THE MODEST PROPOSAL
MONOLOGUE WRITTEN BY CLYDE LEWIS
I don’t remember how long ago or what show it was, but I made an off-the-cuff comment saying that Climate Change was dead. This enraged a few of my followers on Facebook. I was getting all kinds of messages declaring how ignorant I was and that I was anti-science and the usually pejorative comments that you get when you call out the technocrats who have been paid off to make weather and climate a political football.
I guess I should be more careful about what I shoot from my hip. I guess I have to make myself clearer, without running the risk of sounding redundant.
So, I will say again the issue of Climate Change as a political football is dead — it has run its course. It is a patient that is on its death bed and there are reasons why I have come to this conclusion.
First of all, it appears that Climate Change is no longer a pre-eminent policy issue.
It is obvious the responses I got from my comment that Climate Change as described by the technocrats, has been reduced to boilerplate rhetoric from the political class.
That is one of the reasons I tune out Global Warming cultists is because where you stand on the issue becomes a political shotgun trial where judgments are made about character and IQ, which have nothing to do with political choices.
Another reason I see that the whole Climate Change idea is wearing out its welcome is because of frivolous nuisance lawsuits, and bureaucratic mandates on behalf of special-interest renewable-energy lobbyists. Most national governments are backing away from forced-marched decarbonization and Green economic proposals.
There are still those that are hanging on for dear life, but soon it is proposed they will also re-evaluate the time and money it is taking to continue to push doomsday scenarios based on climate and catastrophic cycles that are normal.
Like it or not President Trump’s brazen withdrawal from the Paris Agreement merely gave credence a trend that has long become evident.
Another good indicator of why Climate Change as an issue is over can be found early in the text of the Paris Agreement. The “nonbinding” pact declares that climate action must include concern for “gender equality, empowerment of women, and intergenerational equity” as well as “the importance for some of the concept of ‘climate justice.’
Another is Sarah Myhre’s address at the most recent meeting of the American Geophysical Union, in which she proclaimed that Climate Change cannot fully be addressed without also grappling with the misogyny and social injustice that have perpetuated the problem for decades.
Meanwhile, another last gasp comes from a report where The Berkeley California City Council declared what it called a “climate emergency” with more global significance than World War II, and demanded an immediate effort to “humanely stabilize population” and “reverse ecological overshoot.”
The resolution, which invokes the global conflict between the Axis and Allies, charges that Americans bear an “extraordinary responsibility to solve the crises” facing the environment.
The resolution states:
“During World War II, the Bay Area came together across race, age, class, gender and other differences in an extraordinary regional mobilization, building and repairing Liberty ships, converting car assembly plants into tank manufacturing facilities.
A similar effort is necessary today to confront an even greater threat, according to the document.
We can rise to the challenge of the greatest crisis in history by organizing politically to catalyze a national and global climate emergency effort, employing local workers in a mobilization effort building and installing renewable energy infrastructure.
More than 60 million people died during World War II, according to most estimates – a huge portion of the global population.”
But according to the Berkeley City Council, another thinning of the herd might be needed.
The resolution notes that “reversing ecological overshoot and halting the sixth mass extinction requires an effort to preserve and restore half Earth’s biodiversity in interconnected wildlife corridors and to humanely stabilize population.”
The resolution, introduced by councilwoman Cheryl Davila, then invokes Pope Francis’ comment that humanity is on the verge of global “suicide” and that “God’s creation” is at stake.
In addition to population control and a national mobilization effort, according to the Berkeley City Council, residents should avoid “consumerism” and “narcissism.”
While opinion surveys find that roughly half of Americans regard Climate Change as a problem, the issue has never achieved high importance among the public, despite the all of the alarmist calls for reducing carbon emissions and humane ways of dealing with population growth from the climate campaign.
Americans have consistently ranked Climate Change the 19th or 20th of 20 leading issues on the annual Pew Research Center poll, while Gallup’s yearly survey of environmental issues typically ranks Climate Change far behind air and water pollution.
The reason is simple – there are too many Malthusian cultists that are running the show and there are neoliberal extremists that try to insert the issue of the week into the many reasons for Climate Change.
Does anyone really believe that Climate Change is being perpetuated by misogyny and social injustice towards women? Is consumerism and narcissism aggravating climate change or is this sounding more like a cooked up agenda that is being dug up out the pit of identity politics?
I contend that from the beginning Global Warming and its silly evolution into Climate Change, it has been nothing more than an excuse for Eugenicists to find a politically correct way to thin the herd without sounding like immoral monsters.
Their philosophy is quite simple; the more the world’s population rises, the greater the strain on dwindling resources and the greater the impact on the environment.
Public-health discussions will regularly include mentions of voluntary family planning as a way to reduce unwanted pregnancies and births. However, the overt operations to try and discourage sexual activity and procreation for the sake of resources has been part of a secret agenda for some time. Climate Change advocates are not opposed to implementing population engineering in order to assuage the effects of climate disruption.
While many people supportive of this new science are looking for ways to create alternative fuels, the elite are busily preparing mass, genocide agreements, and developing other methods population engineering.
To the elite, population engineering is clearly defined as the intentional manipulation of the size and structure of human populations.
Climate advisors and population watchdogs specifically defend three types of policies aimed at reducing fertility rates: (1) Reproductive choice enhancement, (2) preference adjustment, and (3) incentivization.
While few object to the first type of policy, the latter two are generally rejected because of their potential for coercion or morally objectionable manipulation.
However, the elite believe that all three are morally justified in order to keep resources balanced.
In the academic journal known as “Social Theory and Practice” a memo entitled “Population Engineering and the Fight against Climate Change” by Colin Hickey, Travis N. Rieder, and Jake Earl states clearly the objective of the powers that be and their agenda of population engineering and what it means to everybody.
In the published memo it states:
“There are two important considerations that favor including population engineering as part of the global policy response to the threat of dangerous climate change. First, the current consensus approach to mitigating climate change, which does not include population engineering, falls short of offering a clear and reasonably certain pathway to avoiding dangerous climate change. Second, reducing global population growth over the next century would have a truly massive effect on global Green house Gas emissions.”
Furthermore it says:
“While reducing fertility in developing nations is important, since their per capita GHG emissions are projected to increase significantly (and should be allowed to do so) over the next several decades, it is not nearly as critical as near-term reductions in the numbers of the world’s wealthy. Although it would be difficult to lower the fertility rate in the United States from 1.9 to, say, 1.4, such a reduction would have a massive impact on both near-term and long-term global GHG emissions—much more even than proportionally larger fertility reductions in sub-Saharan Africa.46 But this raises a question: Why bother to reduce fertility in developing nations at all? If the United States and other developed nations are the real problem, then our efforts, surely, ought to focus exclusively on reducing their numbers. But this is also too simplistic. Many of the world’s poor are becoming richer, and all of the rest ought to become richer. That is, it is both descriptively true that many of the world’s poor will have higher per capita GHG emissions as a result of economic development over the next century, and normatively true that they ought to be allowed to develop this way.47 But the details concerning climate change and demographics in the previous sections make clear that Earth cannot sustain a significantly larger population of wealthier individuals.”
And finally, the way to intervene is to use coercion or change the cultural norms regarding having healthy and happy families.
“Sitting to the right of choice-enhancing interventions on the coercion spectrum is a category of interventions aimed at adjusting preferences to encourage people to have fewer children. The policies in this category work by changing cultural norms and influencing individuals’ beliefs and desires, with the ultimate goal of changing procreative behaviors in the direction of lower fertility. These changes could be achieved through mass media such as radio and TV content, billboards, poster campaigns, leaflet distribution, folk theater or other artist sponsorship, campaigns or assemblies in public schools, funding for public lectures, etc.”
There is more, but it is very terrifying; what is equally terrifying is that it appears this agenda is underway, not only do they want fertility rates to plummet, but our life expectancy is also plummeting.
According to the Epoch Times newspaper, life expectancy has fallen for the second time in two years—from a high of 78.9 years in 2014 to 78.6 years in 2016. And it fell across the board — for men and women, whites, blacks, and Hispanics. Statistics show that thousands were preventable, premature deaths.
Life expectancy is not supposed to fall in countries that are this rich, spend this much on health, and pride themselves on taking care of each other. As a demographer working in a school of public health, I am astounded by the complacency at the loss of so many Americans in the prime of life.
Data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that the death count for Americans under 65 rose by 20,566 between 2015 and 2016. Based on population growth alone, one would have expected only 6,131 additional deaths. The other 14,435 Americans died prematurely of causes that could have prevented.
The extra American funerals were for people dying in their 20s, 30s, 40s, and 50s. Their death certificates list mostly overdoses from opioids and other substances, cirrhosis, suicide, and homicide.
It is obvious that younger individuals are dying from growing despair.
The recent suicides of Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain have given rise to public concern over suicide and how this plays into the elite that have no problem thinning the herd for global resources.
How do we prevent suicide, when the message is that you are not doing enough to reduce carbon emissions and so your children and grandchildren are going to die?
Knowing about the Berkley City council proposals makes you wonder if it is a threat rather than an outcome.
Scientists and average citizens who are genuinely worried about the potential for catastrophic climate change ought to be outraged at how the left has politicized the issue into utter tripe.
Climate science extremists have single handedly have taken international policy on the matter and have narrowed down the range of acceptable responses as to how to deal with disruptive climate catastrophe.
Treating Climate Change as a planet-scale problem that could be solved only by an international regulatory scheme that proposes State socialist platforms has transformed the issue into a political creed for committed cult-like believers.
It has been politicized into being incredulous and it has obviously run its course.
Causes that live by politics, die by politics.
The descent of Climate Change into the abyss of social justice identity politics represents the last gasp of a cause that has lost its vitality. All of the climate alarm is now sounding like a car alarm – nothing but an annoying noise that people tend to tune out.