connection between climate change and overpopulation--which he believes is a misdirection. And I think he's right on that score. I also happen to think that George Monbiot got it mostly right with this recent piece on the issue.

    2 Free Articles Left

    Want it all? Get unlimited access when you subscribe.

    Subscribe

    Already a subscriber? Register or Log In

    Want unlimited access?

    Subscribe today and save 70%

    Subscribe

    Already a subscriber? Register or Log In