The “problem” of reducing the human race to more “sustainable levels” is, in fact, a major element of the environmentalist agenda. What is lamented throughout the BBC News article is that issues such as “climate change” are distracting from the main points of environmentalism, such as reducing the human population and slowing the loss of non-human species. In Black’s words:

Even more difficult than putting something like biodiversity loss on the agenda, says former government adviser Jonathon Porritt, is getting politicians and the wider environmental community to accept that underpinning everything are the unsustainable size of the Earth’s human population and our unsustainable (and rising) hunger for the Earth’s natural resources.

Recently he raised the population issue in his blog — only to be excoriated by columnist Melanie Phillips for having a “sinister and de-humanised mindset” — which is perhaps an indicator of why other contemporary environmental thinkers are so reluctant to raise it publically, despite admitting its importance in private.

“Too controversial,” he says.

“‘Population raises all these issues about religion, about culture, about male dominance in the world; and (people) get very uncomfortable about that.”

Nevertheless, he argues, the logic is undeniable.

Speaking recently at Mr Porritt’s Forum for the Future, a Chinese government official described the one child per family policy as having led to “400 million births averted” — which she then converted into the greenhouse gases those extra human inhabitants would have produced, and noted that no other country had done as much to curb climate change.

But, he continues: “You don’t have to accept the China route to that logic.

“You can look to all kinds of alternative ways of reducing human numbers which aren’t done as coercively as the one child per family policy was done in the past.

“However, when I was director of Friends of the Earth, could I get our local groups or my colleagues to go along with that? I have to admit complete failure.”

Such honest admissions from environmental activists offer people an opportunity to place their claims in a broader context. Trendy issues come and go, but the underlying problem remains for the environmentalists: How do we get rid of all these humans?

The monstrous description of the Chinese policy as “400 million births averted” makes it quite clear what is truly at stake in combating eco-lunacy. The crosshairs of the environmental extremists are targeting your way of life, and literally the lives of generations yet unborn.

And the UN is here to help them.

Original Story