Sir David Attenborough patron of the Optimum Population Trust. "Reducing emissions is...simples!"
The Telegraph today reports...
Every £4 spent on family planning over the next four decades would reduce global CO2 emissions by more than a ton, whereas a minimum of £19 would have to be spent on low-carbon technologies to achieve the same result, the research says. (Is there any area of our lives which is not 'for sale'?)So the UN, the same UN that wants a single currency for the whole world, also want to reduce the World's population by half a billion. What is it about people that the UN do not like? Last time I checked the UN had enshrined in its Declaration of Human Rights the Right to a Family. Hey guys! What changed!?
The report, 'Fewer Emitters, Lower Emissions, Less Cost', concludes that family planning should be seen as one of the primary methods of emissions reduction. The UN estimates that 40 per cent of all pregnancies worldwide are unintended. (Ah, the UN again! United Nations? United Nazis more like!)
If these basic family planning needs were met, 34 gigatons (billion tonnes) of CO2 would be saved – equivalent to nearly 6 times the annual emissions of the US and almost 60 times the UK’s annual total. (You've got to hand it to their statisticians. They've certainly done their sums. Fewer people = fewer emissions).
Roger Martin, chairman of the Optimum Population Trust at the LSE, said: “It’s always been obvious that total emissions depend on the number of emitters as well as their individual emissions – the carbon tonnage can’t shoot down as we want, while the population keeps shooting up.”
UN data suggests that meeting unmet need for family planning would reduce unintended births by 72 per cent, reducing projected world population in 2050 by half a billion to 8.64 million.
The research is published on the day that the Government’s climate change advisers, the Climate Change Committee, warned households and industry that a planned 80 per cent reduction in emissions are likely to prove insufficient. (What is that on the horizon? Oh, it's a future 'cap' on the number of children per family...)
Quite a lot it would seem. According to these heretical, unelected bureaucrats, the answer to reducing emissions lies not in curbing the excesses of big polluters but in reducing the number of emitters. That is...you guessed it! Us! Incredible. The Optimum Population Trust's motto, by the way, is 'Stop at Two' and encourages people to make a 'pledge' to do just that. "'Stop at Two', what?", you might ask! Stop at two in the morning? No, they mean stop at two children.
I'm going to follow the advice of patrons of the trust, Sir David Attenborough and Jonathon Porritt, and when I see two children I'll stop and say, "Dear small children, I urge you to write a letter to David Attenborough and Jonathon Porrit and tell them they are espousing wicked creeds, because they want to reduce the number of children being born in the World just because Attenborough is obsessed with ensuring the snow leopard doesn't end up extinct. Tell them that you, as children, are glad that you are alive and that Porrit and his mate Attenborough can shove the snow leopards up their a**ses if it means your brothers and sisters have to get aborted to save them."
I wonder if the Optimum Population Trust have an exact optimum population figure in mind. To both the UN and to the Optimum Population Trust we, human beings, are a problem, not a solution, a burden, not a gift. At best, we are a statistic and at worst, we are as important as a UN delegates paper claim for air travel and hotel expenses.