in

NYT Claims Short People Leave Smaller Carbon Footprints

The climate alarmists over the years have used everything from terrifying statements — the existential danger to mankind, — to forecasts that didn't come true, to adorable “how to” guides on the reduction of one's “carbon footprint,” which alarmists such as Al Gore, Leo DiCaprio, as well as Joe Biden incessantly preach to everyone else, but completely ignoring the massive quantities of fossil fuel that they burn frequently themselves…

According to a New York Times op-ed, it seems that one of the more efficient ways of reducing our own carbon footprint was right within our reach all the time. Literally. It's true that the closer our noses are to the ground, the less impact on carbon emissions. Yes, the smaller that you are, the less carbon emissions you produce. Confused? Don't worry; this is an absolute crock of nonsense.

Swedish environmentalist Greta Thunberg is the image of the feature with a height of four feet 11 inches .

Here's the author Mara Altman, author of “Gross Anatomy,” via the Times:

From where I sit -at 5 feet being tall is a popular notion of superiority, which long ago ought to have been discarded.

[…]

There's a constant debate on the quality of a nation's population and the implications for the well-being and fairness of a nation. However, I'm more interested in the shortness of a person on an individual basis. The success of us as individuals is not dependent on beating up others or animals. Even the possibility that it is, in the age of drones and guns, being taller today just makes you more of a potential target. Short people are also conservationists that are more essential than ever before in this age of eight billion people.

Thomas Samaras, who has studied height for over 40 years and is well-known in smaller circles as the father of Shrink Think, a not well-known philosophy that sees the small to be superior. He calculated that If we kept our proportions the same way and were only 10 percent smaller in America all by ourselves, we could save an estimated 87 million tonnes of food every year (not to mention the trillions of gallons water and billions of B.T.U.s of energy, and million of tons of garbage).

Altman's solution?

If you choose to marry shorter individuals, you could save the earth by reducing the requirements of future generations. Reducing the minimum height of potential partners on your profile is a step towards an eco-friendly planet.

Yes, there's another box to mark off while searching for the perfect companion: the shorter the more efficient. From Altman:

They don't only save resources. However, as resources become more scarce due to increase in population and rising temperatures, they could be the best fit to long-term survival (and not only because more people will be able to fit into spaceships when removed from the planet we destroyed).

In the end, Altman's vision for the perfect future is as absurd as her vision of the present.

The future I imagine is different. My children's kids are aware of the value of short. I would like them to label their own “short drinks of water” with “legs for minutes.” As one shouts, “I'm the shortest,” I'd like to see the other bend his knees in order to get an advantage and shout, “No, I'm the shortest!”

Greta Thunberg could be seen smiling and nodding her head in agreement — and she was sporting that disgusting look that we've become accustomed to.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Buffalo Bills Player in Critical Condition Following Cardiac Event During Game

Gingrich Warns of Chaos in Speaker Vote