• COMMENTARY: Sierra Club Solution for Global Warming: Abortion and Mass Distribution of Birth Control


    The executive director of the left-leaning Sierra Club is Michael Brune.  On several occasions speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club, he has said, “Abortion addresses the number of people that we have on the planet. We feel that one way of how we can get a sustainable population is to empower women to make choices about their own families.” Brune, speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club, believes that abortion will be a cost effective way to reverse the effects of global warming by trimming the world’s population, or at least slowing down its growth. The potential growth in the carbon footprint caused by these aborted children will be diminished by their extermination.

    Not to be outdone, another Democratic liberal, Gloria Steinem, in an interview with Refinery29 says, “That allowing a human child to be born instead of murdering him will cause global warming.” What does it say about the left and its leaders when one of them is saying, “Murder our children to stop global warming? According to this radical feminist, women will never be “fully equal” to men unless they have abortion rights.

    Will this philosophy of killing our children be a foundation position of the Democratic Party in the 2018 election? Will support for this idea that we can finally solve climate change by killing more of our children on a global basis be acceptable to Americans, and for that matter, the rest of the world?  Will the slaughter of unborn children as a solution for climate change be a plank in the Democratic platform for the Presidential election in 2020? How many need to die? Read on.

    The National Institute of Health in a report titled, The Role of Abortions in Control of Population Growth, says, “No nation desirous of reducing its growth rate to 1% or less can expect to do so without the widespread use of abortion.” This observational study, based on the experience of 116 of the world’s largest countries, supports the contention that abortion is essential to any national population growth control effort. The principal findings are: “Except for a few countries with aging populations and very high contraceptive prevalence rates, developed countries will need to maintain abortion rates generally in the range of 201-500 abortions per 1000 live births if they are to keep growth rates at levels below 1%.”

    What they are saying is that to reduce the impact of population on climate change, 50% of all pregnancies have to be terminated to keep the population growth rate under 1%.  The report finishes with this statement; “An even greater reliance on abortion–over 500 per 1000 live births–is required in developing countries to reduce population growth.”

    According to the book, The World Without Us, author Alan Weisman’s strangely comforting vision of human annihilation, says the Earth would be a lot better off. Let’s not wait for climate change, he says. Let’s start depopulating right now. For those of you who think this is absurd, Weisman’s book is on the New York Times bestseller list.

    In 1970 George Wald, the late Nobel laureate biology professor at Harvard University, predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Also in 1970, Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist and best-selling author of The Population Bomb, declared that the world’s population would soon outstrip food supplies. In an article for The Progressive, he predicted, “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.” He gave this warning in 1969 to Britain’s Institute of Biology: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” On the first Earth Day, Ehrlich warned, “In 10 years, all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.”

    So to stop the effects of climate change, the world must turn to the distribution of massive quantities of birth control and perhaps kill one out of two unborn babies.

    In 1979 China tried to limit their population growth by establishing a one-child policy. The policy makers didn’t think about the long-term implications of this program. Women who already had a child and found themselves pregnant again were forced to have abortions, kill newly born babies, or in other cases, having the extra child taken by the state.

    Ken Gronbach wrote one of my favorite books about the future, Upside. Ken is a demographer and I enjoy his work. He has looked at Europe and China and has found some alarming trends as a result of smaller population growth. “When you create a system where you would shrink the size of a family and people would have to choose, then people would … choose boys,” Gronbach, says China now has 30 million plus more men than women, 30 million bachelors who cannot find brides. They call them guang guan, “broken branches,” that’s the name in Chinese. They are the biological dead ends of their families.

    “Right now China has a dependency ratio of about five working adults to support one retiree. That’s pretty good; that’s a very healthy rate. However, things will change rapidly and deteriorate for a long time when the single men work their way through the system.  Within about 20 years, the ratio will be 1.6 working adults to support one retiree. The one-child policy has drastically reshaped the composition of China’s people. So now they have a population that’s too old and too male, and down the line, maybe too few workers to support the older generation and eventually themselves.

    The same issues are unfolding in Europe. Why did the German Chancellor let so many refugees into her country? Germany does not have enough births to replace German workers in the factories. With a birth rate of 1.4, you cannot replace the dying and as a result, jobs go unfilled and the economy starts to slow down and becomes stagnant.

    China cancelled the one-child program in 2015. Was this done too late? If the world were to adopt the former Chinese policy of one child per family as a way of solving climate change, the world’s economy would collapse with very little growth. Want to find out what would happen to the world if there were less than a 1% population growth? Wait a minute. Perhaps that is what the liberals want. A slow economy and a slowly growing population will reduce the carbon footprint, thus eliminating climate change and perhaps ourselves.

    Dan Perkins

    Dan Perkins is a novelist who has written a trilogy on a terrorist attack against the United States. The Brotherhood of the Red Nile series is available at Amazon.com. Mr. Perkins book web site is www.danperkins.guru.

    Trending Now on Daily Surge

    Send this to a friend