Environmental organizations and climate alarmists are constantly saying we need to protect the environment and fight global warming for our children’s and grandchildren’s sakes, but their actions paint a disturbing picture of disregard for human life.
For example, Greenpeace is on record as vigorously opposing “golden rice” (rice containing beta-carotene or Vitamin A), which would prevent millions of children from going blind and dying. This is in spite of being declared safe by major health organizations.
Greenpeace’s actions include encouraging the illegal destruction of these types of crops. Climate alarmists also favor other types of civil disobedience.
Environmentalists have also fought to eliminate DDT, which would save a million lives a year. Apparently, present lives mean so little, so how concerned can alarmists be about future generations?
Environmental organizations generally oppose anything that helps to support a population in some comfort.
They oppose overpopulation, even though numerous science studies show that global population will begin declining shortly after mid-century. Commercials and periodicals that once talked of population levels by the year 2100 have been quietly replaced by forecasts for 2050 instead, due to a declining global birth rate.
The developed countries (like Japan, Australia, Russia, Canada, the U.S. and the EU) already have declining birth rates (less than 2.1 children per woman) below the sustainable level. Deaths now exceed births in 36 percent of U.S. counties (Associated Press). After mid-century, the global birth rate will drop below a sustainable level, and global population will begin to decline.
Are we overpopulated? It depends on your perspective. All of the world’s present population (7 billion) could now fit into the state of Texas, with 1,069 square feet per person.