For the enviromental extremists, global warming is only the proverbial “tip of the iceberg.” A BBC News story by Richard Black (“Hijacked by Climate Change?”) is a powerful reminder of strange depths of environmentalist delusions.

The direction of the entire piece is summed up in the photograph and caption which leads the article: a picture of cute, presumably Chinese, children playing, with the caption: “Have China's population curbs helped the global environment.”

A more factual image would have been: a dumpster filled with aborted victims of the genocidal slaughter which the Communist government has inflicted on its own people. The madness of the environmental extremist is such that children are only seen of the damage their existence might do to the planet; the little ones are sacrificed on the altar of Mother Earth.

Black begins his article with the fevered pitch which has become the common theme of the last several decades of discussions of environmental issues:

But if you look back to the latest definitive check on the planet's environmental health — the Global Environment Outlook (Geo-4), published by the UN two years ago — what emerges is a picture of decline that goes way, way beyond climate change. Species are going extinct at perhaps 1,000 times the normal rate, as key habitats such as forests, wetlands and coral reefs are plundered for human infrastructure. Aquifers are being drained and fisheries exploited at unsustainable speed. Soils are becoming saline, air quality is a huge cause of illness and premature death; the human population is bigger than our one Earth can currently sustain. So why, you might ask, are the world's political leaders not lamenting this big picture as loudly and as often as the climate component of it?

The seemingly-blind reliance on the accuracy of the Geo-4 report seems painfully naïve. Environmental issues are, in fact, stunningly complex, and estimates of such things as a “normal rate” of extinctions is highly speculative. However, the steady drumbeat which is the heart of environmental extremism is already to be found in the first paragraph: the problem is too many people.

The “problem” of reducing the human race to more “sustainable levels” is, in fact, a major element of the environmentalist agenda. What is lamented throughout the BBC News article is that issues such as “climate change” are distracting from the main points of environmentalism, such as reducing the human population and slowing the loss of non-human species. In Black’s words:

Even more difficult than putting something like biodiversity loss on the agenda, says former government adviser Jonathon Porritt, is getting politicians and the wider environmental community to accept that underpinning everything are the unsustainable size of the Earth's human population and our unsustainable (and rising) hunger for the Earth's natural resources.

Recently he raised the population issue in his blog — only to be excoriated by columnist Melanie Phillips for having a "sinister and de-humanised mindset" — which is perhaps an indicator of why other contemporary environmental thinkers are so reluctant to raise it publically, despite admitting its importance in private.

"Too controversial," he says.

"'Population raises all these issues about religion, about culture, about male dominance in the world; and (people) get very uncomfortable about that."

Nevertheless, he argues, the logic is undeniable.

Speaking recently at Mr Porritt's Forum for the Future, a Chinese government official described the one child per family policy as having led to "400 million births averted" — which she then converted into the greenhouse gases those extra human inhabitants would have produced, and noted that no other country had done as much to curb climate change.

But, he continues: "You don't have to accept the China route to that logic.

"You can look to all kinds of alternative ways of reducing human numbers which aren't done as coercively as the one child per family policy was done in the past.

"However, when I was director of Friends of the Earth, could I get our local groups or my colleagues to go along with that? I have to admit complete failure."

Such honest admissions from environmental activists offer people an opportunity to place their claims in a broader context. Trendy issues come and go, but the underlying problem remains for the environmentalists: How do we get rid of all these humans?

The monstrous description of the Chinese policy as “400 million births averted” makes it quite clear what is truly at stake in combating eco-lunacy. The crosshairs of the environmental extremists are targeting your way of life, and literally the lives of generations yet unborn.

And the UN is here to help them.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (3)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

danwhitehead1

August 28, 2009

173.74.213.85

Votes: +5

• 
• 
• 

What happened to Darwin?

I'm more than willing to bet that most of the left wing "liberal" eco-fascists are evolutioinsts. If so, what happened to survival of the fittest? If a species is going extinct (and I'd like to see some peer-reviewed papers on that one) wouldn't it be because it's unfit? The fact of the matter is that they're murders. It's fine to murder an entire generation of innocent, defenseless unborn babies, but we sure need to get all worked up about the supposedly looming extinction of the polar bear??!! Once again, the "liberal" left lies by omission as well as comission and proves that the only thing the "liberal" left can spread is confusion and the only thing that concerns the "liberal" left is themselves. Detestable bunch of swine.

Still Free

August 29, 2009

205.188.117.9

Votes: +2

• 
• 
• 

Right On, DanWhitehead ...

Think every member of PETA or WWF is pro-choice?


And yet their logic is that somehow animals are more deserving or more
important than babies. Is this logical?

Sorry, I really do love my pets, but I just don't understand this kind of logic.

Lynette

September 02, 2009

69.246.224.36

Votes: +0

• 
• 
• 

...

Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family
Buy it here: http://www.shopjbs.org/index.p...amily.html
A ground breaking film that will change the way you think about economics and children.

Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family http://www.demographicwinter.com/index.html:

Synopsis: One of the most ominous events of modern history is quietly unfolding. Social scientists and economists agree - we are headed toward a demographic winter which threatens to have catastrophic social and economic consequences. The effects will be severe and long lasting and are already becoming manifest in much of Europe. A groundbreaking film, Demographic Winter: Decline of the Human Family, reveals in chilling soberness how societies with diminished family influence are now grimly seen as being in social and economic jeopardy. Demographic Winter draws upon experts from all around the world - demographers, economists, sociologists, psychologists, civic and religious leaders, parliamentarians and diplomats. Together, they reveal the dangers facing society and the world’s economies, dangers far more imminent than global warming and at least as severe. It may be too late to avoid some very severe consequences, but with effort we may be able to preclude calamity. Demographic Winter lays out a forthright province of discussion. The warning voices in this film need to be heard before a silent, portentous fall turns into a long, hard winter.

Write comment

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.