I propose that the following discussion is one reason why there is so much fear being spread about the dangers of global warming and what they call "climate change. There really is a desire to change how people live their lives. Forced population control is just the beginning. This sounds like some mad scientific fiction story; however there are many people who think this way. They use legitimate concerns about the environment as a smoke screen to fool people about their real agenda. Is this some paranoid conspiracy theory? I don't know, read and decide for yourselves.
Peter
source:
'Tax Parents for Children's Carbon Emissions'
By Patrick Goodenough
CNSNews.com International EditorDecember 10, 2007(CNSNews.com) -
Having babies is bad for the planet, and parents of more than two children should be charged a birth levy and annual tax to offset the "greenhouse gases" their child will be responsible for over his or her lifetime.
At the same time, those who use and prescribe contraceptives and sterilization procedures should earn tax relief for such greenhouse friendly services" that help to keep the population size down. These proposals, by an Australian academic, were published in the country's leading medical journal on Monday. They drew a sharp response from a pro-family group.
Australia has a population of around 21.2 million. It recorded 273,500 births over the year ending March 2007, the Australian Bureau of Statistics reported last September. Although the total population increase (net migration and natural increase) was the highest to date, Australia's total fertility rate (the average number of babies born to women during the reproductive years of 15-44) has been dropping steadily for decades, from 3.5 in 1961 to 1.76 this year.
In 2004, former Prime Minister John Howard's government announced a drive to counter the declining birthrate, urging parents to aim for three children, and offering families a financial incentive that currently stands at around $3,670. But to Barry Walters, clinical associate professor of obstetric medicine at the University of Western Australia, that undermines the campaign to fight global warming. "Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing, but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society," he wrote in an article published in the Medical Journal of Australia Monday."
Far from showering financial booty on new mothers and thereby rewarding greenhouse-unfriendly behavior, a 'Baby Levy' in the form of a carbon tax should apply, in line with the 'polluter pays' principle," he argued. Walters said Australian parents who have more than an agreed number of children -- he cited a population-limitation advocacy group as suggesting a ceiling of two -- should pay the cost of planting trees to offset the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) the additional children will produce. (Trees absorb CO2, which along with other greenhouse gases is often blamed for climate change.)
He calculated that a birth levy of around $4,380 (5,000 Australian dollars) would cover the cost of purchasing the land needed and planting the trees required to offset one lifetime's worth of CO2. An additional annual tax of $350-$700 would cover maintenance of the forest. Walters said medical practitioners had a responsibility to point out the environmental consequences of having children.
"By the same reasoning, contraceptives, intrauterine devices, diaphragms, condoms and sterilization procedures should attract carbon credits for the user and the prescriber that would offset their income taxes, and lead to rewards for family planning clinics and hospitals that provide such greenhouse-friendly services," he said. Walters implied that the controversial population-control policies in place in China and India should be emulated. "As citizens of this world, I believe we deserve no more population concessions than those in India and China."
'Enormous value of human capital'
Another Australian academic, writing in the Medical Journal of Australia in response to Walters' article, agreed with his arguments. "One must wonder why population control, which was such a popular topic during the 1970s, is spoken of today only in whispers," said Garry Egger, director of the Center for Health Promotion and Research in Sydney. "The debate needs to be reopened as part of a second ecological revolution," he said.
"Doctors, as opinion leaders in the community, must be at the forefront of this debate. "Australian Family Association spokeswoman Angela Conway said Walters arguments were "skewed and simplistic."He fails to isolate the real reasons why we are failing to manage our environment well," she said Monday. "He fails to recognize the enormous value of human capital to long economic and environmental sustainability. He fails to put an appropriate value on human family life to society."
Conway said traditional societies that value children were more likely to seek economic and ecological sustainability because they want to steward the environment for future generations. "Real solutions always come from human ingenuity and inventiveness," she said. "Children are the wellspring for society's human capital." "Perhaps the children the professor would ban will be the ones who would have planted the urban forests, and successfully integrated trees back into farming on a large scale," she said. "Perhaps these children will be the ones who might have creatively developed sustainable new technologies and systems. Perhaps they will be the ones to reject the economic and cultural systems that underpin the profligate consumption of the developed world."
Conway said she found it sad that Walters would see China's population control policies as appropriate for Australia. "Does he make this recommendation in ignorance of the terrible and large scale human rights abuses carried out under that policy over the last few decades?" she asked. Under population policies instituted in the 1970s, China restrict couples to one child, with exceptions for some ethnic minorities and in some parts of the country. The policy, which carries punitive fines for violators, has led to abuses including coercive abortions and forced sterilization, researchers say. In a society where boys are traditionally favored and valued for their future help to ageing parents, another result of the "one-child" policy is the abortion of unwanted baby girls, leading to a badly-skewed gender ratio. Attempts to reach Walters for comment were unsuccessful.
Showing posts with label population control. Show all posts
Showing posts with label population control. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Thursday, September 27, 2007
The Cost Of Caution
There is a debate going around about who is going to be hurt the most by the costs associated with trying to control global warming by restricting carbon dioxide emissions. Well it is pretty obvious that poor people around the world, or even those in developed countries trying to live on fixed incomes are going to be badly hurt by the rising costs of everything. The following article expresses this fundamental fact better than I can.
I'm wondering if by limiting the energy available to the developing world , in the form of fossil fuels, the real motive isn't the control of population growth. What are the moral implications of that?
Peter
from: http://sitewave.net/news/s49p1835.htm#Message5955
Counting the cost of the precautionary principle
People will appeal to the Precautionary Principle - that it's better to be safe than sorry. Why not sign global treaties to limit carbon emissions? The April 16th Newsweek had a telling map entitled "Leaders and Laggers". Based on the Environmental Performance Index from Yale, it rated countries based on how environmentally friendly their policies were - the "leaders" dark green and the "laggers" in coal black. One immediately notes a rough correlation between wealth and environmental policy on this map. Why not encourage developing nations to get with the program and use more "clean energy"?
Well, why don't you have a solar paneled house? Probably because it's too expensive. No matter what we say about saving costs down the road, as a practical matter these solar technologies involve too much of an initial capital investment to be feasible for most Americans. Installation costs for one entirely solar house in Boston was $35,456. Presumably the technology will get cheaper and more efficient in the future, but this is where it stands today.
A recent article came out about a group of Virginia Tech engineering students who designed a solar energy system to power a clinic in Getongoroma village in Southwestern Kenya. The high tech system will provide the clinic with an ample 24 kilowatt hours per day (25% more than was requested, but still 20% less than the average US household uses). The projected cost: $120,000. Surrounded by the relative riches of America, the project is still in the fund raising stage. How can we possibly be serious in prescribing this to countries where the average person earns a couple of dollars a day? James Shikwati, a Kenyan economist and author, has said, "The rich countries can afford to engage in some luxurious experimentation with other forms of energy. But for us, we are still at the stage of survival."
Of course, there are places where solar energy is the best option for electricity in developing countries. These are generally places that have no hope of getting connected with a power grid, such as remote clinics in agricultural communities in Kenya or guerilla-controlled areas of Burma.
The technology generally used in clinics along the Thai-Burmese border, for example, utilizes solar panels which each cost $525. Sounds a little more reasonable, right? Each of these panels supplies 130 watts of power. If you have two incandescent light bulbs on in your house right now, you are probably exceeding this wattage. If you made coffee this morning, you used almost seven times this amount of power. The medics along the Thai-Burma border don't really focus much on immunizations because a refrigerator requires at least 200-700 watts of power. Of course, this also precludes the possibility of blood banks, in a part of the world where medics are frequently faced with treating postpartum hemorrhage, malarial hemolysis and trauma. At a household level, lack of refrigeration has profound repercussions in the form of prevalent and deadly diarrheal diseases that account for 50% of childhood mortality in this population. What else might you want in a clinic? An ultrasound? Cautery? A microscope that can be used at night? A pulse-oximeter? A UV lamp?
These affordable solar panels are a valuable stopgap, but they are by no means a permanent panacea for the word's energy needs. Economist James Shikwati says, "I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry, how a solar panel is going to power a railway train network. It might work to power a small transistor radio….
One clear thing that emerges from [this] debate is the point that there's somebody keen to kill the African dream. And the African dream is to develop." By telling developing countries to use "clean energy sources" what we are saying is, "You will not have electricity at all." We are saying, "You will live a life of backbreaking work. You will see at least one of your children die in early childhood, probably more than that. You will experience incomparably more painful and dangerous pregnancy and labor than women in developed countries, and you will face it more frequently because you will fear losing your children to disease, starvation or violence. You will be too busy struggling for survival to protest the rampant official corruption or the government troops who rape you, destroy your villages and disregard your votes. Ultimately, you will die 20-30 years younger than I will.
"But it will be worth it, because I've been told there is a scientific consensus that all this is necessary to avert global warming."
I'm wondering if by limiting the energy available to the developing world , in the form of fossil fuels, the real motive isn't the control of population growth. What are the moral implications of that?
Peter
from: http://sitewave.net/news/s49p1835.htm#Message5955
Counting the cost of the precautionary principle
People will appeal to the Precautionary Principle - that it's better to be safe than sorry. Why not sign global treaties to limit carbon emissions? The April 16th Newsweek had a telling map entitled "Leaders and Laggers". Based on the Environmental Performance Index from Yale, it rated countries based on how environmentally friendly their policies were - the "leaders" dark green and the "laggers" in coal black. One immediately notes a rough correlation between wealth and environmental policy on this map. Why not encourage developing nations to get with the program and use more "clean energy"?
Well, why don't you have a solar paneled house? Probably because it's too expensive. No matter what we say about saving costs down the road, as a practical matter these solar technologies involve too much of an initial capital investment to be feasible for most Americans. Installation costs for one entirely solar house in Boston was $35,456. Presumably the technology will get cheaper and more efficient in the future, but this is where it stands today.
A recent article came out about a group of Virginia Tech engineering students who designed a solar energy system to power a clinic in Getongoroma village in Southwestern Kenya. The high tech system will provide the clinic with an ample 24 kilowatt hours per day (25% more than was requested, but still 20% less than the average US household uses). The projected cost: $120,000. Surrounded by the relative riches of America, the project is still in the fund raising stage. How can we possibly be serious in prescribing this to countries where the average person earns a couple of dollars a day? James Shikwati, a Kenyan economist and author, has said, "The rich countries can afford to engage in some luxurious experimentation with other forms of energy. But for us, we are still at the stage of survival."
Of course, there are places where solar energy is the best option for electricity in developing countries. These are generally places that have no hope of getting connected with a power grid, such as remote clinics in agricultural communities in Kenya or guerilla-controlled areas of Burma.
The technology generally used in clinics along the Thai-Burmese border, for example, utilizes solar panels which each cost $525. Sounds a little more reasonable, right? Each of these panels supplies 130 watts of power. If you have two incandescent light bulbs on in your house right now, you are probably exceeding this wattage. If you made coffee this morning, you used almost seven times this amount of power. The medics along the Thai-Burma border don't really focus much on immunizations because a refrigerator requires at least 200-700 watts of power. Of course, this also precludes the possibility of blood banks, in a part of the world where medics are frequently faced with treating postpartum hemorrhage, malarial hemolysis and trauma. At a household level, lack of refrigeration has profound repercussions in the form of prevalent and deadly diarrheal diseases that account for 50% of childhood mortality in this population. What else might you want in a clinic? An ultrasound? Cautery? A microscope that can be used at night? A pulse-oximeter? A UV lamp?
These affordable solar panels are a valuable stopgap, but they are by no means a permanent panacea for the word's energy needs. Economist James Shikwati says, "I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry, how a solar panel is going to power a railway train network. It might work to power a small transistor radio….
One clear thing that emerges from [this] debate is the point that there's somebody keen to kill the African dream. And the African dream is to develop." By telling developing countries to use "clean energy sources" what we are saying is, "You will not have electricity at all." We are saying, "You will live a life of backbreaking work. You will see at least one of your children die in early childhood, probably more than that. You will experience incomparably more painful and dangerous pregnancy and labor than women in developed countries, and you will face it more frequently because you will fear losing your children to disease, starvation or violence. You will be too busy struggling for survival to protest the rampant official corruption or the government troops who rape you, destroy your villages and disregard your votes. Ultimately, you will die 20-30 years younger than I will.
"But it will be worth it, because I've been told there is a scientific consensus that all this is necessary to avert global warming."
Thursday, August 2, 2007
Population Control: Is The Answer To Global Warming and Protecting The Environment?
Since over-population of the Earth by human beings is often cited as a cause of global warming and many other supposed environmental disasters, I'm citing the following article to generate some thought and some questions.
Can population control really be achieved? Is it working in China? Is it "ethical" to deny women the "right" to have children? If we can reduce the number of births, is that really a good thing? Would reducing world population really have an effect on global warming? These are just some of the many questions we need to be asking. What do you think?
Peter
from: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200707/INT20070719a.html
Restricting Family Size May Become Unavoidable, Says Environment Group
By Kevin McCandlessCNSNews.com
CorrespondentJuly 19, 2007London (CNSNews.com) -
A British advocacy group is warning that compulsory restrictions on family sizes may become "unavoidable" if the Earth is to be saved from disaster. The Optimum Population Trust, a group that advocates curbing global population growth because of humans' impact on the environment, says that over the next 50 years, the planet will have to deal with the largest generation of adolescents and teenagers in history. Many of these, the organization says, will be unemployed young men who, in their frustration over their situation, may resort to violence. This will add to the already overwhelming burden developing countries are facing as a result of population growth.
In a report released this month, OPT Co-Chairman John Guillebaud said that the United Nations projection of a world population of 9.2 billion in 2050 -- up from 6.7 billion today -- was a "highly optimistic" estimate and that the actual number may be "many more."The population of the 50 poorest countries in the developing world will double in size, a shift that will wipe out gains in agriculture, education and health care faster than they can be made, said Guillebaud, who is a retired professor of family planning and reproductive health at University College in London.
By 2050, OPT projects that the world's population will be using the biological capacity of two Earths. It says this will lead to a massive population crash through a combination of violence, disease and starvation. To prevent this, the report advocates a mix of government policies to prevent women worldwide from having more than an average of two children. Recommendations for developing countries include funding to provide women much greater access to contraception and abortions. Despite the fact that fertility rates in nearly all European countries has dropped below two -- demographers say the generational replacement level is 2.1 -- the trust said fears of "a baby shortage" are misplaced.
Some European governments have started to offer citizens financial incentives to have children. The report criticized the policy, saying it would only postpone the day when there are more retired people than workers. China's communist government enforces a controversial population control policy that, with some exceptions for minorities and rural dwellers, limits couples to one child. Critics say family planning officials use coercive measures, including forced abortion and sterilization, to enforce the policy. The government insists that "only" punitive fines and financial incentives are used.
Guillebaud said the Chinese policy was "counterproductive" but argued that unless voluntary measures are brought in quickly, other countries may be forced to follow China's lead. "No one is in favor of governments dictating family size, but we need to act quickly to prevent it." he said.
Donna Nicholson, a spokeswoman for the Scottish chapter of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said that the problem facing many developing countries is not overpopulation but global inequality. The United States produces enough food annually to feed the entire world, she said. At the same time, the crippling debt facing many African countries drives them to cut back on education and health care. Citing her experience working in Liberia and Sierra Leone, Nicholson said the answer to solving poverty was not population control. "You can't look at a woman in the Third World and say the problem is that she's pregnant," she said.
Josephine Quintavalle, head of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, another British pro-life group, said she found it frightening that the OPT report was getting attention. She said Europe was facing a situation in which in just a few years, more people would be over 60 years of age than under 60. Unless European countries took urgent measures to encourage more people to have babies, she said, the continent could skip an entire generation of children. "One wonders what planet this organization comes from when they come up with these conclusions," Quintavalle said.
Can population control really be achieved? Is it working in China? Is it "ethical" to deny women the "right" to have children? If we can reduce the number of births, is that really a good thing? Would reducing world population really have an effect on global warming? These are just some of the many questions we need to be asking. What do you think?
Peter
from: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200707/INT20070719a.html
Restricting Family Size May Become Unavoidable, Says Environment Group
By Kevin McCandlessCNSNews.com
CorrespondentJuly 19, 2007London (CNSNews.com) -
A British advocacy group is warning that compulsory restrictions on family sizes may become "unavoidable" if the Earth is to be saved from disaster. The Optimum Population Trust, a group that advocates curbing global population growth because of humans' impact on the environment, says that over the next 50 years, the planet will have to deal with the largest generation of adolescents and teenagers in history. Many of these, the organization says, will be unemployed young men who, in their frustration over their situation, may resort to violence. This will add to the already overwhelming burden developing countries are facing as a result of population growth.
In a report released this month, OPT Co-Chairman John Guillebaud said that the United Nations projection of a world population of 9.2 billion in 2050 -- up from 6.7 billion today -- was a "highly optimistic" estimate and that the actual number may be "many more."The population of the 50 poorest countries in the developing world will double in size, a shift that will wipe out gains in agriculture, education and health care faster than they can be made, said Guillebaud, who is a retired professor of family planning and reproductive health at University College in London.
By 2050, OPT projects that the world's population will be using the biological capacity of two Earths. It says this will lead to a massive population crash through a combination of violence, disease and starvation. To prevent this, the report advocates a mix of government policies to prevent women worldwide from having more than an average of two children. Recommendations for developing countries include funding to provide women much greater access to contraception and abortions. Despite the fact that fertility rates in nearly all European countries has dropped below two -- demographers say the generational replacement level is 2.1 -- the trust said fears of "a baby shortage" are misplaced.
Some European governments have started to offer citizens financial incentives to have children. The report criticized the policy, saying it would only postpone the day when there are more retired people than workers. China's communist government enforces a controversial population control policy that, with some exceptions for minorities and rural dwellers, limits couples to one child. Critics say family planning officials use coercive measures, including forced abortion and sterilization, to enforce the policy. The government insists that "only" punitive fines and financial incentives are used.
Guillebaud said the Chinese policy was "counterproductive" but argued that unless voluntary measures are brought in quickly, other countries may be forced to follow China's lead. "No one is in favor of governments dictating family size, but we need to act quickly to prevent it." he said.
Donna Nicholson, a spokeswoman for the Scottish chapter of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said that the problem facing many developing countries is not overpopulation but global inequality. The United States produces enough food annually to feed the entire world, she said. At the same time, the crippling debt facing many African countries drives them to cut back on education and health care. Citing her experience working in Liberia and Sierra Leone, Nicholson said the answer to solving poverty was not population control. "You can't look at a woman in the Third World and say the problem is that she's pregnant," she said.
Josephine Quintavalle, head of Comment on Reproductive Ethics, another British pro-life group, said she found it frightening that the OPT report was getting attention. She said Europe was facing a situation in which in just a few years, more people would be over 60 years of age than under 60. Unless European countries took urgent measures to encourage more people to have babies, she said, the continent could skip an entire generation of children. "One wonders what planet this organization comes from when they come up with these conclusions," Quintavalle said.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Quotations From Environmentalists
The following comes from the MSNBC Discussion Board titled "Climate Change". These quotations are quite revealing and very chilling. What do you think? Are these the kinds of people we want running the country and the world?
Peter
DocNavy
Message #84 - 07/27/07 02:22 PM
Notice,
Maybe you're right...maybe I'm wrong about the Enviromentalists. Let's just see what our "Green" friends actually have to say about Humanity, and Population control...
"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
"In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." - Oceanographer Jacques Cousteau, as quoted in the Courier, a publication of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner (speaking about world population levels_- CNN founder and AGW supporter - quoted in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June '96
"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license ... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club; founder of Friends of the Earth; and founder of the Earth Island Institute - quoted by Dixie Lee Ray, Trashing the Planet, p.166
"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state." - Kenneth Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept (as quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)
"The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world" -- John Shuttleworth, founder of The Mother Earth News magazine.
"The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans." -- Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project
"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." -- Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund
"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels." -- Carl Amery, Writer and celebrated environmental activist.
"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem" -- Lamont Cole, an ecologist at Cornell University, reviewed Silent Spring in Scientific American. (There is now an award named after him for an outstanding paper by a graduate student in ecology at Cornell.)
" The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don't suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them." -- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
Found this... thought it was pretty interesting.
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998
See how EASY it was for me to connect the dots between the "Green" Movement and the killing of little children?? These are QUOTES from the leaders of the modern Eco/Enviro movement. They DON'T CARE ABOUT HUMANITY!!! It's everything else that matters to them. so, once again... their motto: "Save a tree, kill a child." Still don't believe that the CORE philosophy, the foundational belief of the Eco/Enviro movement is Pro-Earth, ANTI-Human?? Check THIS out.
Doc
PS: Sorry about that spittle. I was trying to work up enough to hawk a loogie at an Earth First! Protester.
Peter
DocNavy
Message #84 - 07/27/07 02:22 PM
Notice,
Maybe you're right...maybe I'm wrong about the Enviromentalists. Let's just see what our "Green" friends actually have to say about Humanity, and Population control...
"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." - John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal
"In order to stabilize world population, it is necessary to eliminate 350,000 people a day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it's just as bad not to say it." - Oceanographer Jacques Cousteau, as quoted in the Courier, a publication of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner (speaking about world population levels_- CNN founder and AGW supporter - quoted in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June '96
"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license ... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing." - David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club; founder of Friends of the Earth; and founder of the Earth Island Institute - quoted by Dixie Lee Ray, Trashing the Planet, p.166
"The right to have children should be a marketable commodity, bought and traded by individuals but absolutely limited by the state." - Kenneth Boulding, originator of the "Spaceship Earth" concept (as quoted by William Tucker in Progress and Privilege, 1982)
"The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world" -- John Shuttleworth, founder of The Mother Earth News magazine.
"The collective needs of non-human species must take precedence over the needs and desires of humans." -- Dr. Reed F. Noss, The Wildlands Project
"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels." -- Prince Phillip, World Wildlife Fund
"We, in the green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which killing a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old children to Asian brothels." -- Carl Amery, Writer and celebrated environmental activist.
"To feed a starving child is to exacerbate the world population problem" -- Lamont Cole, an ecologist at Cornell University, reviewed Silent Spring in Scientific American. (There is now an award named after him for an outstanding paper by a graduate student in ecology at Cornell.)
" The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States: We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are. And it is important to the rest of the world to make sure that they don't suffer economically by virtue of our stopping them." -- Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
Found this... thought it was pretty interesting.
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits…. climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world." - Christine Stewart, Canadian Environment Minister, Calgary Herald, December 14, 1998
See how EASY it was for me to connect the dots between the "Green" Movement and the killing of little children?? These are QUOTES from the leaders of the modern Eco/Enviro movement. They DON'T CARE ABOUT HUMANITY!!! It's everything else that matters to them. so, once again... their motto: "Save a tree, kill a child." Still don't believe that the CORE philosophy, the foundational belief of the Eco/Enviro movement is Pro-Earth, ANTI-Human?? Check THIS out.
Doc
PS: Sorry about that spittle. I was trying to work up enough to hawk a loogie at an Earth First! Protester.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)