For some time now, I’ve been bookmarking “green” articles on overpopulation and how we need to reduce the number of children we bear in order to save the planet.
Recently another opinion piece came to light that so revolted me that I knew it was time to address the issue. Diane Francis, editor-at-large of the National Post, wrote a column for the Financial Post in which she endorsed implementing China’s one-child policy worldwide as a means of saving the planet.
“The fix [for overpopulation] is simple,” writes Ms. Francis. “It’s dramatic. And yet the world’s leaders don’t even have this on their agenda in Copenhagen. Instead there will be photo ops, posturing, optics, blah-blah-blah about climate science and climate fraud, announcements of giant wind farms, then cap-and-trade subsidies. None will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed. … China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. … The only fix is if all countries drastically reduce their populations, clean up their messes and impose mandatory conservation measures.”
I see. Are you volunteering, Ms. Francis? Because here’s the clincher: You have two kids.
For those who like the idea of a one-child policy, you’ll be pleased to know that “China’s population-control measures have resulted in 400 million fewer births, translating into 18 million fewer tons of carbon dioxide emissions a year.” This is reported by Zhao Baige, vice minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China.
I’m sure he’s right. But it’s how those 400 million “fewer births” happened that things get ugly. Compliance with the one-child policy isn’t always voluntary. Therefore many Chinese people must be coerced into limiting themselves to one child … and I mean “coerced” in the worse sense of the word. Is this really what Ms. Francis wants?
In praising China’s commitment (cough) to carbon control, I feel compelled to point out that Ms. Francis assumedly hasn’t experienced a forced abortion. After all, such horrors occur a comfortable distance away to peasants in China, not elite writers in New York City. I invite her to speculate how it would feel to be captured by government thugs, bound like a criminal, strapped to a table, stripped, your legs spread wide, and a living baby ripped limb from limb as it’s torn from your womb. Nice visual, eh? Abortion is bad enough if it’s voluntary. Imagine if it’s forced. Do you still think this is an admirable policy?
Yet as loathsome as Ms. Francis’s hypocrisy is, it’s a common attitude among the extreme environmentalists who long to control every aspect of our lives and bring us into conformity with their vision of a green Utopia.
Phil Elmore wrote an excellent column on how tyranny springs from manufactured necessity. “It is through pleas to supposed necessity that liberals, ‘progressives’ and leftists of every stripe advance their desires to manage every facet of your waking life. It is through arguments built on alleged necessity that statists justify and rationalize every attempt to force you to toe their ideological line from the cradle to the grave.”
Rahm Emanuel said something similar: “You don’t ever want a crisis to go to waste; it’s an opportunity to do important things that you would otherwise avoid.”
And even in the 1962 musical “The Music Man,” Harold Hill starts out by finding a “problem” (the bad influence of pool on the town’s young boys) that must be “solved” by implementing his self-serving solution (forming a boy’s band).
Manufacturing a crisis is an age-old tactic that has been unashamedly used by tyrants throughout history. It is being used by environmentalists today.
Concern for the human component in climate change (however unjustified) is approaching the level of hysteria – and now sin. “A casual attitude toward global warming ought to be viewed as a sin,” says James Nash, director of the Churches’ Center for Theology and Public Policy, a Washington-based research group that studies the relationship between Christian faith and public policy.
(Speaking of sin, I’d like to hear that one explained at the Pearly Gates: “Oh yeah, I aborted three babies to save the planet. Aren’t you proud of me?”)
“Couples who have more than two children are being ‘irresponsible’ by creating an unbearable burden on the environment,” warns Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the U.K.’s Sustainable Development Commission, and adds that curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming.
Now that the manufactured “problem” (man-made global warming) is identified, liberals are free to come up with whatever “solution” fits their personal agenda. And for many, the solution is fewer people.
“A new study argues that having children dwarfs parents’ attempts to go green in other ways,” laments Cameron Scott in an August article. “Having a child boosts a mother’s carbon footprint enough to offset 20 times over her choices to use CFLs and energy-efficient appliances and windows.”
Andrew Revkin, who reports on environmental issues for The New York Times, endorses the idea of giving carbon credits to couples that limit themselves to having one child.
Look, I’m not endorsing stupid procreation by unmarried women (like Octomom) who pop out babies and expect the rest of us to support them. But here in rural north Idaho, large families are common and considered a blessing.
What it comes down to is a refusal by environmentalists to see hope, beauty, potential, or joy in children. They are merely seen as irritating little carbon users and resource-sucking burdens on the earth.
I find it pitiful that these extremists harbor such a bitter hatred of their fellow man that they want to reduce or eliminate them – by some accounts, up to 90 percent of the human population. Unsurprisingly, few of these radicals seem willing to engage in the logical solution (removing themselves permanently from the gene pool), though thankfully many choose not to have kids.
But meanwhile, we are urged to literally sacrifice our unborn children on the altar of Gaia.
Who says global warming isn’t a religion?