For the environmental extremists attending the U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen, fighting global warming is not just about reducing carbon emissions or promoting alternative energy. Rather, public documents released by some of the most important organizations represented at Copenhagen reveal an absolute obsession with population control and a bizarre belief by environmental extremists that population reduction is the "cheapest" way to achieve a reduction in carbon emissions. You see, to many of those gathered in Copenhagen, the math is simple. Less people = less carbon emitters. In fact, a carbon offset initiative launched by the Optimum Population Trust even allows people to offset their "carbon footprint" by making online payments to support "family planning" in poor countries. In other words, you can now be forgiven for your carbon "sins" by paying for a baby on the other side of the world to be killed.
As bizarre as this may seem, it is actually happening.
These new "population carbon offsets" are being offered by the Optimum Population Trust. The OPT calls itself "the leading think tank in the UK concerned with the impact of population growth on the environment". The truth is that the OPT does have some really big names associated with it. Just some of the world famous individuals involved in the Optimum Population Trust include Sir David Attenborough, Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich and Dr. Jane Goodall. One of the stated goals of the OPT is to "advance the education of the public in issues relating to human population worldwide and its impact on environmental sustainability".
The OPT's website even includes a "Stop At Two" pledge which asks people to take "another green step towards environmental survival for all" by making the following pledge:
I'm going to try not to have more than two children!
To show just how committed they are to the population control agenda, the OPT launched this population carbon offset scheme on December 3rd - just prior to the beginning of the Copenhagen climate change summit.
In his report on this new carbon offset initiative, John Vidal, the environment editor for the Guardian, noted that many of the participants at the Copenhagen summit could easily offset the carbon emissions that they would be producing during their travel to the conference by paying for one child in Africa to be killed....
Calculations based on the trust's figures show the 10 tonnes emitted by a return flight from London to Sydney would be offset by enabling the avoidance of one unwanted birth in a country such as Kenya.
In fact, the OPT has launched a dedicated website, http://www.popoffsets.com/, which allows people to offset their carbon footprint by making online payments to OPT which will go towards "family planning" around the world.
But not only that, earlier this year the Optimum Population Trust commissioned the London School of Economics to produce a report on population issues. The final report, entitled "Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost", says that the best way to reduce "greenhouse gases" is to have fewer people on earth.
This report by the London School of Economics actually performed a "cost-benefit analysis" on the various methods for reducing carbon emissions around the world, and they found that the "cheapest" way to reduce carbon emissions by far was to increase funding for "family planning".
But not only is population control the official agenda for organizations such as the OPT, it is also the official agenda of the United Nations.
Very few people have talked about the U.N. Population Division policy brief from March 2009, but it is an absolutely explosive document. This shocking policy document openly asks how fertility decline in the least developed countries can be "accelerated" as quickly as possible.
The entire March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief can be read here....
The policy brief begins with this shocking question....
What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?
The report then proceeds to discuss how the earth's population is clearly unsustainable (especially in "developing" countries) and it considers what can be done to make sure that fewer babies are born in the "least developed" nations.
But as bad as that report was, the U.N. recently released a report on population that was even more shocking.
The United Nations Population Fund recently released its annual State of the World Population Report entitled "Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate". This stunning report goes farther than any U.N. report has ever gone before by unequivocally linking population growth with climate change. The report states that the only way a climate disaster can be avoided is to radically increase "family planning" services around the globe and to do whatever it takes to reduce worldwide fertility rates. In a statement accompanying the release of the report, UNFPA Executive Director Thoraya Obaid stated that "rapid population growth and industrialization have led to a rapid rise in greenhouse gas emissions. We have now reached a point where humanity is approaching the brink of disaster."
The director of the UNFPA says that we are on the brink of disaster.
A "climate change" disaster.
And what is causing it?
According to him, the biggest cause is population growth.
But the truth is that mankind is not even causing climate change. For those who do not yet understand this, we highly recommend that you read a comprehensive article that we posted about this issue on our sister site entitled "How To Save The Environment? Get Al Gore The Heck Away From It".
But even if you concede that humanity is causing climate change, the truth is that there is still no justification for reducing the population in order to combat it.
But according to the authors of this new U.N. report, the link between population growth and climate change is undeniable....
"The importance of the speed and magnitude of recent population growth in boosting future greenhouse-gas emissions is well recognized among scientists, including the authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's reports."
In fact, the authors of the U.N. report are convinced that population growth has been responsible for approximately half of the growth of worldwide carbon emissions....
"Still, calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 per cent and 60 per cent of emissions growth."
According to the authors of the report, humanity must be "mobilized" to fight the causes of climate change before disaster strikes....
"The harsh realities of high per capita emissions among industrialized countries and swiftly rising ones among developing countries highlight the urgency of mobilizing all of humanity to stop collectively at the brink of this possible climate disaster zone."
So what is the very best way to reduce carbon emissions according to the U.N. report? Well, according to the report, each birth that can be eliminated can have a dramatic impact on reducing carbon emissions.....
"Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendents. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time."
But the authors of the U.N. report also recognize that the idea of "population control" is extremely unpopular in many areas of the world. But that is not stopping them from suggesting that it is time to seriously address population control as part of the battle against climate change....
"fear of appearing supportive of population control has until recently held back any mention of 'population' in the climate debate. Nonetheless, some participants in the debate are tentatively suggesting the need at least consider the impacts of population growth."
So if "climate change" is the world's biggest problem, who is the enemy?
Well, it turns out that humanity itself is the enemy.
The U.N. report is very clear that no human can ever be "carbon neutral"....
"No human is genuinely "carbon neutral," especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way."
So if no human can ever be "carbon neutral", what does that mean?
It means that you, me, our families and everyone else on earth is a part of the problem.
The fact that we exist is a problem to them.
So what is the solution according to the authors of the report?....
"Strong family planning programmes are in the interests of all countries for greenhouse-gas concerns as well as for broader welfare concerns."
In other words, we all need to pass out more condoms, encourage more women to get abortions and tell more women that they need to focus on their careers instead of their families so that we can get them to have less children.
You see, the term "family planning" in the report is just code for things like "lower fertility rates" and "smaller families"....
"family planning services and supplies are especially powerful in delaying the age of first pregnancies and reducing the size of completed families"
The reality is that the U.N. report uses a lot of thinly veiled, politically correct language to suggest that in order to fight climate change, radical population control measures should be implemented.
Thanks to the Obama administration, the UNPF will have plenty of money with which to pursue that agenda.
Back in March, the Obama administration reversed the Bush administration's policy and directed that 50 million dollars be given to the United Nations Population Fund.
So not only is the United Nations Population Fund promoting their population control agenda around the globe, they are also using American tax dollars to do it.
But it is not just the environmental elitists among globalist organizations that are obsessed with population control.
The truth is that the population control agenda is taught side by side with the global warming and radical environmental agendas in universities throughout the world.
Millions of normal people who have been indoctrinated in these universities are now buying into this agenda and are taking action.
For example, there is actually a website entitled "One Less Child" that openly promotes the idea that people should have one less child. The idea is that having less children is the absolute best thing that a person can do to help the environment. Their mission statement actually says the following about the need to control the population.....
To have couples consider population reduction through less offspring. Having less offspring actually increases the quality of life of your current offspring, which is what every couple wants.
Not only that, but an author by the name of Diane Francis recently authored an article in a national Canadian newspaper that openly called for Canada to implement a formal one child policy like China has done.
Her article, entitled "The Real Inconvenient Truth", has fortunately caused an uproar throughout Canada. It seems that most Canadians are not yet ready to accept a mandatory one child policy.
In her article, Francis presents two scenarios. The first is if a one-child policy is implemented worldwide. The second is if a one-child policy is not implemented....
These radical environmentalists actually believe that there will be unprecedented global disasters if radical population control measures are not enforced across the globe immediately.
Of course by now most people who will read this article know that this bizarre population control agenda is even represented in the White House. Barack Obama's "science czar", John P. Holdren, once co-authored a textbook entitled "Ecoscience" in which he advocated population control measures that are so wild and so bizarre that it is difficult to believe that a sane individual actually authored them.
What follows are actual quotes from Holdren's textbook....
Pages 787 and 788....
“Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would haveto meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.”
Pages 786 and 787....
“A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.
The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births.”
“In today’s world, however, the number of children in a family is a matter of profound public concern. The law regulates other highly personal matters. For example, no one may lawfully have more than one spouse at a time. Why should the law not be able to prevent a person from having more than two children?”
Keep in mind that Holdren is now Barack Obama's top science advisor.
But even some of the richest people in the world are absolutely obsessed with population control. Back on May 5th, Bill Gates, David Rockefeller, Warren Buffett, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Ted Turner, Oprah Winfrey and a number of other of the wealthiest people in the world gathered for a clandestine meeting in Manhattan. The meeting was supposed to be so secret that many of the billionaires’ aides were only told that they were at "security briefings".
So what was so important that so many of the wealthiest people in the world had to gather for a secret meeting?
According to one major U.K. newspaper, one person who attended this secret meeting confessed that "a consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat."
This is what the richest people in the world are so upset about?
The article goes on to quote one attendee of the meeting as saying the following about the "overpopulation problem"....
"This is something so nightmarish that everyone in this group agreed it needs big-brain answers."
Apparently they do not intend to include the rest of us as they come up with their "big-brain answers".
It would be a mistake to underestimate how obsessed the global elite are with population issues.
The truth is that they are absolutely committed to trying to solve the "population problem" in this generation.
So what will their "solutions" look like?
We can only guess.
But what we do know is that in the name of fighting "climate change", the United Nations and the global elite plan to pursue a radical population control agenda. According to their own documents, the number one problem the world is facing is "climate change" and the number one cause of "climate change" is overpopulation.
Knowing that many nations on earth will never willingly submit to open population control measures, the global elite will likely implement their population reduction methods by subtle means. Let us just hope that they are not successful in their attempts to eliminate as many people as possible.