To those who defend implementing radical new programs and regulations to combat problems that might or might not exist, I direct you to a recent article in the UK Times. This article covers the opinions of one Mr. Jonathan Porritt who believes that "curbing population growth through contraception and abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming." Predictably, he is connected to an organization that actively promotes this kind of thinking: The Optimum Population Trust. Like any good propaganda factory, the OPT has put together a small sampler to interest green conscious visitors.

According to the group, "each baby born in Britain will, during his or her lifetime, burn carbon roughly equivalent to 2½ acres of old-growth oak woodland[...]." The sheer imbecility and moral hazard that such a policy presents is astounding but, before I unleash the big guns, let’s take a moment to consider the reality of the British population to assess the validity of the man’s motivation. It is interesting that Porritt refers to Britain’s "high" birth rate as a reason for such a policy because, last I checked, Britain’s birth rate was below the 2.1 children per woman rate needed to replenish its population. In fact, the Western World has the lowest birth rates in the world. In the European Union, not a single country has a high enough birth rate to maintain its population. The population of every nation in the EU will DECREASE within the foreseeable future.

As for carbon footprints, If technology is allowed to progress instead of hampered by draconian "green" legislation, technology like clean nuclear (which dispose of 99% of its own nuclear waste) and fusion (meltdown proof and also produces very little waste) can almost completely eliminate the use of carbon fuel. Recycling of materials that make sense, such as some plastics and metal further reduces that footprint. With the development of improved mass transportation and the migration of people into the cities, it is likely to be a long while before population control becomes a legitimate problem.

Finally, the great lie, Global Warming, is predicated (by its greatest proponent, the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change) to cause minor sea level rises and a few degree increase or decrease in temperature depending on the location. These changes mild as they are, are not even widely accepted as accurate. Climate models rely on extremely limited data and outside of the core group of warming supporters, hundreds of prominent scientists and climatologists have officially declared they do not believe in the theory. The core supporters, meanwhile, are usually scientists with long histories of activism with ultra left-wing political groups. Dr. James Hansen, who was supposedly "censored" by the Bush Administration is a poster child for this.

Despite Hansen’s claims of censorship, he had, in fact granted over 1,400 interviews with various news outlets, including 15 the month of a hearing into the issue. He insisted that he had been singled out despite a NASA policy that required all employees to obtain permission to speak to the press. His case ignited a media firestorm and after this issue was resolved in his favor, Mr. Hanson has used his influential government funded job to advocate for radical government policy. In a trial for six Greenpeace activists who caused £30,000 pounds of damage to a coal power station in Kingsnorth, England, he advocated for their acquittal on the grounds that "somebody needs to step forward and say there has to be a moratorium, draw a line in the sand and say no more coal-fired power stations." June of 2008, he called for the trial of energy company executives for "high crimes against humanity and nature." This is the man who is responsible for running the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the world’s foremost data collection agency for Global Warming evidence. Hansen’s personal life doesn’t inspire confidence in his impartiality and, unsurprisingly, his stewardship of the Goddard Center has seen repeated factual errors. Recently, a blogger spotted a technical error in the Center’s temperature records which made 1934 the warmest year on record in the US, not 1998 as previously indicated.

Global Warming is not a closed case despite what its proponents want the world to believe. So what really motivates Mr. Porritt? If he’s warning us of a problem that is at least 100 years off if it even is a problem, why is he advocating for government control of birth rates? Isn’t his end of the political spectrum always arguing for a woman’s right to her own body? Apparently that only applies when convenient. Men like Mr. Porritt, who believe that their ideas are so vitally important to the continued existence of society that they should be given power over every aspect of citizens lives exhibit intellectual tepidness and arrogance to the highest degree. They favor political expediency that would ignore the rights of citizens. They do so despite the fact that the threats they warn of are unproven and their solutions give the government the power and the mandate to do whatever is necessary without the burden of proof. Any policy that might work to correct something that might possibly become a problem is acceptable; there is no need to reconcile such solutions with the national law.

This is the pattern of every absolutist or fascist government that has ever come to power. There is always a legitimate reason for the concentration of such power and the people are somehow supposed to benefit. In almost every instance of a modern dictatorship, the government seized power in the name of the people. Unfortunately, a dictator or oligarchy rarely keeps the people’s interest in mind once they have consolidated control. The saying "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely," is not a meaningless cliché but has been proven time and time again. Mr. Porritt is advocating a government without clearly defined bounds on its power. I’m sure that neither he nor his supporters think that such power would ever be used for anything but the greater good, but the issue of what constitutes the greater good always is always problematic. One would hope that events such as the French Revolution, Russian Revolution, countless bloody revolutionary governments, and the Holocaust would teach us that one man’s greater good can very well be an atrocity. What these men advocate is appropriately described as eco-fascism. Those who favor similar solutions for other social problems advocate the destruction of personal liberty, the creation of absolutist governments, and that their ideas be at the helm of these political atrocities. The West is the birthplace of freedom and democracy. We have made mistakes, but this cannot be one of them. As always, my dear reader, I leave it to you to spread the word.

Viva la Liberté!

–Madas

READ THE ORIGNAL STORY: http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article5627634.ece