On the surface, looking at warmist blogs and sites can be quite entertaining at times. But reading more closely between the lines, the entertainment always seems to turn into a surreal horror story.For the most rabid among the environmentalists, who strangely never seem to run out of funding, saving the planet means having to deny others life.
I happened to go to Al Gore’s site where he linked to a piece in Seed Magazine called Eating Away. It takes a look at growing human population, the agriculture needed to feed it, its consumption and impact on the planet.
Seed Magazine admits that the population growth rate peaked in the 1980s and that the world has gone from Baby Boom to Baby Bust, much of this trend owing to the education and empowerment of women, especially in developed countries.
But having population growth under control here and there is not enough. Poor countries still have exploding populations. Environmentalists worry about the extent the planet could sustain a population of 9 billion, projected to be reached by 2050.
Apocalyptic scientists fear that the CO2 emission resulting from a growing population will lead to a climate catastrophe. According to biologist E.O. Wilson of Harvard University:
A population growth to 9 billion people alone will add as much as 2 billion metric tons more of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse gas blanket smothering Earth.
In their view, the planet has become too small. So who should be the first to leave?
Target: USA’s 10,000-tonne children
Some already have a clear target in the crosshairs, for example reproductive biologist Roger Short of the University of Melbourne. Seed Magazine writes:
Short goes so far as to call for a halt to future population growth. After all, the most profound way a U.S. citizen can impact climate change is to have fewer children, since every American child born today will add almost 10,000 metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere under current conditions—five times more than a Chinese child and 160 times more than a baby from Bangladesh.
Having one fewer child would reduce a family’s greenhouse gas impact 20 times more than driving a Toyota Prius, using Energy Star appliances and other environmentally friendly lifestyle choices combined, according to researchers at Oregon State University.
So it’s not really about the number of people on the planet, rather it’s more about who. Future American children have been degraded and reduced by the Greenshirts to grotesque 10,000-tonne planet-threatening monsters.
Andrew Bolt’s recent commentary looks at the psychopathology behind the radical green movement, read Totalitarian Itch.
Seed Magazine writes:
The world’s richest 500 million people produce half of global carbon dioxide emissions, while the poorest 3 billion emit just 7 percent.
Ultimately, the problem isn’t the number of people. It’s what those people do. The average American (just one of 309 million) uses up some 194 pounds of stuff—food, water, plastics, metals and other things—per day, day in and day out.
The poor 3 billion are not the problem. American parents and kids, they’re coming after you. The blood hounds have picked up your scent. You can hear them barking in a not so far away distance.