The fix is simple. It's dramatic. And yet the world's leaders don't even have this on their agenda in Copenhagen. Instead there will be photo ops, posturing, optics, blah-blah-blah about climate science and climate fraud, announcements of giant wind farms, then cap-and-trade subsidies.
None will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed. Unfortunately, there are powerful opponents. Leaders of the world's big fundamentalist religions preach in favor of procreation and fiercely oppose birth control. And most political leaders in emerging economies perpetuate a disastrous Catch-22: Many children (i. e. sons) stave off hardship in the absence of a social safety net or economic development, which, in turn, prevents protections or development.
China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet.
For those who balk at the notion that governments should control family sizes, just wait until the growing human population turns twice as much pastureland into desert as is now the case, or when the Amazon is gone, the elephants disappear for good and wars erupt over water, scarce resources and spatial needs.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: scratch a typical climate change activist, and find a kinsman of Margaret Sanger, who referred to human beings as "weeds."
I've been skeptical of the claims of "global warming" activists, now rebranded as "climate change" activists, from the beginning. Is the planet warmer than it used to be? Possibly. Is this a bad thing? Perhaps. Is man, through his various activities, the undeniable and overwhelming and only major cause of any warming that has been observed--provided the observations were based on sound data and not collected with a view toward proving something researchers had a vested interest in proving?
I highly doubt it.
The reasons for my skepticism are many, and beyond the scope of a typical blog post. They touch on such matters as the observed warming on other planets in our solar system during this same period, the lack of hard data from past centuries, complaints from some researchers about the location of temperature gauges used to collect important data (e.g., one gauge which showed a dramatic "rise" in temperature was located in an area that was once rural and is now a paved city block, if I recall my reading correctly), the reliance on computer models some of which failed to calculate the effects of such things as cloud cover and rain on temperatures, and a host of other problems, long before the Climategate emails showed up to add another facet to my tendency to doubt the whole anthropogenic global warming theory.
But one of the main reasons I've been skeptical about AGW is that it's an awfully convenient myth for the forces of destruction that have been unleashed against the family. If man and man's activities make him a pollutant, a threat to the very existence of life on our planet--why, then, governments can curtail man's activities in order to control him, and eventually coerce him into giving up his right to a family. If having children is classified as an environmentally harmful activity, there's no limit to the potential governmental ability to keep people from doing that--from imposing, as the author of that outrageous editorial suggests, China's forced-abortion, forced-sterilization, one-child policy on anyone whom it chooses.
The ability to control human beings and their ability to procreate has been a major desire of many elements for at least a century, now. From the glory days of the Eugenics Movement to its embarrassment and downfall over the whole Hitler mess to its phoenix-like resurrection as the Birth Control Movement to the present day when liberals are pleading with teary eyes for the right to force people to pay for the abortions of their fellow citizens, this mad desire has run unchecked through our recent history, and continues to gain followers.
But it has suffered its setbacks, too. The forced sterilization of the "unfit" lost support after World War II, when the inevitable connections with Hitler's ideas made such practices indefensible among the set who had previously agitated for them. The organization Zero Population Growth renamed itself "Population Connection," to try to attract more support. And the attention being paid to the abortion-funding provisions of the proposed heath care reform may end up derailing reform altogether.
In this reality, where people are beginning to fight against the idea that human beings are some kind of blight upon the planet or that the solution to the earth's problems would be to enact a kind of preemptive genocide upon billions of our neighbors, it is, as I said above, awfully convenient to be able to convince people that the seas are going to rise and kill us all unless we start adopting parenting licenses and one-child limits upon every person on the planet. And if there's one thing I'm always going to be suspicious about, it's this kind of convenient story told to advance an anti-human agenda that has, in some ways, been brewing since the serpent crawled out of Eden on his belly, plotting his revenge against the creatures made in the image and likeness of God.
UPDATE: China says we have to control population to reduce global warming.