Global warming alarmist types are in a dither, according to a study in The Scientific American entitled “Will Birth Control Solve Climate Change?”
The Chicken Littles are desperate to stop babies from being born but aren’t sure of the best way to do it. They’re wary of seeing people raised out of poverty because the spread of wealth usually means more carbon emissions - which they don’t like. But increased wealth also typically leads to highly educated women which usually leads to a lower birth rate -which they like very much. So carbon crazies don’t know whether to root for poverty stricken dumb people or wealthy ones who don’t reproduce and retire early. One thing they all agree on however is that the less people the better. It’s just how to get there that’s being debated.
The piece assumes that people are the problem and references via link a piece by population huckster Paul Ehrlich that says: “Education and employment—for women especially—along with access to contraception and safe abortions are the most important components.”
Scientific American writes:
“If global population growth slows down, it is not going to solve the climate problem, but it can make a contribution.”
Overall, curbing population growth could reduce greenhouse gas emissions; reducing peak population to roughly 8 billion, for example, could save 29 percent of expected greenhouse gas emissions. Economic growth seems like one way to accomplish that, considering that rising wealth has historically slowed birth rates. But O’Neill and his colleagues warn that, if fewer but richer people consume more—as current consumption patterns in places like the U.S. suggest—those greenhouse gas savings become increased emissions.
What a quandary. If we educate women they might have less babies but they might become so self focused that they produce enough carbon for two or three all on their own.
What to do? The only thing they always do. Urge more contraception and abortion.
Ultimately, family planning alone—such as the use of condoms and other reproductive health services—in parts of the world with growing populations, including the U.S., could restrain population growth significantly, this analysis finds. It would appear that we’re trying, thanks primarily to ongoing efforts to enable women to take control of their own lives through education and other methods. Already, birth rates the world over have halved from an average of five children per women to just 2.6 today—a baby bust replacing the baby boom.
But obviously halving the birth rate worldwide isn’t enough. They must stop babies from being born in order to save the planet. But who are they saving it for?
Exit question: Anyone else a little uncomfortable when science gets in the business of social engineering and population control?