Tax Credit for not having kids: why doesn't this exhist?

How about a tax credit for getting an abortion?

The USA has had negative CO2 emissions growth over the last decade+ despite adding lots more population. Cutting population is not a cost-effective way to cut emissions. There are much better methods comparatively.

The vax+ boosters are going to take care of the kid population at this rate. Can’t wait for the “flu” season. Let’s give them 2 shots. First old people in nursing homes via Remdesavir, then the fatties, now on to the kids and pregnant moms. Prove me wrong.

We need more children born, not fewer. The birth rate is too low which will result in a serious economic downturn.

Short answer is that shy of a massively significant discovery, new business, or being someone who saves lives on a regular basis, there is almost nothing better that 99% of people can do to improve their nation’s economy than having lots of kids.

We have a population decline in most developed countries that in some cases, Japan, for instance, promotes serious economic imbalances as the consumption and savings decisions of a age-heavy society loom large. Japan has essentially been in a slow growth. recession since the 1990s.

Most economists (see Yglesias), are for vigorous immigration (legal) in the US if we are not going to have greater than the 2.5 replacement rate. The US would look different as 75% of the world is non-white. We are not going to find many immigrants from the 6m people of Norway, more likely the 211m from Nigeria.

Your statement is correct and ironic that we do better than most despite no Kyoto protocol. We need to thank innovation but also shale gas-it is putting Co2 heavy coal out of business. If only China would develop shales as they are the largest coal consumer in the world by far.

Nonsense. The world will be a much better place for humans with fewer humans. As long as the decline is gradual - say, no more than 25% decrease per generation - then it should not be "devastating". It would be more appropriately called a population decline rather than the alarmist "collapse".

You are saying is this is a them problem, not an us problem, correct?

What about the state and local virtue signaling about not selling ICE vehicles, tax breaks for EVs, somehow ignoring nuclear energy, etc?

I'm thinking the obvious answers of having less people and more nuclear energy are unpopular because they are common sense and don't make someone money.

A society that incentivizes its own extinction isn't a society at all.

Unfortunately, CO2 is everyone's problem. The easy but not permanent solution is natural gas substitution, especially for heavy coal producers, which includes the US. See Mullers "Energy for Future Presidents" And nukes are making a comeback, albeit from a low base. The one integrated utility with nukes (PSG) and the three IPPs in the market traded up on recent news from the IRA bill that sets a floor on prices. In fact, the management of PSEG now has a problem since they realize if they sell their nukes they can increase the firm's total value, as the market is still giving them a traditional utility multiple. Maybe we are starting to see nukes value. I think Germany wishes that they hadn't shut their plants down.

The flaw with your example is we’re not starting with 100. We’re starting with nearly 8 billion! That’s way too many people for the planet to handle. Our resources are already strained because we have an excess of people. Thanos had a point. We don’t need to cut the population in half, but reducing our numbers by a billion or so would be better for long term sustainability.

oregonlive.com

Project Nora: What you can do to save the planet

https://www.facebook.com/lizzy.acker

The Earth's temperature has been rising quickly, leading to melting polar ice caps and rising sea levels. But there are things individuals can do to reverse global warming, including eating mostly vegetarian, driving less and...

Open link

Having one less child is the #1 thing you can do as an individual to reduce carbon emissions in the developed nations, 25 x more than #2 which is to go without a car (ICE).

I would have no issue with that. Here's a thing...

...The US already has a low rate of births, so if we give people even more incentive to not have children (and SOME people really glom onto guidance like that from the government), then we will really need to loosen up the rules to get more immigrants here. I'm personally all for that even now, but some people would NOT like that. So, just to be clear what side of that fence you are on before you wish for what you're wishing for. Again, to be clear, I'm ALL FOR FAST-TRACKING IMMIGRANTS TO COME AND WORK HERE AND BECOME CITIZENS IF THEY WISH.

This is currently back-firing in China right now.

I can't believe how many smart people are on this thread. Impressive. Ten years ago I produced a public-television special, "Population Disaster." Fertility declines have only accelerated since then, with sluggish economic growth (in real dollars) the inevitable result. The dependency ratio is terrifying, and the U.S. has $160 trillion in unfunded liabilities. Do I have your attention yet? Birth rates are crashing world-wide, so immigration is no solution in the long-run.

Yet no decline in fertility or good environmental news is enough for the anti-fertility zealots, who still spout Paul Ehrlich's "population bomb" nonsense from 1968. Babies are not pollution.

It's amazing that this board doesn't understand exponential population decay... What an ignorant thread.

Um, the majority of posters understand EPD very well if you read the thread.

What about the exponential ozone decay myth pedaled by the left?

The premise of the thread was to point out that the gov't attempts to pick winners and losers, and must get out of that business.