Home | About | Donate

The Case for a Child-Centered Energy and Climate Policy


The Case for a Child-Centered Energy and Climate Policy

Dr. Frederica Perera

Children suffer the most from fossil fuel burning.

Fossil fuel combustion and associated air pollution and carbon dioxide (CO2) is the root cause of much of children’s ill health children today as well as their uncertain future. There are strong scientific arguments, as well persuasive economic ones, for reducing the world’s dependence on energy generated by the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, diesel and gasoline.


I very much appreciate your raising the issue, but your witness would be much stronger with links to some of the “growing body of evidence” you describe. Unfortunately, children don’t vote, and even more unfortunately, few voters and even fewer legislators look beyond the short term or the next election.


The good doctor is of course right in relating these dire statistics. However, the analysis merely taps the surface of the levels of toxicity tossed at living beings today.

Missing from the fossil fuel burning issue are:

  1. Methane releases due to Fracking
  2. Monsanto’s killer gen-tech chemical, glyphosate found in corn and soy (both of which tend to find their ways into many food items)
  3. The radiation streaming over from Fukushima
  4. Lead not just in Flint, Michigan’s public water systems
  5. The mandatory vaccine overload poured into newborn babies
  6. The neurological overload of constant cell phone, satellite, and cable TV and radio signals always pulsing

Fossil fuels are a major problem; but the lax climate that allows polluters of all sorts to poison our air, water, and soil is the real issue.

Public health is being treated as a crap-shot. Following the playbook of Shock Doctrine economics, the more people who can be made sick–especially if their medical protocols require a constant drug intake–the higher profits will run.

VERY SICK people have gamed the economy, undermined the laws, and bought the lawmakers and political power-brokers. These people have the moral underpinnings of serial killers!


This message paid for by EXXON… or is it Monsanto?


That’s a rude, unfair, and unfounded charge. Flagged as ad hominem.


I think it’s standard boilerplate. You’re alleging that the writer lacks evidence to back up her case and using that unfair allegation to demand that she, not you, support her claims. The article DOES specify areas of research but you discounted them to instead attempt to chip away at her credibility.

Why would anyone do that?

What would motivate the attempt to put the author–who’s working FOR children’s health–on the defensive?

Of course, the best PR and corporately-funded think tank “comments” must appear to be neutral and “just asking innocent questions.”

Honey, I have had an education on how this framing works from observing trolls like you here ALL the time–9 years and counting.

It’s easy to flag a post, isn’t it? That’s another way to make sure you get to maintain your comments while blocking my critique of them.


I alleged no such thing, and now you’ve added patronizing to ad hominem.


BKS is alleging no such thing. BKS is saying that the impact of the article would be strengthened by providing links to the evidence.

Your jerking knee is not “evidence” of anything, honey, despite your worship of it.


Cut the hypocrisy. Look at the policies that were implemented with Clinton’s anti-welfare agenda, which has torn apart so many families and left so many of the poor struggling without adequate basic human needs. When was the last time you heard US liberals demand the restoration of basic human rights to our poor, most of whom are children?


The implication is that the writer (Dr. Perera) lacks data to support her contention… even if you feel the need to Tag Team with “the new” poster.


Here in Murka we pertict the UNBORN so when they become childrun they are on thur own…you know, survival of the fittest !


Susan (the e-mail notification while I was out outed you), there. was. no. such. implication. Just let it drop, or better yet take down your accusatory and ad hominem comments. There is nothing, not one thing, for you to gain here.


Ecology frankly does not give a shit about ideology.

Mass extinction has begun. Increase of atmospheric carbon, and habitat destruction, are the two primary drivers. Both are human-powered.

In geological time frames, this Sixth Extinction is ramping up faster than any of the previous five.

You plainly have no grasp at all what “the disease” is.