Alex Renton has declared war on mankind, in general, and Western man, in particular.

Why? Well, to save the planet, of course!

In a October 25 column for Guardian.co.uk, Renton throws down the gauntlet:

"The worst thing that you or I can do for the planet is to have children. If they behave as the average person in the rich world does now, they will emit some 11 tonnes of CO² every year of their lives. In their turn, they are likely to have more carbon-emitting children who will make an even bigger mess. If Britain is to meet the government's target of an 80% reduction in our emissions by 2050, we need to start reversing our rising rate of population growth immediately."

But how do we go about “reversing” population growth “immediately”? Demographic trends are, pretty much by definition, multi-generational trends that are not exactly inclined to casual manipulation. Some pretty brutal tactics have been used by totalitarian regimes (China’s “one child” policy comes to mind) to try to manipulate demographics, and even that ghastly war on the unborn has had results that were less than ‘immediate’ and have had unintended consequences (such as the radical gender disparity among the survivors).

Renton realizes that even the fanaticism of the folks planning for the UN Climate Change Conference in December isn’t enough. It isn’t enough to move money around the world to create an incentive for less developed nations to create ‘greener’ technologies. Renton wants fewer people in the world — and he wants that reduction right now. In an explosion of anti-human sentiment, Renton erupts:

Are condoms not the greenest technology of all?

World population is forecast to peak at 9.2bn by 2050. According to a report by the LSE for the Optimum Population Trust, the lobbying body currently asking parents to "Stop at Two", it would cost $220m to provide the family planning that would reduce the 2050 population by half a billion, preventing the emission of 34 gigatonnes of carbon. Introducing low-carbon technology for the same result would cost more than $1 trillion.

So why does population control hardly feature on the agendas of the UN bodies or of the governments now committed to tackling climate change? And why do the development and environmental groups shy away from it?

Well, at least Renton is more honest than most environmentalists; he admits that the goals of his ideology are best achieved by reducing the human population, and he’s not afraid of chastising his fellow eco-warriors to get out there and join the fight against the spread of humanity.

But apparently even the UN cannot live up to Renton’s aspirations. (Which makes sense: the Internationalists want global environmental regulation as a means to control the global economy — and thus essentially ever aspect of human life; still, as Igor Shafarevich has demonstrated, a death urge attends the Socialist ideology, and fantasies of annihilation have never been far from the minds of philosophes since the time of the French Revolution.)

So what is a budding warrior for Gaia to do? Renton takes it to the next level:

It is certainly true that "fewer people equals a greener planet" is simplistic. In 2050, 95% of the extra population will be poor and the poorer you are, the less carbon you emit. By today's standards, a cull of Australians or Americans would be at least 60 times as productive as one of Bangladeshis.

Presuming that a professional writer such as Alex Renton is not a complete stranger to the use of the English language, I will operate on the assumption that he understands the use of the term “cull” and therefore says what he means, and means what he says. Renton is weighing the relative environmental merits of slaughtering Australians or Americans over slaughtering Bangladeshis — which is presumably a safer strategy for him to advocate than to suggest beginning with his neighbors in Edinburgh in the great march forward to a greener future.

The problem, you see, is that Renton isn’t sure that humanity can sufficiently cut the production of CO² by less radical means:

According to the International Energy Agency, if the whole world moved over to clean electricity, the CO² savings would offset the emissions of up to 2.8bn poor people, easily accounting for the entire extra population forecast for 2050.

But what if we can't reform the way we produce and use energy? The most worrying of climate change's impacts — food and water shortages, forced migration, health epidemics — are exacerbated by population growth. According to two recent polls, nine out of 10 scientists working in climate change don't believe we will achieve the changes in energy use committed to by the G8 and the EU. If they are right, population is going to start to matter a lot. Don't we need a fallback plan?

“Fallback plan” sounds so innocuous, until you remember the man was just weighing culling Australians and Americans. The problem is there are too many rich people. (And, by the way, anyone reading this can be certain that they fit the definition of “rich person” being used in this context, regardless of how they might assess their relative wealth.)

So the richer a country gets, the more pressing the need for it to curb its population. The only nation to have taken steps to do this is China – and the way it went about enforcing the notorious one child policy is one of the reasons the rest of us are so horrified by the notion of state intervention. Yet China now has 300-400 million fewer people. It was certainly the most successful governmental attempt to preserve the world's resources so far.

But lowering birth rate need not be so draconian. Experience shows it is most effectively done by ensuring women's equality and improving their education, while providing cheap contraception. Birth rate, gender equality, education and poverty are inextricably linked.

But how do you reduce population in countries where women's rights are already achieved and birth-control methods are freely available? Could children perhaps become part of an adult's personal carbon allowance? Could you offer rewards: have one child only and you may fly to Florida once a year?

How magnanimous of Mr. Renton to concede that the methodology for reducing the number of human beings “need not be so draconian” as implemented by the totalitarian regime in China. He’s still willing to allow some room for the “carrot” before resorting entirely to the “stick.”

Here’s where it’s going: the self-appointed guardians of the Earth are now prepared to dictate “an adult’s personal carbon allowance.” Can you imagine the monitoring necessary to pull that off? Silly sentiments about flying to Florida aside, imagine living in Renton’s world, where having a child is classified as a form of pollution.

Rt. Rev. James Heiser has served as Pastor of Salem Lutheran Church in Malone, Texas, while maintaining his responsibilities as publisher of Repristination Press, which he established in 1993 to publish academic and popular theological books to serve the Lutheran Church.  Heiser has also served since 2005 as the Dean of Missions for The Augustana Ministerium and in 2006 was called to serve as Bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Diocese of North America (ELDoNA). An advocate of manned space exploration, Heiser serves on the Steering Committee of the Mars Society. His publications include two books; The Office of the Ministry in N. Hunnius' Epitome Credendorum (1996) and A Shining City on a Higher Hill: Christianity and the Next New World (2006), as well as dozens of journal articles and book reviews.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (12)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

DDW said:

Why doesn't he (Renton) Set an example by committing suicide? Also, I wonder if he himself is rich? I'm betting that he most certainly is (at least by third world standards). Here's what the Bible says: Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is His reward. As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: They shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate. Psalm 127:3-5 So much for Renton and his useless, evil ilk.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +8

Amadeus8888 said:

	... If the nut job anti-human extremists practiced what they preached, them and their ideas would be extinct within a generation. People who advocate population control should be forbidden from having children. Period.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +4

RP said:

	Liberal nonsense Animals also emit CO2. The amount of CO2 is probably proportional to size, so wouldn't it be better if some of the larger animals became extinct? Elephants, POLAR BEARS, WHALES, etc.? Don't see too many liberals advocating this, do you?
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +6

EdD said:

	ANIMALS "so wouldn't it be better if some of the larger animals became extinct? Elephants, POLAR BEARS, WHALES, etc.? Don't see too many liberals advocating this, do you?" No, but you do hear about 99% of them saying that we should be eating a vegetarian diet if we care about our (responsibly considered) childrens' future.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +0

JackR said:

	... Love the end of Rainbow Six: Clark orders the eco-terrorists to remove all of their clothes and walk into the Brazilian rain forest without any of civilization's aids, telling them that if they want to commune with nature so much, they should go commune.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +5

Kenneth Creech said:

	... Every time I hear of communing I can not help but think of communist and I abort(ha,ha) the thought!!!
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +1

rprew said:

	... EdD - I don't see anywhere NEAR 99% of liberals practicing a vegetarian diet. When 99% of a group advocates some action and a vast majority of that group then fails to follow their own advocacy, they lose credibility in my eyes.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 28, 2009
Votes: +1

Kevin Fry said:

	Mr Why don't they just get rid of the monsters of the world -ie Rockefeller, Cheney, Bush, Kissinger. Make space for more humane people in this world???
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 29, 2009
Votes: +2

Luella Pearl said:

	come on, get serious! Your post is worth debating. But the headline is infantile. It doesn't remotely reflect what the article you cite says, and does you a disservice.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 29, 2009
Votes: -4

Lal Wynstrom said:

Rev. Heiser's title may be dramatic but..., part 1 ...it is dramatically accurate, particularly when Mr. Renton's article is taken, not only in its own context, but in context with others of his ilk who are hell bent on curbing the populations of the West, and the planet in general. I took the time to read Renton's article in full, in his own words as divorced from Rev. Heiser's "spin" on them. Guess what, Mr. Heiser is STILL accurate in his assessment of Renton's words. In their 1977 book "Ecoscience" current science "czar" John Holdren, and former science advisor to the Bush Administration, Paul Ehrlic, recommended such draconian population control methods as forced abortions, mass sterilization programs to include placing sterilants in food and water, mandatory body implants that would prevent conception, government licensing programs that would decide who could have children, and by what numbers, and the mechanism of a “global police force” (can we say United Nations?) to enforce these totalitarian measures of population control.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 30, 2009
Votes: +5

Lal Wynstrom said:

Rev. Heiser's title may be dramatic but..., part 2 It may be chic to dismiss such notions as the ravings of intellectuals in their ivory towers, or merely as the rantings of lunatic Leftists with no more government programs or funds to loot. However, consider that both the so-called "conservative and liberal" ranks contain these barbarians. We are now being trained to accept the Godless notion- through such ideas as euthanasia, abortion, even the avoidance of active reproduction itself for self-indulgent reasons- that human life is not simply worthless, it is a negative! Meanwhile the elite of world- and their devilish mouthpieces such as Mr. Renton- get not only to "breed" more and more offspring, but to travel the earth in as many lavish CO2-producing SUVs, and gobble as many steaks as Al Gore's pudgy Santa Claus face will allow. In the interim YOU are forced to curtail your GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to procreation in the name of Gaia Mother Earth and your carbon footprint?! It is time to stop making excuses for the "flower talk" and intellectualism these people use to disguise their intentions. They are barbarians, pure and undiluted. They know exactly what they are saying. And they know exactly what they are doing.

report abuse vote down vote up

October 30, 2009
Votes: +5

DDW said:

	Right on!! Lal Wynstrom.
	report abuse vote down vote up

October 30, 2009
Votes: +2