COP15’s Final Solution

December 10, 2009 - 2:54 PM
<br />

A globe is projected as people are seen in Town Hall Square on the opening day of the Climate Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, Monday Dec. 7, 2009. The largest and most important U.N. climate change conference in history opened Monday, with organizers warning diplomats from 192 nations that this could be the best, last chance for a deal to protect the world from calamitous global warming. (AP Photo/Peter Dejong)

Global warming environmentalists have more than made their intentions clear. All one need do is watch the opening ceremony video at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen. There is a cute little girl, watching doom and gloom scenarios on a television news report, then having nightmares about a world where the weather has run amok.
 
Obviously, this attempt at pulling at the ol’ heartstrings with emotion works from the elementary school level all the way up to the United Nations. But there was one line in that video that gave me pause:
 
“… the number of environmental refugees to more than 250 million people. The shortage of resources and the high number of refugees will increase tensions all over the world.”
 
The accompanying image was of that little girl viewing images of natural disasters followed by one of a starving black child. Later in the video comes an impassioned plea from Bishop Desmond Tutu, who says, “All scientific prognoses show that the continent of Africa will be severely hit if we do not act -- NOW!”
 
Here’s what could be a moral dilemma. How do you meet the goals of the Copenhagen Climate Summit and reduce carbon emissions -- in other words, slow down the progress of humans in order to “help the world”? One way would be to reduce the output of developed nations and prevent the Third World from developing at all.
 
That sounds kind of selfish, but when you’re dealing with environmentalists, it’s usually all about them. So, how could you allow them to continue their lives of opulence yet restrict the growth of the brown and black countries and save the planet all at the same time?
 
That’s easy. We’ve been here before.
 
According to the UK Guardian,
 
“Consumers in the developed world are to be offered a radical method of offsetting their carbon emissions in an ambitious attempt to tackle climate change -- by paying for contraception measures in poorer countries to curb the rapidly growing global population.
 
“The scheme -- set up by an organisation backed by Sir David Attenborough, the former diplomat Sir Crispin Tickell and green figureheads such as Jonathon Porritt and James Lovelock -- argues that family planning is the most effective way to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic global warming.”
 
Contraception, family planning, abortion – keep people from reproducing, especially people in “poorer countries.” This is right out of the Margaret Sanger playbook: Rich nations can pay for the right to pollute and maintain their lifestyles, and in exchange for aid (which means more U.N. worker employment) all they have to do is rid (“reduce”) the world of the so-called unfit.
 
Fewer people consume fewer resources, drive fewer cars, burn less fuel, and use less energy overall, which means few carbon emissions. That’s the liberal environmental line of reasoning: Put a cap on population growth and you can save planet Earth.
 
Can you imagine the horror if it were implied that the cute little white girl in the video was going to have to give up her life so others could live the way they were accustomed? Can you imagine the outrage if the unborn children of the Upper West Side or Pacific Palisades became fair game because it was considered “the most effective way to reduce the likelihood of catastrophic global warming”?
 
Sorry, but that will never happen because white environmentalist liberals deem themselves more worthy of survival than any Hollywood celebrity accessory. The children of the Third World are worthy of their pity, but as Rachel Carson cared more about her environmental pet project (which has needlessly sentenced millions of black and brown children to a diseased death every year since 1972), the United Nations and climate change activists care more about being right.
 
If that means they need to rid the world of the “unfit” so they can live, what better target than the ones they targeted here in America decades ago in urban areas with high minority populations?
 
The Environmental Protection Agency has declared carbon dioxide a pollutant. With that, we’ll all be considered polluters as we all exhale C02. That is, while we’re alive. You breathe, you pollute. You don’t breathe, you don’t pollute.
 
Ponder those possibilities.
 
Unlike the little girl in the video, I hope all those involved in this little venture to stop global “warming” (without one acknowledgement of the relationship of that word to the Sun) sleep well at night.
 
While they hobnob around Copenhagen in gas-guzzling limousines, enjoy only the finest chow and booze, we need to remember what their ultimate goal is: Environmentalists consider their Final Solution to be based on science, but it’s really all about them. It always has been, and what are a few million dead black babies if the environmentalists get to save the planet so they can rule it?