'BirthStrike' Movement Fights Climate Change by Not Having Babies or Something

The relentless media  obsession with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and her "Green New Deal" has helped climate hysteria really, um, heat up in recent weeks:

The economy is still humming along, the Mueller report wasn't the early Christmas any of the Trump-haters wanted, so the focus on what may or may not be happening with the climate (It changes? Really?) is sure to solidify a front-and-center place in the burgeoning 2020 Democratic presidential field.

AOC herself has been stirring up the climate fears among the youth, worrying about bringing children into a world where the weather changes.

Inspired by a group calling itself the Extinction Rebellion, a British woman has decided to battle the threat of human extinction by not having children.

Logic has never been a progressive strong suit.

Business Insider says that Blythe Pepino "remembers fondly" time spent with her parents "sitting in the freezing cold with hot chocolate, aware of her environment and its fragility."

Who among us hasn't had a super-woke science insight whilst sipping cocoa?

Pepino founded the BirthStrike movement "for people who have decided not to have children in response to the threat of a warming planet." Pepino is "grieving" her decision to not procreate, but feels that it is the best way to make a point.

Meanwhile, overwrought climate change fears largely remain a concern of hot chocolate-drinking Westerners:

From Paddy Hannam:

Indeed, concern about climate change is a phenomenon mainly confined to developed (read: rich) Western countries. Growing economies like China and India are understandably less worried about the supposed climate Armageddon we are regularly told we are heading towards, since the basis of their growth is fossil fuels. Were these countries to abandon fossil fuels at this time, it is undeniable that the amazing progress they have made, in bringing hundreds of millions of people out of poverty, would stall.

A substantive discussion could be had here about a response to a very real crisis (poverty in developing economies) versus the perceived climate threat that is mostly predicated upon computer models. The self-righteous moral authority of those concerned with the latter might not be so strong if they were more aware of the reality that people who are being helped by fossil fuels face.

Sadly, substantive discussions aren't the norm when talking to the climate folk. Hyperbole and doomsday proclamations rule, and thoughtful nuance disappears faster than the melting ice caps they are always going on about.