Carbon
Scheme:
Offset Your Jet-Set Lifestyle by Eliminating African Babies
Population control groups have been using the hype surrounding the
Copenhagen climate change conference to promote their solution to
hypothetical impending environmental catastrophes. Earlier this month,
two pieces appearing in the same edition of the Guardian revisited a
report by Britain's Optimum Population Trust (OPT) that suggests that
people in wealthy first-world countries should "offset" the carbon cost
of their jet-setting lifestyles by paying to prevent the births of poor
children in the developing world.
John Vidal, the Guardian's environment editor, wrote that the OPT's
report suggesting a "radical" plan to cut carbon emissions was the
"best bet" to reduce global warming trends. In August, the OPT issued a
report claiming to have made a comprehensive cost-benefit analysis to
work out exactly how much "carbon emission" a child born in the
developing world costs.
Vidal pointed to the claim in the OPT report that the 10 metric tons of
carbon emitted by a single return flight from London to Sydney could be
"offset" by "enabling the avoidance of one unwanted birth in a country
such as Kenya."
In the same issue of the Guardian, David Burton wrote in an editorial
that the OPT offset scheme, called "called PopOffsets," could be used
to save the environment and "to help the world's poorest women."
The OPT scheme, Burton wrote, "will give practical help: both to the
poorest women in the world to enable them to control their own
fertility and to humanity by tackling the threat posed by human-induced
climate change."
The report, published in August and titled, "Fewer Emitters, Lower
Emissions, Less Cost: Reducing Future Carbon Emissions by Investing in
Family Planning," said that "family planning" is cheaper than low
carbon technologies like windmill power generators and low-consumption
light bulbs.
"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 said.
OPT insisted that only "unwanted" children would be targeted for
elimination by the scheme that would provide artificial contraception
to those who currently cannot obtain it.
The OPT scheme has been blasted, however, even by some on the far left,
as a manifestation of a "crusade against the unique quality of human
life" that typifies the environmentalist movement.
Frank Furedi, a secular humanist, author and professor of sociology at
the University of Kent, and a noted climate change skeptic, minced no
words in his assessment of the OPT's suggested scheme.
Calling them a "zombie-like Malthusian organisation devoted to the
cause of human depletion," Furedi wrote in Spiked that he was shocked
by the lack of outrage at the suggestion from humanists and religious
leaders alike.
"There was a time when people who measured the value of human life
through sombre calculations based on cost-benefit analyses were
regarded with suspicion and contempt."
"Why is it that, today, the provision of contraception can be promoted
as a sensible way of reducing carbon emissions? How do we account for
the silence of religious movements whose theology still upholds the
unique status of human life?" Furedi added.
The human population is now about 6.8 billion and world population is
expected to peak at about 9 billion in 2050 and then begin to decline.
In many countries, particularly in the developed west, the process of
de-population is already well under way, with negative fertility rates
and rising median ages.
Duncan Green, head of research at Oxfam, wrote in an op-ed in the New
Statesman that assumptions such as those in the OPT report equating
population growth and environmental degradation are a "gross
oversimplification."
Green points to the rapid slowing of population growth around the world
and fears by some governments, like South Korea, that diminishing
population will lead to economic slow-downs. In one sense, he said,
"the 'problem' is self-solving, and indeed, if the transition gets any
faster, the world could be faced by a serious shortage of working age
people to look after the rising numbers of elderly."
"If their arguments were based on logic alone, the population control
lobby would probably be advocating compulsory euthanasia rather than
birth control, but its preponderance of elderly white male members
makes that pretty unlikely," Green added.
Contact: Hilary
White
Source:
LifeSiteNews.com
Publish
Date:
December 14, 2009
Link
to
this
article.
Send
this
article
to a friend.
The IFRL is the largest grassroots pro-life organization in
Illinois. A non-profit organization, that serves as the state
coordinating body for local pro-life chapters representing thousands of
Illinois citizens working to restore respect for all human life in our
society. The IFRL is composed of people of different political
persuasions, various faiths and diverse economic, social and ethnic
backgrounds. Since 1973 the Illinois Federation for Right to Life has
been working to end abortion and restore legal protection to those members of the
human family who are threatened by abortion, infanticide and euthanasia. Diverse though we are, we hold one common belief - that
every human being has an inalienable right to life that is precious and must be protected. IFRL is
dedicated to restoring the right to life to the unborn, and protection
for the disabled and the elderly. Click here to learn more about the IFRL.