Hollywood environmentalist James Cameron’s wife is destroying the planet

View Comments (18)

• i'd wager on her never having read a word of livescience before. This is green-ness as fashion statement

• The old "except me of course" works for every liberal demand.
  "Everyone should...(fill in the blank)... except me of course." except when it is "Nobody should...(fill in the blank)... except me of course."
  Liberals make me puke.

• Good enough for thee, but not for me.

• Oh, oh so she can have five kids that she can indoctrinate into the environmental religion, but I cannot have more than one kid because that is bad for their religion. How nice. More for me but less for you. Wonderful.

• Suzy Amis Cameron: too much money, not enough brains. What is it with Hollywood millionaires who think that their fame and their dollars give them the right, indeed the mandate, to tell us how to live, how many children we should have, what we should eat, what we should drive and who we should vote for? Most of them have no idea how ordinary Americans live or what we need. They live in mansions in gated communities and are clueless as to what goes on in America outside of Hollywood or Manhattan.

  They should shut up, sell their assets and move to East Los Angeles, then maybe we could respect their opinions.

• I think the women should volunteer to have her tubes tied and her hubby should volunteer to have a vasectomy, then maybe I'll listen to their BS...maybe.

• Everyone (else) needs to lower their carbon footprint. Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to fly on my private jet to the Hamptons. Again.

  Al Gore bought a 10-million-dollar house near the beach. If he's not worried about rising tides from global warming, why should I?

  • Man, oh man, oh man, but I wish the nicest things for this guy Al Gore...NOT! Proves my point about too much money, plus too much time, plus too little headgasket space equals...hypocritical, moronic, idiotic libtard.

• If people don't have children, who are they saving the planet for? (The polar bears only want a very small fraction of it)

  • These people think like radical muslims and somehow it all makes sense to them.

• I went to the source (Tim Blair) and followed a link he had, which lead to this article, Save the Planet: Have Fewer Kids, She definitely not following the rules of the environmental wackos she professes to be one of.

  Save the Planet: Have Fewer Kids
  By LiveScience Staff
  posted: 03 August 2009 11:39 am ET

  For people who are looking for ways to reduce their "carbon footprint," here's one radical idea that could have a big long-term impact, some scientists say: Have fewer kids.

  A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environment-friendly practices people might employ during their entire lives — things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs.

  "In discussions about climate change, we tend to focus on the carbon emissions of an individual over his or her lifetime," said study team member Paul Murtaugh. "Those are important issues and it's essential that they should be considered. But an added challenge facing us is continuing population growth and increasing global consumption of resources."

  eproductive choices haven't gained as much attention in the consideration of human impact to the Earth, Murtaugh said. When an individual produces a child – and that child potentially produces more descendants in the future — the effect on the environment can be many times the impact produced by a person during their lifetime.

  A child's impact

  Under current conditions in the United States, for instance, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent – about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible.

  The impact doesn't only come through increased emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases — larger populations also generate more waste and tax water supplies.

  Other offbeat environmental impacts have been in the news recently:

  - One 2007 study found that divorce squanders resources, because people who once shared resources such as energy now use twice as much under two roofs.

  -The current obesity epidemic may also be hurting the climate, because food production is a major contributor to global warming.

  The impact of having children differs between countries. While some developing nations have much higher populations and rates of population growth than the United States, their overall impact on the global carbon equation is often reduced by shorter life spans and less consumption. The long-term impact of a child born to a family in China is less than one-fifth the impact of a child born in the United States, the study found.

  However, as the developing world increases both its population and consumption levels, this equation may even out.

  "China and India right now are steadily increasing their carbon emissions and industrial development, and other developing nations may also continue to increase as they seek higher standards of living," Murtaugh said.

  Not advocating law

  The researchers note that they are not advocating government controls or intervention on population issues, but say they simply want to make people aware of the environmental consequences of their reproductive choices.

  "Many people are unaware of the power of exponential population growth," Murtaugh said. "Future growth amplifies the consequences of people's reproductive choices today, the same way that compound interest amplifies a bank balance."

  Murtaugh's findings are detailed in a 2009 issue of the journal Global Environmental Change.

  • People with way too much time on their hands, coupled with way too much money and way too little common sense don't agree with you. They're all special...(special ed), and can easily pay themselves past their own hypocricy. I can afford to have as many children as I want, well because, ummm because, umm oh yeah...because! You can't afford your car payments so you don't count.....nyaaah!

• The mental part of environmental is at least right. These people are such jokes that my sides constantly hurt from laughing. And from what I read the other day, the planet is capable of sustaining nine billion. If so, then we still have a way to go yet before we need to worry about over population. I also read that under population could be what we should be worrying about.

  • 9 billion's not that far away, but i'm sure Earth can handle double that. I hope we've got fusion reactors and space travel down by 2100 though

  • "I also read that under population could be what we should be worrying about."

    You are right, but nobody's beating that drum...it's not on the agenda.

    • Personally, I'm not too worried about underpopulation. In fact, there's a lot of people around here that the world could do quite well without.