China Pushes One Child Policy On the Western Worl At Copenhagen
From China Daily:
Population control called key to deal
By Li Xing 2009-12-10 07:37
COPENHAGEN: Population and climate change are intertwined but the population issue has remained a blind spot when countries discuss ways to mitigate climate change and slow down global warming, according to Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC) .
“Dealing with climate change is not simply an issue of CO2 emission reduction but a comprehensive challenge involving political, economic, social, cultural and ecological issues, and the population concern fits right into the picture,” said Zhao, who is a member of the Chinese government delegation.
Although China’s family planning policy has received criticism over the past three decades, Zhao said that China’s population program has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society. …citing research by Thomas Wire of London School of Economics that states: “Each $7 spent on basic family planning would reduce CO2 emissions by more than one ton”
“I’m not saying that what we have done is 100 percent right, but I’m sure we are going in the right direction and now 1.3 billion people have benefited,” she said.
Hey: Didn’t Planned Parenthood Founder: Margaret Sanger advocate licensing babies? And Didn’t National Organization for Women Former President , Molly Yard, state in the 80’s that she thought China’s One Child Policy was the best thing since sliced bread?
Actually: In 1989 NOW President, Molly Yard appeared on the Oprah Winfrey Show, and described the one-child policy as “among the most intelligent in the world…”
Guess that explains why Planned Parenthood and NOW and all these so-called feminists are not speaking out against this !
And in Canada – this brilliant journalist: Diane Francis wrote this:
The real inconvenient truth
The whole world needs to adopt China’s one-child policy
Diane Francis, Financial Post
Published: Tuesday, December 08, 2009
The “inconvenient truth” overhanging the UN’s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.
A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.
The world’s other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity’s soaring reproduction rate.
Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world’s leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.
The intelligence behind this is the following:
-If only one child per female was born as of now, the world’s population would drop from its current 6.5 billion to 5.5 billion by 2050, according to a study done for scientific academy Vienna Institute of Demography.
-By 2075, there would be 3.43 billion humans on the planet. This would have immediate positive effects on the world’s forests, other species, the oceans, atmospheric quality and living standards.
-Doing nothing, by contrast, will result in an unsustainable population of nine billion by 2050.
Humans are the only rational animals but have yet to prove it. Medical and other scientific advances have benefited by delivering lower infant mortality rates as well as longevity. Both are welcome, but humankind has not yet recalibrated its behavior to account for the fact that the world can only accommodate so many people, especially if billions get indoor plumbing and cars.
The fix is simple. 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. Unfortunately, there are powerful opponents. Leaders of the world’s big fundamentalist religions preach in favor of procreation and fiercely oppose birth control. And most political leaders in emerging economies perpetuate a disastrous Catch-22: Many children (i. e. sons) stave off hardship in the absence of a social safety net or economic development, which, in turn, prevents protections or development.
China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet.
For those who balk at the notion that governments should control family sizes, just wait until the growing human population turns twice as much pastureland into desert as is now the case, or when the Amazon is gone, the elephants disappear for good and wars erupt over water, scarce resources and spatial needs.
The point is that Copenhagen’s talking points are beside the point.
The only fix is if all countries drastically reduce their populations, clean up their messes and impose mandatory conservation measures.
Contact the author of the disturbing article above here: firstname.lastname@example.org
Paul Ehrlich a popular population control gurue was asked by Salon in 2008 (Here )
How many is “very large”?
Ehrlich:The issue is: What is the political position to take? In a country like the United States, we should stop at two. But if you had an ideal situation, you might have a lot of people who have no children at all, and some people who have as many as three or four because they happen to be particularly good parents, and are going to raise their children very well.
Here is an article worth reading:
The Re-Birth of Population ControlHuman Life Seen as a Carbon Problem
By Father John Flynn, LC
ROME, DEC. 13, 2009 (Zenit.org).- The Copenhagen climate summit has brought with it an outpouring of opinions on environmental issues. Among these is a disturbing return to the Malthusian position of seeing population control as the solution to the world’s problems.
A planetary law imposing China’s one-child policy on all nations is what is needed, according to an opinion article by Diane Francis, published Dec. 8 in the Canadian newspaper, the National Post.
Francis predicted this would reduce the current world population of 6.5 billion down to 3.43 billion by 2075. While more extreme than most, Francis is hardly alone in advocating population control.
Just prior to the Copenhagen summit, Britain’s Optimum Population Trust launched a carbon offset scheme, reported the Guardian newspaper on Dec. 3.
As explained by John Vidal, the paper’s environment editor, this allows rich consumers to offset their jet-set lifestyle by paying for contraception in poorer countries.
According to Vidal, the trust’s calculations show that the 10 metric tons of carbon emitted by a return flight from London to Sydney could be offset by preventing the birth of one child in a country such as Kenya.
It seems neo-colonialism is still alive in the attitudes of some environmental activists who don’t see any problem in urging developing nations to curb their population so that the carbon emissions of richer countries can be offset.
The launch of the scheme followed a report published in August by the trust titled: “Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost: Reducing Future Carbon Emissions by Investing in Family Planning.”
The conclusions of the study stated: “The cost/ benefit analysis found that family planning is considerably cheaper than many low carbon technologies.”
“Based on the study’s findings, it is proposed that family planning methods should be a primary tool in the optimum strategy for reducing carbon emissions,” the report advocated.
The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) joined the Malthusian chorus with the publication of its State of World Population 2009 Report.
Greater access to “reproductive health” was constantly urged by the report. This U.N. term is understood to include access to condoms, contraceptives and abortion.
“We have now reached a point where humanity is approaching the brink of disaster,” stated Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, UNFPA’s executive director at the London launch of the report Nov. 18.
The report was greeted in the press with titles such as “UN: Fight Climate Change With Free Condoms,” (The Associated Press, Nov. 18).
“Birth Control: The Most Effective Way of Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” trumpeted the Nov. 19 headline in the London Times newspaper in its coverage of the report.
Confusingly, alongside the call for reproductive health in developing nations were other statements that contradicted the thesis that less people in poorer countries would bring the world back from the precipice of environmental disaster.
“The dominant responsibility for the current build-up of greenhouse gases lies with developed countries,” the report admitted.
“The linkages between population and climate change are in most cases complex and indirect,” it also conceded.
A better guide to the issue of population and the environment came in a special report published by The Economist magazine in its Oct. 31 issue.
In the editorial that accompanied the report the magazine pointed out that the trend to lower fertility in developing countries is already advanced. “Today’s fall in fertility is both very large and very fast,” it said.
We can limit the human impact on the environment in three ways the editorial maintained: population policy, technology and governance. Regarding population there is not much more to be done the magazine argued. Only “Chinese-style coercion” could bring about a speedier reduction in fertility.
Notably, for a publication that in no way espouses religion, the editorial also added that: “Forcing poor people to have fewer children than they want because the rich consume too many of the world’s resources would be immoral.”
The report itself proposed that the way to deal with carbon emissions and environmental concerns is not to try and reduce fertility but to alter economic growth so that it is less polluting and to make it less resource-intensive.
British sociologist Fran Furedi explored the return of Malthusianism in a piece written for the Web site Spiked. His Dec. 7 commentary harshly attacked the proposals of the Optimum Population Trust for being “a zombie-like Malthusian organization devoted to the cause of human depletion.”
“Throughout most of history, human life has been valued in and of itself; it has been seen as possessing a special quality that could not be reduced to quantities to be measured by misanthropic accountants,” he observed.
Furedi based his comments on a humanist perspective and not on a religious foundation. There is a unique quality to human life he argued. He also wondered why other humanists were not interested in defending human life and standing up for ideals developed in the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.
“A world that can place an equal sign between a baby and carbon is one that has lost its faith in humanity,” Furedi lamented.
Another interesting commentary was published on Dec. 9 by the Australian Web site, On Line Opinion. It was written by Farida Akhter from Bangladesh. According to the article, she is the executive director of an organization that works with communities in Bangladesh and she also runs a feminist publishing house.
Akhter reflected on the UNFPA’s State of World Population report and argued that it is a simplistic approach to consider that women can solve environmental problems simply by reducing their fertility.
Targeting the developing nations simply doesn’t make sense, she affirmed. Citing data from the UNFPA report she stated that the world’s richest half-billion people are responsible for 50% of the world’s carbon dioxide emissions.
So, she continued, even if we reduce population growth in the poorest countries their contribution to the reduction of carbon emissions or consumption of resources will be not be significant.
“Let’s not make women the target for contraceptives in the name of solving climate change,” she concluded.
A sentiment shared by Jennie Bristow, editor of the British publication, the Abortion Review.
She also wrote an article for Spiked on the topic of population and ecology, on Oct. 6.
Bristow defended abortion and contraception, but also pointed out that history is full of examples where these practices have been imposed upon women by authorities who wanted to decide how many children should be born.
Her essay was critical of the pro-life position, yet she also argued that: “Serious questions have to be asked about how genuine the commitment to free choice is among those who ultimately would like women to choose not to have children, or more than a certain number of children.”
We do indeed have a responsibility towards the environment pointed out Benedict XVI in his June 29 encyclical “Caritas in Veritate.”
What is at stake, however, is something more than just ecological issues, the Pope added. Respect for nature also includes a respect for human life. “Our duties towards the environment are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in relation to others,” the encyclical argued (No. 51).
If the two become opposed, then “herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today,” the Pontiff continued. A contradiction being proposed by not a few voices in the debate over how to approach environmental issues today.
US climate agency declares CO2 public danger
Lisa Jackson announcing the new US government position that greenhouse gases are a threat to public health.
The Obama administration formally declaring carbon dioxide a public danger so that it can cut greenhouse gas emissions even without the agreement of a reluctant Senate.
The timing of the announcement – in the opening hours of the UN’s Copenhagen climate change summit – prevents Barack Obama from arriving at the talks without concrete evidence that America will do its bit to cut the emissions that cause global warming.
“Climate change has now become a household issue,” said Lisa Jackson, head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), adding that the evidence of climate change was real and increasingly alarming. “This administration will not ignore science or the law any longer, nor will we ignore the responsibility we owe to our children and our grandchildren.”
The announcement gives the EPA a legal basis for capping emissions from major sources such as coal power plants, as well as cars. Jackson said she hoped it would help to spur a deal in Copenhagen.
The EPA action had been seen as a backstop should Congress fail to pass climate change law. Obama and other officials had repeatedly said they would prefer to pass legislation, but that prospect has grown increasingly remote. The House of Representatives narrowly passed a climate change bill in June, but the proposals have stalled in the Senate.
US climate agency declares CO2 public danger
FOLLOW THE MONEY – Green is not Green :
The environmentalists dirty little secret, the mining of all the rare earth elements that are required for the “green” technologies are very polluting in getting them out of the ground and into a usable state.
Recorded from Channel 4 News, 07 December 2009.
Also Read: Al Gore, Glenn Beck, Global Warming, and Forced Abortion
NYT Environment Reporter Floats Idea: Give Carbon Credits to Couples That Limit Themselves to One Child
Monday, October 19, 2009
By Edwin Mora
Washington (CNSNews.com) – Andrew Revkin, who reports on environmental issues for The New York Times, floated an idea last week for combating global warming: Give carbon credits to couples that limit themselves to having one child.
Revkin later told CNSNews.com that he was not endorsing the idea, just trying to provoke some thinking on the topic.
Revkin participated via Web camera in an Oct. 14 panel discussion on “Covering Climate: What’s Population Got to Do With It” that was held at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. The other participants on the panel were Dennis Dimick, executive editor of National Geographic, and Emily Douglas, web editor for The Nation magazine.
At the event, Revkin said: “Well, some of the people have recently proposed: Well, should there be carbon credits for a family planning program in Africa let’s say?
Should that be monetized as a part of something that, you know, if you, if you can measurably somehow divert fertility rate, say toward an accelerating decline in a place with a high fertility rate, shouldn’t there be a carbon value to that?
“And I have even proposed recently, I can’t remember if it’s in the blog, but just think about this: Should–probably the single-most concrete and substantive thing an American, young American, could do to lower our carbon footprint is not turning off the lights or driving a Prius, it’s having fewer kids, having fewer children,” said Revkin.
“So should there be, eventually you get, should you get credit–If we’re going to become carbon-centric–for having a one-child family when you could have had two or three,” said Revkin. “And obviously it’s just a thought experiment, but it raises some interesting questions about all this.”
Read Rest here
Carbon Credit for One Child Policy?
Vodpod videos no longer available.
Think forced sterilization and forced abortion can NEVER happen in America? Think Again (Maafa21)
And this interview of a woman eugenically sterilized by the state of North Carolina from Maafa21
Book Reveals Fetal Soup Served in Chinese Restaurants
The Seven Sorrows of China gives heart-wrenching accounts of the brutality of China’s one-child policy
By Thaddeus M. Baklinski
February 1, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Dr. Mark Miravalle’s sobering book, The Seven Sorrows of China, gives, in heart-wrenching detail, accounts of the brutality of the one-child policy and its effects on the Chinese people.
Dr. Miravalle’s account of his often intense experiences as he travels through modern China provides a disturbingly realistic picture of life outside of Beijing.
The following is an excerpt from Part III of Dr. Miravalle’s book, entitled The Third Sorrow: Abortion Without Conscience: The Indoctrination of a Nation:
“The most alarming,” he writes, “the most depressing, the most Copernican revelation of all that I have been exposed to (including the yet more grisly examples to follow), is the repeated refrain that the great majority of the people in China have lost any concept that there is anything at all wrong with having an abortion. It is considered less significant than a flu shot, a minor procedure like going to the dentist, a simple solution to a simple problem that doesn’t merit any soul searching for any alternative plans.
“China has become a nation who without conscience aborts their own future generations. And this is Satan’s ultimate victory here. Is this conscience loss regarding the transcendent dignity and inherent right of human life to be blamed exclusively on atheistic Communism? Have not the recent influences of Western morals of secular humanism, materialism, hedonism, and ultimately unmitigated egoism, also contributed to this Chinese terrorism of the womb? In any case, the combination amounts to self-inflicted Chinese genocide, which so saddens the God that creates and loves the ethnical uniqueness of China.
“New macabre manifestations of this conscienceless abortion mentality include the recent opening of five restaurants in the region of X, which began serving ‘fetal soup’ at the price of 300 Yuan (approximately $40) a bowl! Recent medical publications have praised the exceptional health benefits for the consuming of ‘fetal remains’ (this jargon allows them to overlook what this really is-unborn baby bodies). Therefore, local entrepreneurs jumped on the opportunity to distribute this new health breakthrough to the chosen few who could afford the price. So evil and scandalous is this fetal soup trade that the Government shut down the Web sites advertising the restaurants, in fear that they would scandalize the reputation of the People’s Republic to outside countries and businesses.
“Is it possible that the abortion holocaust and its rejection of life’s sacred dignity has also contributed to the recent practice of ‘ghost wives,’ as recently reported in Chinese news sources? This is the practice of providing a woman’s dead body to be buried with a deceased man so that the man will have company in the ‘next life.’ Distributors of the dead bodies of women found that men were willing to pay much more for a ‘new’ dead body of a woman, rather than one previously preserved. Murder of women from out-of-the-way places ensued to fill the new demand for the fresh ghost wives.
“When human life in the womb is not safe, no human life is safe. How can China regain the natural law dictates of conscience that tells every human heart that it is always wrong to directly kill an innocent human being, regardless of race, religion, health, age or location, including the womb (historically man’s most secure location, and now his most dangerous)? Through God, through prayer, through education, and through the witness of individual heroes, saving one person, one unborn child, at a time.
This part of the book also goes on to describe more of the process of the one-child policy:”A certificate of permission is required to have a baby in a Chinese hospital. The government tells you how many children you can have and when. In the city, married couples are limited to one child. In the farming regions a family, if the first child is a girl, can sometimes be permitted to try for a boy as a second child because of the need for boys on the farm. Even in this case, the government will control when they can try for the boy, with the requirement that it be at least five years after the first child. The government also uses psychological pressure to keep the policy. If a couple in the country have only one child, then this child will probably be able to have two children. The policy varies from region to region.
“A couple must go to the hospital with their permission certificate to deliver their child. If they arrive at the hospital without the permission certificate, hospital officials contact the Population Police. At this point, the Police decide, based on the circumstances of the family and the history of the couple, what is to be the fate of the family. The child will be injected with poison on the spot. Or the couple will be fined and their home burnt down. Or the couple could lose their jobs, and in some cases, cause the loss of their employees’ jobs (one teacher told me that if his wife didn’t abort her second child, he and the school principal would both lose their jobs). One Protestant woman refused to abort her second child and lost her own job at the hospital she worked at. Still another possibility is that the child does not receive official recognition that it exists and does not receive the ‘Chinese Social Security Card.’ The child therefore is not technically a citizen, nor can he or she go to school or participate in any right of a citizen. One remedy is to try to find a retired and sympathetic midwife who can deliver the child at home. This saves the baby’s life, but does not guarantee his registration”.
The Seven Sorrows of China by Dr. Mark Miravalle is available from the publisher: Queenship Publishing Company (http://www.queenship.org/productdetails.cfm?sku=3102), other online booksellers, and Christian book stores.