Archive for the Cap + Trade Category

Republican Mitt Romney consulted Population Control Eugenics Czar John Holdren

Posted in Cap + Trade, Ehrlich, Eugenics, Holdren, Politics, Republican, Romney with tags , , , , , , , , on October 18, 2011 by saynsumthn

H/T Pajamas Media

So we’ve learned over the past few days that a trio of Mitt Romney’s chosen advisers helped the Obama administration craft ObamaCare. And on top of that, that Gov. Romney sought the advice of Malthusian green activist John Holdren, when Romney was considering a cap and trade regime for Massachusetts. Holdren was Appointed by PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA as his Science Czar and Holdrens’ clear abortion ideology is something we would expect from OBAMA in this as well as the next term.

Holdren’s views humanity as a plague on the planet and the Industrial Revolution as a tragic mistake. The fewer people, he believes, the better, and he’s not shy about the ways he would use to reduce their number.

Why Gov. Romney, a reasonable person, would pick such a man to advise him on anything is beyond us.

On Jan. 1, 2006, Massachusetts became the first state to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants, something the Obama administration is trying to do to all states through the Environmental Protection Agency’s draconian job-killing regulations and mandates.

A Dec. 7, 2005 memo from the governor’s office announcing the new policy listed among the “environmental and policy experts” providing input to the policy one “John Holdren, professor of environmental policy at Harvard University.”

This is the same person who wrote that a “massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States
Holdren wrote that along with Paul and Anne H. Ehrlich in the “recommendations” section of their 1973 book, “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.”

Paul Ehrlich is also the author of the 1968 book, “The Population Bomb,” which warned of imminent mass starvation from overpopulation unless excess humanity is dispensed with.

Holdren has spoken in favor of such things as forced abortions, confiscation of babies, mass involuntary sterilization, bureaucratic regulation of family size, and a planetary regime to enforce climate regulation and population control.

Read Rest of story here

After researching eugenics and reading several chapters of the book, Ecoscience, written in the 70’s, by Paul Holdren, who is Obama’s Science Czar, I can see clear signs that everything that is coming down from Washington was being birthed in our society in the 70’s and before. If you read Holdren’s writings, you will see the philosophy behind CAP and TRADE spelled out . Based on population control writings, they truly believe that unless we involuntarily depopulate the earth- we will see an end to human civilization as we know it. Back in the 70’s people like Holdren and Paul Ehrlich predicted that if the US reached 200 million, it would be devastating. They predicted that when people have reduced economic spending power, they have fewer children. Now that America is over 300 million and considered a society which leaves the largest carbon footprint, they are frantic. They do not have a Creationist/ Godly basis for their beliefs and thus they are not at all concerned about sacrificing a few million humans for the salvation of the planet.

They believe that humans are polluting the earth and we are but ONE SPECIES among many that inhabit the planet.

They also forecasted a weird way of mixing global warming, ecology, the use of automobiles, freedom to travel and then slip in the fact that all these things could be used for the ultimate goal of restricting population. i

To demonstrate this, look in a section in the November 1970, Bulletin for Atomic Scientists entitled: Licensing for Cars and Babies – by Bruce M Russett, which states,

Broadly two methods of limiting population growth are suggested by the advocates of population control. One involves variants of coercion. Proposed remedies include, legally forbidding families from having more than two or three children; distributing contraceptives in some quasi-compulsory manner such as in the public water supply; and in extreme forms compulsory sterilization of couples with more than two or three offspring…… “

Why would compulsory sterilization be found in an article about licensing cars?

They also predicted that the growth of energy consumption per person could be slowed by “reducing waste and inefficiency” and that “practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put into use.”

In a CNS News video interview, White House Office of Science and Technology Director John P. Holdren told that he would use the “free market economy” to implement the “massive campaign” he advocated along with Paul Ehrlich to “de-develop the United States.”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

White House Science Czar Says He Would Use ‘Fre…, posted with vodpod



John Holdren’s 1973 publication: Population and the American Predicament: The Case Against Complacency was published the year after the Rockefeller Commission on Population and the American Future was recommended to President Nixon which opened the flood gates in government funded family planning and abortion.

In Holdren’s section Liabilities of “Direct” Approaches, Holdren writes,

No one has seriously suggested that stabilizing or reducing the size of the American population would, by itself, solve the problems of environment, physical resources, poverty, and urban deterioration that threaten us or that already exist. Attacks on the symptoms of these problems and on their causes other than population should be imaginatively formulated and vigorously pursued. There is evidence that the growth of energy consumption per person can be significantly slowed, by reducing waste and inefficiency, without adverse effects on the economy.15 Economic growth itself can be channeled into sectors in which resource consumption and environmental impact per dollar of GNP are minimized.16 Practical mechanisms to alleviate the maldistribution of prosperity must be devised and put to use. But those who advocate the pursuit of these “direct” approaches to the exclusion of population limitation are opting for a handicap they should not want and cannot afford.

For the trouble is that the “direct” approaches are imperfect and incomplete. They are usually expensive and slow, and often they move the problem rather than remove it. How quickly and at what cost can mass transit relieve the congestion in our cities? Redesigning the entire urban community is a possibility, of course, but an even slower one. If substantially more economical cars are designed, how fast will their share of the market grow, and how much of the gain will be wiped out by an increased total number of cars? If residences and commercial buildings that use energy more efficiently are developed, how long will it be until the tens of millions of inefficient buildings that now exist have been replaced? Fossil-fueled power plants can, in time, be replaced by nuclear reactors-trading the burden of the noxious routine emissions of the former for the uncertain risks of serious accident, sabotage, nuclear terrorism, and management in perpetuity of radioactive wastes. We could back away from energy-intensive and nonbiodegradable nylon and rayon and plastics in favor of a return to cotton and wool and wood, thereby increasing the use of pesticides, the rate of erosion due to overgrazing and overlogging, and the fraction of our land under intensive exploitation. It is evident, in short, that there are difficult trade-offs to be made, and that fast and comfortable solutions are in short supply.

It has sometimes been suggested that such population-related pressures as exist in the United States are due mainly to spatial maldistribution of people, and that, accordingly, the “direct” solution is redistribution rather than halting or reversing growth. It is true that congestion and some forms of acute pollution of air and water could be relieved by redistributing people. But many of the most serious pressures on resources and environment-for example, those associated with energy production, agriculture, and ocean fisheries-depend mainly on how many people there are and what they consume, not on how they are distributed. Some problems, of course, would be aggravated rather than alleviated by redistribution: providing services and physical necessities to a highly dispersed population would in many instances be economically and ecologically more costly than doing the same for a concentrated population. In the end, though, the redistribution question may be largely an academic one. People live where they do for relatively sound reasons of economics, topography and taste. Moving them in great numbers is difficult. Therefore, even those kinds of population pressure that might in principle be alleviated by redistribution are likely in practice to remain closely linked to overall size.

I point out these shortcomings of “direct” approaches not to suggest that intelligent choices are impossible or that pathways through the pitfalls cannot be found, but rather to emphasize that the problems would be tough enough even without population growth. Why, then, should we compound our plight by permitting population growth to continue? Is it logical to disparage the importance of population growth, which is a significant contributor to a wide variety of predicaments, only because it is not the sole cause of any of them?

Holdren later writes, “My own suspicion is that the United States, with about 210 million people, has considerably exceeded the optimum population size under existing conditions. It seems clear to me that we have already paid a high price in diversity to achieve our present size, and that our ability to elevate the average per capita level of well-being would be substantially greater if the population were smaller. I am also uneasy about the possibility that 280 million Americans, under conditions likely to include per capita consumption of energy and materials substantially higher than today’s, will prove to be beyond the environmentally sustainable maximum population size…it should be obvious that the optimum rate of population growth is zero or negative until such time as the uncertainties have been removed and the problems solved.

It is also obvious that this “optimum” condition cannot be achieved instantly. Unfortunately, the importance of achieving it sooner rather than later has been widely underestimated. In this connection, the recent rapid decline of fertility in the United States is cause for gratitude but not for complacency. Efforts to understand the origins and mechanisms of the decline should be continued and intensified, so that the trend can be reinforced with policy if it falters.”

Redistributing people ???? HUH? ?


According to Terence P. Jeffrey who writes in CNS News, Holdren’s curriculum vitae lists as one of his “Recent publications” an essay entitled “The Meaning of Sustainability: Biogeophysical Aspects.” Co-authored by Paul Ehrlich and Gretchen Daily of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford, this essay served as the first chapter in a 1995 book—“Defining and Measuring Sustainability: The Biogeophysical Foundations”—published by the World Bank. The book is posted as a PDF on the World Bank’s Web site.

We think development ought to be understood to mean progress toward alleviating the main ills that undermine human well-being,” Holdren, Ehrlich and Daily wrote in this essay.

Table 1-1 of the essay lists both “excessive population growth” and “maldistribution of consumption and investment” as “driving forces” behind these “ills.”

Excessive population growth,” the authors assert, is “a condition now prevailing almost everywhere.”

Table 1-2 of the essay lists “Requirements for Sustainable Improvements in Well-being.” These include “reduced disparities within and between countries.”

The large gaps between rich and poor that characterize income distribution within and between countries today are incompatible with social stability and with cooperative approaches to achieving environmental sustainability,” the authors explain.

Table 1-1 lists among the “underlying human frailties” causing the ills of mankind as “greed, selfishness, intolerance and shortsightedness.” These vices, they say, “collectively have been elevated by conservative political doctrine and practice (above all in the United States in 1980-92) to the status of a credo.

The authors present a formula for understanding ecological “damage,” which they say “means reduced length or quality of life for the present generation or future generations.”

From the Footnotes:7 in The Meaning of Sustainability:Biogeophysical Aspects, Harm that would qualify as tolerable, in this context, could not be cumulative, else continuing additions to it would necessarily add up to unsustainable damage eventually. Thus, for example, a form and level of pollution that subtract a month from the life expectancy of the average member of the human population, or that reduce the net primary productivity of forests on the planet by 1 percent, might be deemed tolerable in exchange for very large benefits and would certainly be sustainable as long as the loss of life expectancy or reduction in productivity did not grow with time. Two of us have coined the term “maximum sustainable abuse” in the course of grappling with such ideas (Daily and Ehrlich 1992).


In a 1992 Cambridge Press Publication Energy Efficiency and Human Activity: Past Trends, Future Prospects , cosponsored by the Stockholm Environment Institute, John P. Holdren wrote a 52 page prologue called “The Transition to Costlier Energy”. In it, he repeats his long-cherished vision of a planetary regime under which population control would be implemented more effectively.

From page 36 onward:
(…) the population can’t be frozen. Indeed, short of a catastrophe, it can hardly be leveled off below 9 billion. Indeed, without a global effort at population limitation far exceeding anything that has materialized so far, the population of the planet could soar to 14 billion or more by the year 2100.

Besides also mentioning to attempt reducing the world’s population to “manageable levels”, Holdren also pleads for a narrowing the “Rich-Poor gap”. Sounds noble enough, were it not that he is regurgitating Agenda 21: the UN program to redistribute wealth from the developed to the developing world. Holdren:

What is most striking (…) is that even the most optimistic assumptions about “early” population stabilization, increased energy efficiency, and narrowing the rich-poor gap still lead to world energy use in 2050 more than double that of 1990.



Holdren and Ehrlich also cooperated on the article Human Population and the Global Environment. In the last paragraph of the article, Holdren and Ehrlich declare acceleration on human population control efforts:

“There is a temptation”, the authors declare, “to “go slow” on population limitation because this component is politically sensitive and operationally difficult, but the temptation must be resisted.


John Holdren “tax the bads …we’re trying to reduce” Could Children be next?

In 2002 – John Holdren, President Obama’s Science Czar said this in an interview with Living On Earth:

“We need to accept the principle that it is better to tax bads, things that we’re trying to reduce, and correspondingly, lower the taxes on good things, things we’d like to encourage, like income and capital investment. And in that way, changing the incentive system that’s out there, we would start to move the society off the “business as usual” trajectory, in the direction that would reduce the disruption of climate with which we’re going to have to deal.



In the 1970′s Holdren published many books, several which were co-authored with radical population control guru, Paul Ehrlich. Although Holdren may not have absolutely stated that he wanted to add sterilizing agents to the nation’s water supplies to keep the population down, he did say that if the population did not “voluntarily” decrease, this could be one option. And Holdren should know, because he was on panels and in touch with high level government officials, birth control pushers, pro-abortion enthusiasts, and Zero Population Growth experts who were, in fact, espousing this type of coercion. In his book Eco science, Holdren mentions that Compulsory abortions could be a solution to population control if it were feasible to enact it –

John Holdren, Paul Ehrlich and Anne Ehrlich wrote on Page 256 of their 1973 book, “Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions.
Compulsory control of family size is an unpalatable idea, but the alternatives may be much more horrifying,”

A far better choice, in our view,” they wrote, “is to begin now with milder methods of influencing family size preferences, while ensuring that the means of birth control, including abortion and sterilization, are accessible to every human being on Earth within the shortest possible time. If effective action is taken promptly, perhaps the need for involuntary or repressive measures can be averted.”



Holdren, praised his mentor, Harrison Brown,
In this clip of Harrison Brown, he raises questions about whether eugenics is as “common sense”

What are the outstanding virtues we should attempt to breed in to our population? You might say intelligence, but what kind of intelligence? You might say attractiveness, but what kind of attractiveness?

The episode, “The Mystery of Life,” can be found in its entirety on the A/V Geeks DVD, Twenty-First Century.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about "21st Century Mystery of Life ", posted with vodpod


Brown also wrote the book: The Challenge of Man’s Future.

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

Challenge of Mans Future by Harrison Brown

In a speech he delivered as President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Holdren admitted that he admired Brown and read his book in high school. Holdren also admitted in his speech that he later worked with Harrison Brown at Caltech.

Holdren quoted Brown as saying this during that same speech, “It is clear that the future course of history will be determined by the rates at which people breed and die, by the rapidity with which nonrenewable resources are consumed, by the extent and speed with which agricultural production can be improved, by the rate at which the under-developed areas can industrialize, by the rapidity with which we are able to develop new resources, as well as by the extent to which we succeed in avoiding future wars. All of these factors are interlocked.

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

Paul Holdren and Harrison Brown slide

What is also interesting is that I obtained a copy of Harrison Brown’s book, The Challenge of Man’s Future, the one our Science Czar holds up as so important, and discovered this Nazi style infanticide statement by Brown on page 87 . ” In the absence of restraint abortion, sterilization, coitus interruptus, or artificial fertility control, the resultant high birth rate would have to be matched at equilibrium by an equally high death rate. A major contribution to the high death rate could be infanticide, as has been the situation in cultures of the past. ”

These eugenic zealots believe they are saving the plant – it is the “Life Boat” theory that it is okay to throw overboard those who have the least chance to survive. The sanctity of Human Life hangs in the balance and will include the unborn, elderly, and the disabled to begin with.


For more on Eugenics and how it is used to exterminate entire people groups today go here:


Other interesting Holdren articles, The Impact of Population Growth which he authored with population Control Guru Paul Ehrlich.

Radically pro-abortion financier Warren Buffett admits “Cap and Trade” is a Regressive Tax on All Americans

Posted in Cap + Trade, Warren Buffet with tags , , , , on November 15, 2010 by saynsumthn

Nov. 11,2010 on CNBC’s “Squawk Box,” billionaire investor and prominent Obama supporter Warren Buffett slammed the administrations proposed 6 billion carbon tax known as cap and trade as a regressive tax that customers are going to pay for.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Radically pro-abortion financier Warren Buffett…, posted with vodpod

Buffet is a huge supporter of eugenics – watch 2.5 hour film- Maafa21

African American Bill Randall for Congress (North Carolina), “defend against blatant threats by electing people with conservative values”

Posted in Abortion, Anti-abortion, Black Conservative, Black Genocide, Cap + Trade, Conservative, Constitution, Maafa21, Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood, Politics, Population Control, pro-choice, Pro-Life, Racism with tags , , , , , , , , on January 12, 2010 by saynsumthn

Bill Randall, running for the U.S. House of Representatives for the 13th District of North Carolina.

Bill’s Website states, “On the secular side he has great concerns that the Declaration of Independence and Constitution’s principles are under the most dangerous attack in history and all government branches are in a rapid trajectory towards undemocratic Federal control of our lives, businesses and finances. Americans, he believes, must defend against these blatant threats by electing people with conservative values into government offices and demand that Congress follow the Constitution’s original laws and 18th century conservatism’s spirit concerning the Federal government’s role in the American people’s lives, use history’s results to chart future actions.

The major issues are:

1. Proposed legislation that will FURTHER bankrupt our nation:

a. “Cap & Trade” Legislation

b. “Health Care Reform”

These two issues are a “Trojan Horse” that will do irreversible damage to our already weakened economy. It will also give Liberal government officials “Ultra Bureaucrat Status,” thus enabling them to have even more control over our lives. This must be stopped!

2. North Carolina’s budget: We’re in a crisis, and the Democrat-controlled legislature “still doesn’t get it.” The municipality races (in districts across North Carolina) are key and pivotal. The push to have Conservatives re-take the State House & Senate starts NOW. We must alert the constituency about what’s going on in Raleigh, and hold the Liberal politicians accountable!

3. Hate Crimes legislation. This is a bad idea that this Congress and Administration are looking to put on steroids.

4. TARP and the so-called “Stimulus legislation: How is this “fiscal giveaway” being handed out? Where are the jobs that were promised? This is grand larceny of OUR assets. Margaret Thatcher said it best: “The problem with Socialism is that they eventually run out of OTHERS’ money!”

This is what Bill Randall has to say about Planned Parenthood:( Click here for full Right to Life position)

This radical group was founded by Margaret Sanger (an avowed racist) for the purpose of bringing systematic genocide to “undesirable races of people.”

Check out Bill Randall’s website here

( My Personal Note: ) I would agree and refer everyone to this film: Maafa21 Black Genocide in 21st Century America

Hot ‘Climategate’ debate after hackers bust into official e-mails debunking global warming

Posted in Alex Jones, Cap + Trade, climate change, Climategate, Environment, Glenn Beck, Population Control with tags , , , , , , , , , on November 30, 2009 by saynsumthn

Climategate: John Holdren- White House’s Alarmist in Chief

Posted in Alex Jones, Cap + Trade, Climategate, Environment, Glenn Beck, Holdren, Life Dynamics, Maafa21, New World Order, Obama, Population Control with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on November 30, 2009 by saynsumthn

Meet the White House’s Alarmist in Chief
by Peter Hannaford Human Events Posted 11/30/2009 ET

If you had devoted your entire scientific career to predicting the end of the world, what do you think would be the symbol of success with which to crown that career? Why, to be President Obama’s choice as White House Director of Science and Technology. That’s his formal title, but what John Holdren is, in fact, is the nation’s Alarmist in Chief.

Al Gore thinks he invented global alarmism, but he’s a Johnny-come-lately compared with Mr. Holdren who, back in 1971 edited (with population alarmist Paul Ehrlich) a book titled Global Ecology. Also, he supplied one of its essays, “Overpopulation and the Potential for Ecocide” in which he predicted that such human-caused phenomena as agricultural dust, jet exhaust and smog would cause a new ice age. Thus, he wrote, “…a sudden slumping in the Antarctic ice cap, induced by added weight, could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.” Nowadays, of course, the giant tidal wave will be caused by melting ice caps, not growing ones. One must move with the times.

Holdren has been selling doom for years through academic papers, books and conferences. He has gone from overpopulation to global cooling, nuclear holocaust and global warming. The alarm level never wavers; only the vehicle changes as one disaster fad segues into a new one.

Now his name surfaces as being involved in the e-mail exchanges dubbed “Climategate” in which Climate Research Unit scientists at the U.K.’s University of East Anglia discussed amongst themselves and with others ways and means of suppressing climate data that refuted global warming ideology. Holdren joined in the e-mail exchanges early this year.

That a trove of these e-mails was recently hacked and made public in several online journals and blogs has caused acute embarrassment to the global warming fraternity now that its Copenhagen conference is but a few days away.

Holdren sought to undermine the professional credibility of physicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon for papers they published in which they concluded that there is insufficient evidence to support the now-orthodox view that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a fact today. AGW is a linchpin of global warming proponents’ argument that human activity causes climate change.

Another who attacked Baliunas and Soon was Michael Mann (inventor of the “Hockey Stick Theory” of climate which many of his fellow-zealots used to buttress their global warming arguments). Mann’s e-mails were in the purloined batch, as were Holdren’s defending him.

President Obama’s Climate Czarina, Carol Browner, leapt into the fray the other day, saying she considered the science of the matter “settled” and that she would stick with the consensus of the 2,500 scientists on the International Panel on Climate Change (the Copenhagen conference group). Alas, the IPCC’s turgid tomes on global warming are written not by scientists, but by bureaucrats of various governments and the United Nations.

Late last week Dr. Eduardo Zorita, a UN IPCC contributing editor, declared flatly that three high priests of the global warming movement “Hockey Stick” Mann, Phil Jones and Stefan Rahmstorf “should be barred from the IPCC process.” The reason? Scientists who disagreed with global warming orthodoxy had been “bullied and subtly blackmailed.” Climategate won’t go away.

As for Alarmist-in-Chief Holdren, now that his public profile has been raised as much as it has, the public may also take note of his anti-democratic, anti-freedom views, expounded in his screeds about population. At one point he argued for forced abortion and for putting chemicals in drinking water that would sterilize all in the population but those deemed by the elite to be worthy of exemption.

*** [ MY Comment] NOTE- This idea was suggested by many people and was mentioned to Alan Guttmacher, who was on the board of Planned Parenthood- Check out the film: Maafa21 for more info: (Clip Below)

One of his most recent notions is to blend two of his favorite doomsday concepts by injecting pollutants into the upper atmosphere. The global cooling effect of this would be to sink down to smother the global warming effects of pollution here on earth.

Where are the men in the white smocks with the big nets when we need them?

Mr. Hannaford was closely associated with former President Reagan for a number of years. His latest book is Ronald Reagan and His Ranch: The Western White House, 1981-1989.

Clinton Accepts Blame for ‘Global Warming’ Role, Ponders Link Between Climate Change and Family Planning

Posted in Cap + Trade, climate change, Copenhagen, Environment, Hillary clinton, Population Control with tags , , , , , , , , , on November 30, 2009 by saynsumthn

Monday, July 20, 2009
By Patrick Goodenough, International Editor

( – Urging India not to emulate America’s “mistakes,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the weekend accepted responsibility on behalf of the U.S. and other developed nations for contributing towards climate change.

We acknowledge – now with President Obama – that we have made mistakes in the United States, and we along with other developed countries have contributed most significantly to the problem that we face with climate change,” Clinton said in Mumbai, India.

We are hoping a great country like India will not make the same mistakes,” she added.

While stopping short of an apology for a U.S. role in “global warming,” Clinton’s remarks came closer than previous ones.

Last April, she told a gathering of major economies in Washington that the U.S. “is responsible for past emissions” of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other “greenhouse gases” blamed for climate change; Obama said at the G8 summit in Italy this month that the U.S. had “sometimes fallen short of meeting our responsibilities,” adding, “Those days are over.”

On her first visit to India as secretary of state, Clinton was confronted by New Delhi’s determination not to accept mandatory restrictions on its greenhouse gas emissions.

India’s position is that we are simply not in a position to take on legally-binding emission reduction targets,” Indian environment minister Jairam Ramesh said Sunday, after he and Clinton toured an eco-friendly building near the capital and had a roundtable discussion on environmental issues.

Although the two governments both said they want to see a global agreement reached at a key climate conference in Copenhagen in December, the differences between them on the issue of what developing nations will bring to the table was evident.

Ramesh handed out copies of remarks made during his talks with Clinton, underlying Delhi’s position.

There is simply no case for the pressure that we – who have among the lowest emissions per capita – face to actually reduce emissions,” Ramesh said he told Clinton.

And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours,” he said. The reference was to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives late last month, which contains a clause that would impose tariffs on imports from countries that do not reduce emissions by 2020. (Obama has praised the bill, but says he opposes the “protectionist” tariff measure.)

The Copenhagen meeting is meant to produce a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, which requires leading economies to cut the amount of greenhouse gases they produce by specified amounts by 2012.

India, China and others have long argued that climate agreements should not hinder developing countries’ economic growth – and they got their way with Kyoto.

One of the main reasons President Bush gave for rejecting the protocol was the fact it did not set emission reduction targets for developing countries, despite some of them – including India and especially China – being leading CO2 producers. Bush and anti-Kyoto ally John Howard of Australia argued that unless China and India curbed their fast-growing emissions, efforts to do so by leading developed nations would have little effect.

Clinton made a similar argument in India on Sunday.

“There is no question that developed countries like mine must lead on this issue,” she said in a joint media appearance with Ramesh and the U.S. special envoy for climate change, Todd Stern.

“And for our part, under President Obama, we are not only acknowledging our contributions to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, we are taking steps to reverse its ill effects.

Clinton said Obama was committed to the cap-and-trade bill before Congress.

But it is essential for major developing countries like India to also lead,” she continued. “Because over 80 percent of the growth in future emissions will be from developing countries.

Now, China is, by far, the largest emitter in the world right now, and certainly the largest among developing countries,” Clinton said. “But India’s own greenhouse gas pollution is projected to grow by about 50 percent between now and 2030. So, climate change would not be solved even if developed countries stopped emitting greenhouse gas emissions today, unless action is taken across the world.

Climate, population and family planning

In other comments, Clinton described Sunday’s roundtable discussion as “very enlightening, especially for me.”

As an example of this, she noted that “one of the participants pointed out that it’s rather odd to talk about climate change and what we must do to stop and prevent the ill effects without talking about population and family planning.”

That was an incredibly important point,” Clinton said. “And yet, we talk about these things in very separate and often unconnected ways.”

Some green activists have long advocated a greater focus on population control in the climate change campaign.

In a position paper adopted by its board of directors in November 2007, the Sierra Club said, “Given the grave implications of population growth, the Sierra Club urges greater effort to explain how population pressure is affecting the environment and stronger support for the program – family planning, health care, and education and opportunity for women – that most effectively encourages smaller families.”

Identifying an average of two children per family as a requirement to stabilize the world population, the paper said the Sierra Club “welcomes non-coercive, culturally sensitive policies that will help lower birth rates, stabilize global population, and make a smaller population a realistic possibility.”

In 2007, an Australian academic argued that a government campaign to encourage bigger families was flying in the face of the fight against climate change.

Rather than offering couples financial incentives to have more children, he said, a tax should be levied on parents who have more than an agreed number of children, “in line with the ‘polluter pays’ principle.”

The Chinese government, which enforces a controversial and often coercive birth limitation policy, has listed its population control efforts among its contributions to combating climate change.

UN Secretary wants, “global governance structure” will Climate Summit bring New World Order?

Posted in Cap + Trade, Civil Rights, climate change, Copenhagen, Environment, New World Order, Obama, United Nations with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on October 28, 2009 by saynsumthn

United Nation’s Secretary General ,Ban Ki-moon,wrote this in the New York Times:
Full Article Here)

A successful deal must strengthen the world’s ability to cope with an already changing climate. In particular, it must provide comprehensive support to those who bear the heaviest climate impacts. Support for adaptation is not only an ethical imperative; it is a smart investment in a more stable, secure world.

A deal needs to be backed by money and the means to deliver it. Developing countries need funding and technology so they can move more quickly toward green growth. The solutions we discuss cannot be realized without substantial additional financing, including through carbon markets and private investment.

A deal must include an equitable global governance structure. All countries must have a voice in how resources are deployed and managed. That is how trust will be built.

“”They are about to impose a Communist World Government on the World”

Former Thatcher Adviser Monckton Warns Global Warming Alarmism ‘Kills People If You Get the Science Wrong’

“I think the question you’re asking is who’s behind the scare,” Monckton said. “There’s been a long history of scares recently and scientific frauds of various kinds. It began, I suppose, with the eugenics movement in the 1930s which led to Hitler. It followed on with the Lysenko movement in Russia under Stalin. It went on with the great leap back under Chairman Mao which led again to tens of millions of deaths. The point you’re making is that this kills people if you get the science wrong.”

Population Police? As mentioned above – Check out Maafa21: