Fight Climate Change With Free Condoms, U.N. Population Fund Says
London (AP) - The battle against global warming could be helped if the world slowed population growth by making free condoms and family planning advice more widely available, the U.N. Population Fund said Wednesday.
Who knew that thing you carried in your wallet throughout high school could save the planet.
The agency did not recommend countries set limits on how many children people should have, but said: "Women with access to reproductive health services ... have lower fertility rates that contribute to slower growth in greenhouse gas emissions...As the growth of population, economies and consumption outpaces the Earth's capacity to adjust, climate change could become much more extreme and conceivably catastrophic," the report said.
It's great that the population control folks want the common man to share the burden of saving the planet. Do they have any particular populations in mind?
The world's population will likely rise from the current 6.7 billion to 9.2 billion in 2050, with most of the growth in less developed regions, according to a 2006 report by the United Nations.
Oh. The planet could be most efficiently saved from global warming by limiting population in third-world countries.
The United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as:
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. [emphasis mine]
Well, even if it's genocide to target third world populations for "access to reproductive health services," at least the scientific basis for the use of fertility control as a method of combating global warming is well established...
The U.N. Population Fund acknowledged it had no proof of the effect that population control would have on climate change. "The linkages between population and climate change are in most cases complex and indirect," the report said.
Oh, so they think that genocide might be helpful in saving the planet, but there's no scientific evidence...
...Still, Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, the U.N. Population Fund's executive director, told a news conference in London on Wednesday that global warming could be catastrophic for people in poor countries, particularly women.
Global warming is a threat to women? The U.N. Population Fund is directly responsible for the most horrific femicide (deliberate killing of girls and women) in history. "Population control" programs endorsed by the U.N. Population Fund and other population control nuts are responsible for the "Missing Women of Asia," first noted by Indian Nobel Laurate Amartya Sen. There are 100 million fewer women than men in southeastern Asia, mostly in China and India, due to sex-selective abortions and female infanticide.
The death toll among women from global warming: zero. The death toll among women from policies advanced by the U.N. Population Control Fund: 100 million.
One analyst seems to understand the unique venality of the population control zealots:
On Wednesday, one analyst criticized the U.N. Population Fund's pronouncements as alarmist and unhelpful.
"It requires a major leap of imagination to believe that free condoms will cool down the climate," said Caroline Boin, a policy analyst at International Policy Network, a London-based think tank.
She also questioned earlier efforts by the agency to control the world's population.
In its 1987 report, the U.N. Population Fund warned that once the global population hit 5 billion, the world "could degenerate into disaster." At the time, the agency said "more vigorous attempts to slow undue population growth" were needed in many countries.
According to Boin, "Numerous environmental indicators show that with development and economic growth we are able to preserve more natural habitats. There is no causal relationship between population density and poverty."
In this month's Bulletin, the World Health Organization's journal, two experts also warned about the dangers of linking fertility to climate change.
"Using the need to reduce climate change as a justification for curbing the fertility of individual women at best provokes controversy and at worst provides a mandate to suppress individual freedoms," wrote WHO's Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum and Manjula Lusti-Narasimhan.
The perceived threat to humanity posed by global warming is based on fraudulent science and is probably minimal. The hypotheticals of the global warming nuts are a joke--"billions and billions will die... polar bears will drown..." But there have been real deaths on a large scale caused by these creeps. The threat to humanity posed by the U.N. Population Fund and associated population zealots is a matter of historical fact, and is ongoing.
The only way that "population control" fights global warming is that it elimininates tens of millions of innocent warm bodies.
We need to avoid a global hangover the day after the summit in Copenhagen. A breakthrough is possible, but only with sacrifices
- guardian.co.uk, Thursday 3 December 2009 18.00 GMT
Mounting scepticism and deadlocked negotiations have culminated in an announcement that the Copenhagen climate conference will not result in a comprehensive global climate deal. Disappointing? Certainly. But the summit was always meant to be a transitional step. The most important thing to consider is where we will go from here.
The phrase "the day after" is most commonly associated with the word "hangover". The absence of a binding agreement could mean a global hangover, and not just for a day. Fed up with apocalyptic predictions, people wanted a miracle in Copenhagen. So a perceived failure may cause a massive, perhaps irreversible, loss of confidence in our politicians. No surprise, then, that governments have sought to manage our expectations carefully.
Decision-makers have not faced up to just how close the world may be to the climate "tipping point". But, while a runaway climate remains a risk, runaway politics are already a fact. Official negotiations are removed from reality. According to the latest science, the current proposals under negotiation will result in warming of more than 4C during this century – double the 2C maximum endorsed by the G8 and other leaders. That leaves a higher than 50% probability of the world's climate moving past its tipping point.
An agreement based on the parameters that are now on the negotiating table would thus put us in a position more dangerous than a game of Russian roulette. To avoid both the global hangover of no deal and the self-deception of a weak deal, a breakthrough is needed – and can still be achieved in Copenhagen.
A two-step process is now our best bet. States should make a political commitment to a framework that includes overall objectives, an institutional framework and specific pledges of early action and financing. The declaration must stipulate that a legally binding agreement must be finalised by a second session, COP15-bis, in 2010. That would allow the US and other countries to enact the necessary legislation, and provide United Nations negotiators time to translate the COP15 declaration into an appropriate, workable legal structure. If this means a total reworking of the current document, so be it.
In addition, it might be necessary to have a review conference in 2015 to adjust our targets and plans to the new realities. Therefore, it is more important than ever that heads of state attend the Copenhagen conference, as this two-step solution will only work with strong, direct intervention by leaders.
In 1985 during the height of the cold war, when negotiations were bogged down at the US-Soviet Union Geneva summit, the negotiators were instructed by their leaders annoyed by lack of progress: "We do not want your explanations why this can't be done. Just do it!" And it was done by the morning. Today's leaders must come to Copenhagen and say: "We want this done!"
To move forward, the Copenhagen meeting must break the political deadlock between industrialised and developing states. Climate injustice must be redressed, as developing countries bear the brunt of the impact and face massive adaptation costs. Rich countries need to put serious money on the table. Claims that they lack the needed resources ring hollow, as trillions of dollars were found to bail out banks in the financial crisis.
Poor countries are aware of their power to block progress. Veto power is effectively shifting from the UN security council to G77 plus China. Who would have imagined in the west 10 years ago that the future and their children's wellbeing would depend upon decisions taken in Beijing or Delhi or Addis Ababa?
So the industrialised countries need to put a real financing offer on the table as soon as possible to allow time for a positive reaction and announcements of commitments from developing countries. In particular, commitment to an early-start fund – at least $20bn to immediately assist the least developed countries – is critical. This would help establish the trust that is now sorely lacking, and create conditions to restart productive negotiations.
Leaders must be honest about the scale of the challenge and recognise that a systemic and transformational change, not incremental gestures, is required. The official response to climate change must be recalibrated to the level and urgency of the threat. A new global agreement must be science-based, not a lowest-common-denominator compromise watered down by vested interests.
Sensible risk management today dictates that atmospheric carbon should be stabilised at 350 parts per million of CO2 equivalent (ppm CO2e), not the current pathway of 450-500ppm CO2e. This requires emission reductions of 45-50% in industrialised countries by 2020, and almost complete de-carbonisation by 2050, not the levels of 15-25% by 2020 and 60-80% by 2050 that are now on the table. Major developing countries must also commit to nationally appropriate mitigation actions. But the rich must move first. Their inaction over the last 20 years does not give them the right to point fingers.
Governments should not withhold the truth from their citizens. Everyone will have to make sacrifices. But do you want your home to be cheap, dirty, and dangerous or clean, decent, and safe? Are you ready to say, "OK, kids, I inherited this house, but I neglected to maintain it, so you will have to worry that the roof might collapse at any time"? That is not the type of legacy that any of us would want to leave our children.
• Mikhail Gorbachev, former president of the Soviet Union, is founding president of Green Cross International; Alexander Likhotal is president of Green Cross International and a member of the Climate Change Task Force (CCTF).
A couple of years ago, James contacted Texe Marrs about remarks and allegations he had made about the late C.I Scofield and his alleged "involvement" with the Illuminati, and if that had been the case, how would it have been possible that D.L. Moody didn't know this but was somehow "taken in" too? No, response was forthcoming!
By Li Xing (China Daily)
Updated: 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.
Many studies link population growth with emissions and the effect of climate change.
"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 percent of emissions growth," so stated by the 2009 State of World Population, released earlier by the UN Population Fund.
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.
As a result of the family planning policy, China has seen 400 million fewer births, which has resulted in 18 million fewer tons of CO2 emissions a year, Zhao said.
The UN report projected that if the global population would remain 8 billion by the year 2050 instead of a little more than 9 billion according to medium-growth scenario, "it might result in 1 billion to 2 billion fewer tons of carbon emissions".
Meanwhile, she said studies have also shown that family planning programs are more efficient in helping cut emissions, 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" whereas it would cost $13 for reduced deforestation, $24 to use wind technology, $51 for solar power, $93 for introducing hybrid cars and $131 electric vehicles.
She admitted that China's population program is not without consequences, as the country is entering the aging society fast and facing the problem of gender imbalance.
"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.
She said some 85 percent of the Chinese women in reproductive age use contraceptives, the highest rate in the world. This has been achieved largely through education and improvement of people's lives, she said.
This holistic approach that integrates policy on population and development, a strategy promoting sustainable development of population, resources and environment should serve as a model for integrating population programs into the framework of climate change adaptation, she said.