Want to reduce carbon emissions and curb global warming?
Global warming believers say you should stop having babies, Jerome Corsi's Red Alert reports.
China has declared that controlling population growth is the final solution to climate change.
This pronouncement officially linked the zeal for population control with climate hysteria, surfacing an issue that has been quietly at the heart of Malthusian writings since Obama science czar John Holdren began writing college textbooks on "Eco-science" with Paul Ehrlich of "Population Bomb" infamy.
Red Alert illustrated the point by arguing the following reductio ad absurdum:
- Since people exhale carbon dioxide, and
- since people also use carbon fuels,
- more people create more carbon dioxide.
- Since more carbon dioxide creates global warming,
- the final solution therefore is to eliminate people.
- Quod erat demonstrandum: Have fewer babies to save the planet, regardless of what extreme measures have to be taken, including government-forced sterilization and compulsory government-ordered abortion.
"Dealing with climate issues is not simply an issue of carbon dioxide emission reduction, but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture, Zhao Baige, vice minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China said at the U.N. Copenhagen Climate Summit.
China's population control measures have resulted in 400 million fewer births, translating into 18 million fewer tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year, Zhao claimed.
Red Alert reports that Thomas Wire of the London School of Economics has advanced similar research.
In an August 2009 paper titled "Reducing future carbon emissions by investing in family planning," Wire argued that for every $7 spent on family planning, carbon emissions would be abated by one ton.
Wire's research was motivated by a U.N. effort to show family planning as a population control measure could be justified on a cost-efficiency basis.
"Each $7 spent on basic family planning would reduce carbon emissions by more than one ton," whereas it would cost $13 for reduced deforestation, $24 to use wind technology, $51 for solar power, $93 for introducing hybrid cars and $131 for electric vehicles, Wire concluded.
"In other words," Corsi explained, "if the cost of family planning saved more carbon that technological ways of reducing carbon emissions, the cost effective way to solve global warming would be to have fewer babies."
A series of papers recently published by the Royal Society in Great Britain and by the United Nations has directly made the link between global population growth and anthropogenic, or man-made global warming.
The Economist summed up the current argument, writing in September: "A world with fewer people would emit less greenhouse gas."
