Green New Deal Dems Toss Their Support Behind Report Pushing To Fast-Track Population Control

From The Daily Caller

Daily Caller News Foundation logo

Chris White Tech Reporter

November 06, 2019 4:57 PM ET

Several high-profile Democrats who back the so-called Green New Deal are now apparently supporting a new report calling for a dramatic reduction in the world’s population to stave off a climate crisis.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey retweeted links to a report signed by more than 11,000 scientists who argue that the population “must be stabilized—and, ideally, gradually reduced—within a framework that ensures social integrity.”

The report, published Tuesday in the journal BioScience, also calls for the wholesale dumping of fossil fuels and the emergence of green energy. They call for a “bold and drastic” change in economic growth to slash greenhouse gas emissions, which research shows contributes to climate change.

Ocasio-Cortez, a Democrat from New York, backed the report on Twitter, telling her followers in a Nov. 5 tweet that “tweaks and shortcuts” won’t be enough to save the planet. The U.S. must engage in “[m]assive, systemic change is in alignment with scientific consensus,” she said.

The New York lawmaker retweeted a tweet from The Huffington Post that discusses the report’s details. (RELATED: Ocasio-Cortez’s Chief Of Staff Admits What The Green New Deal Is Really About — And It’s Not The Climate)

When it comes to the climate crisis, tweaks and shortcuts aren’t enough to preserve our planet.

Massive, systemic change is in alignment with scientific consensus.

We need #GreenNewDeal.

— Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) November 5, 2019

Markey made similar comments. “11,258 scientists are sounding the alarm: we are in a climate emergency. And not just climate scientists. Biologists, ecologists, & more,” the Massachusetts Democrat said in a Nov. 6 tweet.

“The crisis touches every aspect of our lives. So must the solution. That’s why we need a #GreenNewDeal to fundamentally transform our society,” Markey added. He included in his tweet a link to a Washington Post report highlighting the nuts and bolts of the report.

11,258 scientists are sounding the alarm: we are in a climate emergency. And not just climate scientists. Biologists, ecologists, & more. The crisis touches every aspect of our lives. So must the solution. That’s why we need a #GreenNewDeal to fundamentally transform our society.

— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) November 6, 2019

Markey and Ocasio-Cortez introduced the GND in February, which calls for a “10-year national mobilizations” toward a series of goals designed to tackled global warming.

The GND calls for the country to become carbon neutral within 10 years and seeks to aggressively reduce emissions. Other Democrats are also supporting the general thrust of Tuesday’s report.

Billionaire Tom Steyer also expressed his support. “The world must wake up. We can’t sweep climate change under the rug any longer,” Steyer said in a Wednesday tweet that also linked to WaPo’s report.

World data consistently show that climate change is the least of most people’s concerns. Citizens generally are more concerned about getting a good education, obtaining better healthcare, and achieving political freedoms than they are tackling climate change, according to a 2015 survey from the United Nations.

Neither Ocasio-Cortez, nor Markey or Steyer responded to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
November 6, 2019 10:11 pm

If they want population control, then why don’t they lead the way first. Its always a billionaire behind eveything, be it George soros or mark facebook, they always think they know best for the rest of us. Also ocasio is vile, nasty hypocrite, planes, cars are all ok for her, uber all day long, while she wants us to walk 😡😡

old white guy
Reply to  Sunnt
November 7, 2019 5:05 am

Those who want population control have spent my life time and trillions of dollars in aid, which helped expand the population by allowing countries to exceed their natural carrying capacity.

Reply to  old white guy
November 7, 2019 7:36 am

How exactly do you determine a countries “natural carrying capacity”?
At what technology level?
Using capitalism or communism?

Reply to  MarkW
November 7, 2019 10:21 am

Imagine some catastrophe struck tomorrow…..and all countries had to stop sending the aid

…that would do it

Reply to  MarkW
November 7, 2019 5:39 pm

“How exactly do you determine a countries “natural carrying capacity”?”

Stop sending them free money and see how many are left a few years later.

‘Aid to Africa’ will go down in history as one of the greatest humanitarian disasters ever. Because the money is soon going to stop, and those countries are going to return to natural population levels.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Sunnt
November 7, 2019 5:46 am

They added the phrase “within a framework that ensures social integrity” to anoint themselves the guardians of social integrity therefore escaping the “you go first” argument.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 7, 2019 9:15 am

That terminology also allows a broad interpretation, and if this idea actually got legs and moved forward then “within a framework that ensures social integrity” would be used to treat different cultures & areas in a different manner. It would be used to explain to certain groups/countries/cultures that, if they sign on, that they get a better deal.

Greg Cavanagh
Reply to  DonM
November 7, 2019 12:47 pm

So, where there is negotiation, there is corruption. Good one.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 7, 2019 11:21 am

They can’t reduce the economy without stopping the income needed for their subsidies and social programs. They are imposing negative interest rates in some countries because their citizens are saving(not consuming) to much and thus reducing taxes.

Reply to  Tom in Florida
November 7, 2019 9:00 pm

Sorry, politicians first, this way we can see how the plan works out.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Sunnt
November 7, 2019 6:17 am

” mark facebook”

I think his name is Mark Zuckerface.

Reply to  Sunnt
November 7, 2019 6:22 am

Yep. Also, the highest total fertility rates (TFR’s) are found mostly in Africa, which means that their population control program is fundamentally racist.

TFR’s have been in decline almost everywhere. The global number is down to 2.3, barely above replacement. Global population will peak in the next 50 years, and then decline precipitously.

Populations are already in decline in many parts of Europe and East Asia. The same would be true in North America if not for immigration. Which begs the question: How can you be in support of population control and mass immigration at the same time? Their program is a ball of contradictions.

Reply to  Adam
November 7, 2019 7:23 am

Educating women, monetizing child-rearing, and providing retirement pensions seems to reduce the desire to have a dozen children that might support you in your old age. Maybe these savants should concentrate on fostering such policies.

willem post
Reply to  DMacKenzie
November 7, 2019 8:39 am

Educating women, etc., would not be practical.

For decades the mantra has been increased economic development and prosperity would cause 1) women to have fewer babies and 2) the world population growth rate to decrease. That has indeed occurred.

The world population growth rate was 2.08% in 1968, 1.14% in 2016, 1.10% in 2018, and could be 1.08% during 2019 – 2020.
At end 2019, there will be about 7.713 billion people. Addition rates in 2019 are:

Births about 131 million
Deaths about 55 million
Growth 76 million
Birth/death ratio is about 2.38

NOTE: Due to past and future improvements in economic development and healthcare, more mothers and children would survive childbirth per 1000 events and more people would have longer life expectancies.

Population Projections: The world population would increase, even if population growth were reduced
World population was 1 billion in 1800
It has increased from 3 billion in 1959 to 6 billion in 1999.
It is projected to increase to 9 billion by 2037 and 10 billion in 2057.

All those people would need more energy, emit more CO2, need more space and goods and services, and would do more damage to the environment and flora and fauna; a highly unsustainable situation.

Gross World Product: Concurrent with population increases, the GWP would increase at about 2 to 3%/y, i.e., damage to the environment and flora and fauna would continue to increase, even though world population would have reached a plateau in 2100.

It should be clear population growth rates, which have been decreasing since 1968, must be reduced much further than present projections by means of monetary incentives described below. Dealing with population growth to reduce it to less than zero would enable solutions of many other problems.

If humans are the main culprits regarding climate and the weather, why not have fewer humans?
The guilty human population should be less to reduce human impacts on the environment so the other flora and fauna could survive, recover and thrive.

Instead, the innocent fauna and flora is being reduced, and many species are driven to extinction, because of human intrusion on and destruction of their environments and habitats.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  willem post
November 7, 2019 3:23 pm

Since you are trying to convince others, that too many human beings exist and that populations must be reduced, it follows that as a human, you are part of the problem.
We’ve seen enough of such distorted calculus to know that for you people making such claims, it’s always other people who must not exist.

Go ahead and demonstrate the sincerity of your claims, validate your veracity.
In other words, you first.

Reply to  DMacKenzie
November 7, 2019 6:00 pm

How dare you! Wanting to force your Cultural Imperialism on African nations!!!

How dare you suggest they change the ages old cultural practice of exploiting children and keeping women as second class citizens!!

(Please tell me I don’t need a /sarc tag)

Eric Simpson
Reply to  Adam
November 7, 2019 8:32 am

“How can you be in support of population control and mass immigration at the same time?”

I’ve asked that to libs. I’ve heard that the overpopulation in Mexico and the third world is causing them to flood into our country.

I said we are responsible for controlling our own borders. But they don’t seem to hear that, though, or think that it’s somehow impossible for us to control our borders. Nuts.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Adam
November 7, 2019 9:03 am

I can’t be sure about Africa but I imagine one of the major reason for their high fertility rate is the same as that for my great grandfather’s generation and earlier. Those past generations had to have many children in order for one or two to survive. The disease epidemics at that time would wipe out maybe three or four of your five or six kids. My great grandfather had three sons that carried the Jr. suffix before one , the last, survived.

So far our good intentions have led mostly to overpopulation in Africa. The charities and NGO’s that we support have concentrated on solving the disease problems (except malaria of course) and shipping in food aid to alleviate the starvation caused by overpopulation. I wish those idiots would learn that the best solution for population control is the wide spread availability of inexpensive energy. With that GDP growth is almost in direct proportion to increased energy use, and the number of children per household decreases with increased living standards.

John Adams
Reply to  Joe Crawford
November 7, 2019 5:40 pm

That’s so logical I think you must be a conservative.

Reply to  Joe Crawford
November 7, 2019 6:17 pm

I can only comment on what I’ve experienced during two trips to Namibia and one to South Africa. The black Africans, for the most part, want lots of kids, even in places where they are doing well economically and are gainfully employed. They believe that calls to have fewer children is a white ruse to ensure they won’t be the majority of the population. And having a large family is a sign of virility and a status symbol that you are a success. So it’s cultural, which can be hard to change.

Andrew Dickens
Reply to  Adam
November 7, 2019 12:39 pm

Can’t agree with this. The population of many African countries is increasing at 3% a year, which means doubling every 24 years. Take Ethiopia. In 1984 (remember Feed the World?), their population was 34 million. And they couldn’t feed themselves. The figure now is 108 million, with nearly 10 million on permanent food aid. Nigeria is similar, 200 million, could be 400 million by 2043. It won’t be long before there are no large animals left in Africa, as all their existing habitat will be occupied by humans or crops for humans.

The reason why this problem (by far the world’s biggest) has not been tackled on a global scale is that rich countries are terrified of being accused of being racist. But that is such a wrong-headed argument. A country whose population is growing at such a rapid rate cannot become wealthier, as so many of the people are too young to contribute to their GDP, and so many people (mainly women) are engaged full-time in looking after them. Most of the UK was staggeringly poor in 1900, even after 150 years of industrialisation, because the population was out-pacing income growth. (UK population quadrupled between 1801 and 1901).

I concede that population control is a delicate subject, and that’s why it requires an expert approach, above all an agreed approach. The UN must grasp the nettle. But the UN isn’t interested. The last UN population conference was held in 1994. Climate conferences are so much easier.

We hear unmitigated garbage on the subject of climate. But that doesn’t mean that everything the climateers say is wrong. Attenborough, for example, is just as concerned about population as he is about climate – it’s just that the media aren’t interested in his opinions on population.

William Astley
Reply to  Andrew Dickens
November 7, 2019 1:28 pm

I totally agree. It is reality vs ideologies. Some problems do not solve themselves.

People living is a law and order country with infrastructure, 24/7 electricity, super markets, and so on cannot imaging life in a Lagos slum for example. There are no tourist trips to Lagos or situation comedies about day to day life in a Lagos slum.

It is a fact that Africa has multiple population bombs.

The Liberal parties and the Liberal news cannot discuss the Africa population bomb problem (population is growing faster than GDP) due to their fear of talking about difficult subjects and/or being labelled a ‘conservative’ such as Africa and population bombs.

There is no population problem in the developed countries. China and India have used extreme policies to defused their population bombs, because they believed extreme policy to stop population growth was the lesser of two evils.

Africa has out of control population growth particularly in regions that allow multiple marriages.

Lagos is also a window to the future. In about 25 years, at the rate Nigeria is currently growing, it will have a population of 300 million, or the same as the present-day United States, all living in an area the size of Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona. With the population doubling over the last 15 years, living standards across Nigeria remain poor. Today, 25% of Africans are Nigerian.

By 2050, Lagos’ population is expected to double once more, which will make it the 3rd largest city in the world but with less infrastructure than any other large cities of the world.

Up to Two-Thirds of Sub-Saharan Africa’s 1.1 Billion People Want to Migrate to the EU, U.S.

With birth rates of up to seven children per woman, by 2050 Africa’s population is expected to double.

Reply to  William Astley
November 7, 2019 6:26 pm

You say there is no population problems in the developed countries. Here in Canada, one of if not the coldest country on the planet, it took from the dawn of time until 1965 AD for the population to get to 18 million. It’s now 36 million and the same people screaming for an end to fossil fuel use and a zero carbon economy are also screaming to open the floodgates of immigration and want see the population of the country be 80 to 100 million by the end of this century. I think a lot of people have lost their minds.

Reply to  Sunnt
November 7, 2019 11:59 am

The quickest way to solve the population problem is helping(not subsidizing) the countries that still have many people in poverty to grow their GDP. The UN had a development program from about 1995-2010 that helped the poorest countries improve living conditions for their poor- clean water sources, nets and DDT for sleeping quarters, teaching better farming(crop rotation, having grazing animals included, etc) to rejuvenate the soils, making simple roads where needed, basic health care- vaccinations, basic anti-biotics, volunteer or paid nurses, importing some simple, nutritious foods such as peanut butter, and developing simple devices such as grinders for villages to make their own,……..

This program help move 1.5billion people out of poverty over it’s lifespan. I think it’s still going on, albeit with many more higher paid executives.

It’s the only UN program I’ve ever heard of that really worked.

Reply to  Sunnt
November 7, 2019 5:05 pm

The infamous David Suzuki now advocates population control, after siring five children who are begating at least several grandchildren, at least one of who is out on the ‘protest’ line on Burnaby Mountain.

That’s the David Suzuki who pulled anti-petroleum pages off his website after I publicly challenged him.

Irritable Bill
November 6, 2019 10:13 pm

Not a single one of them ever saw a graph of CO2 over the geological time frame? What ever happened to the petition signed by 30,000 scientists, inc. 9,000 PHDs that said the exact opposite?

Reply to  Irritable Bill
November 7, 2019 12:31 am

Irritable Bill

It’s still posted on the internet. Google ‘Oregon petition’. But of course, present it as evidence to any alarmist and they cite the fact that activists infiltrated it and submitted spoof names like Micky Mouse.

The fact that it was them that cynically sabotaged a perfectly reasonable document passes them by, also that the entire database was cleansed of these details.

Reply to  HotScot
November 7, 2019 4:21 am

well I gather mickey mouse appears on their form too;-)
gets around that mouse

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  HotScot
November 7, 2019 6:18 am

Both lists got slipped a mickey.

Reply to  HotScot
November 7, 2019 10:43 am

After the opponents of the Oregon petition project contaminated the list it was completely re done and closely vetted to be sure no fakes were allowed. It in fact has over 31,000 verified signers many of which signed it twice because the first go was not well enough controlled.

Reply to  Irritable Bill
November 7, 2019 1:04 am

Maybe it’s time for a new one. I’ll bet we’d get a lot more than 30,000 this time around.

Reply to  Irritable Bill
November 7, 2019 1:12 am

Because it said something that they find heretical. It doesn’t matter to them what is factually correct at all. Even the environment and the climate doesn’t matter. It’s all about power.

Reply to  Irritable Bill
November 7, 2019 11:41 am

“11,258 scientists are sounding the alarm: we are in a climate emergency. And not just climate scientists. Biologists, ecologists, & more. The crisis touches every aspect of our lives.”

Yes, the consensus of the alarmist “scientists” is very bad and getting worse. The science, on the other hand, such as graphs of CO2 over geological time, says otherwise.

November 6, 2019 10:22 pm

More evidence that the population bomb, the climate bomb, the eugenics moron bomb, and the club of rome resource depletion bomb are different expressions of the same underlying post industrial mental illness.

Pls see

Russ Wood
Reply to  Chaamjamal
November 9, 2019 5:28 am

Erlich never really goes away, does he?

Joel O'Bryan
November 6, 2019 10:30 pm

The population control message in that statement is oozing with a call to eugenics and plays heavily on racism.
The globalist elitism message is there for anyone with critical thinking to see. They’ve decided that there arey are too many of us deplorables, peasants, and serfs… so it’s time see them all die.

Seriously, where do those “scientists” think population is increasing fastest? North America? Europe? Even China growth has been curtailed.
How about Africa, Pakistan, Afghanistan.

So cut global access to fossil fuels, decimate global agriculture production and aid dependent of fossil fuels for delivery, and we’ll see where their genocidal eugenic policies are targeted.

The Eco-lunatic Left is showing its true colors now in the 21st Century … A pan-genocide on a scale to make the 20th Century genocides look like child’s play.

Seriously, a man like Bill Gates thinks the next US President must be someone of “professional” in nature.

But at the same time billionaire Bill and Melinda Gates have undertaken courageous efforts for 25 years to send billions of dollars in health care and medical assistance to Africa. Clearly he cares about stopping genocides and the untold misery occurring there from diseases and energy poverty. But he can have all the “professional” he wants in a President but if we elect eugenics-loving “professional” Democrat as President, he might as well have just burned all his billions in a giant dumpster fire. Because the EcoTerrorists fully embedded in the US Democrat’s ranks clearly intend to let Africa and the developing world burn in a genocidal fire in the coming decades of this century.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 7, 2019 12:40 am

Joel O’Bryan

Brilliant post, thank you.

The term ‘population control’ is an easy one for the left to bandy about, until the realities of what it involves is pointed out to them. They react by calling for contraception for developing nations, as though these people are unaware of what causes babies. Indeed, many of them were using forms of contraception long before the western world thought of it. My first (and now late) father in law used to describe in appalling detail the process of dealing with re-usable condoms!!!

The left simply won’t accept that the only real solution to ‘population control’ is wealth, derived universally from cheap, reliable energy.

But then that’s what the left does, it makes people suffer and die to achieve their ideological ends!

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 7, 2019 6:31 am

Incredible post. Thanks. Also, how can they be in support of mass immigration when that policy increases carbon emissions dramatically. What we are pointing out is that their policies are logically inconsistent.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
November 7, 2019 7:35 am

Very good comment… It’s really Neomalthusianism at its best…

November 6, 2019 10:35 pm

Malthusians psychopaths are getting out of the woods and expose their nazi ecocide and population control scheme and as always, the “progressive left” is in the band wagon.

If there is an actual climate emergency, why bother with population regulation since this “crisis” would auto-regulate the population anyway ? Pushing their ecocide scheme depiste this evidence isn’t admitting that the so called “climate crisis” does not exist ?

Furthermore, why don’t they act first and hang themselves ? This would actually cause a decrease of brains pollution, idiocy and corruption.

Reply to  Petit_Barde
November 6, 2019 11:37 pm

All in favour of AOC being sterilised…..

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
November 7, 2019 4:24 am

both hands up!! ;-))

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
November 7, 2019 6:22 am

Shes already been lobotomized.

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
November 7, 2019 7:37 am

Advocating eugenics?
Perhaps merely ostracized.

Reply to  Petit_Barde
November 7, 2019 12:53 am

E xtinction Rebellion claim that billions are going to die due to climate change. Mother Earth clearly has the over-population problem in hand, perhaps they should not be interfering! /sarc

November 6, 2019 10:53 pm

I humbly request with all due respect, would it be possible to get the names and full scientific qualifications on the 11 thousand scientists who think the world is going to end? Also how big are their families, are they all armish? …. I suspect that 11 thousand people got big paid days and use cars, planes and all fossil fuel products…

If you want change you must change yourself… But clearly, change is for the little people like me 😢

Reply to  Sunny
November 7, 2019 12:17 am

Mickey Mouse and Professor Dumbledore are actually signatories. The website has been pulled from people looking a little too closely at the list of names.

Reply to  Voltron
November 7, 2019 12:42 am


Surely someone kept a copy. The wayback machine perhaps?

Ketil Mortensen
Reply to  HotScot
November 7, 2019 3:39 am


I took the liberty to save the file on my One drive. Here is the link to the supplementary files from the BioScience article.!AsumlMtEZgHpgZhkFOaXkl89tF2dDQ?e=ftCS9Y



Reply to  Ketil Mortensen
November 7, 2019 5:10 am

I searched for ‘Norway’ in the file, and am astonished by the almost complete lack of norwegian names among the signatories. It’s good to see my tax money being used wisefully to import eco loonies to the country….. 🙁

Reply to  Ketil Mortensen
November 7, 2019 12:05 pm

Ketil Mortensen


Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  HotScot
November 7, 2019 3:50 am

I downloaded the list before it was disappeared, I could email it to any interested parties. There are many signatories that did not bother to quote their qualifications, a lot that are students, but the one that convinced me is:

Canales, Valeria Customer Service Dominoes

Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
November 7, 2019 7:51 am

The file is still there!

Phil R
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
November 7, 2019 10:13 am


“It’s still there!”

Can you point to where? When I just checked the link, there is only the beginning and you can download a pdf of the paper, but did not see a ling to the SI.

Reply to  Voltron
November 7, 2019 5:42 am

Apparently Mickey Mouse changed his mind regarding climate change and is now in the club.

Reply to  Voltron
November 7, 2019 8:14 am

It’s still there!

John Dowser
November 6, 2019 10:56 pm

Strange! Population control would be needed the most in countries the farthest away, rules by different people and interests. Does this translate in a call to force the developing world to embrace this policy made in the USA? That can only mean suggesting a war of conquest right? Or economical wars of coercion.

It seems to me that the countries with the least population growth (especially minus immigration) in relation to the growth of wealth have no need for any new deal after all. The solution is then to migrate to the countries with out-of-control population growth and resource problems and work with them to solve it from the inside?

Yes, this is a version of “they should go back and fix”. But the without the “back” — they should go to wherever their concerns, their hearts lie: major internal problems to solve elsewhere!

Reply to  John Dowser
November 7, 2019 12:48 am

John Dowser

The developed West (including Japan) is suffering a population crisis OK, It’s falling below sustainable levels.

The number of babies per eligible female to simply maintain a population is around 2.1.

I believe much of western Europe is around 1.8 just now and Japan way down at 1.4.

The (unuttered) solution across Europe is to encourage borderless, uncontrolled immigration which is causing immense resentment amongst the indigenous population, especially the far left neo-nazi’s (always referred to as the far right by the BBC and the media). The Japanese refuse to adopt it.

Reply to  HotScot
November 7, 2019 6:04 am


Birth rates all over the planet are falling.

The book EMPTY PLANET predicts world population will fall significantly by 2100. And governments don’t have to do a thing.

Reply to  joe
November 7, 2019 12:09 pm


The assumption from the UN is also that population will begin declining around 2100, based on the assumption that currently developing nations will by then also be wealthy.

So far, we are a long way from that with 20% of this century already gone.

Reply to  HotScot
November 7, 2019 5:55 pm

HotScot, agree with you on the UN numbers, but the EMPTY PLANET authors think the UN numbers are too high. ie. the population will be much lower than the UN predictions.

November 6, 2019 11:11 pm

Planned parenthood (e.g. selective-child), dodo dynasties, and other dysfunctional choices. Surely, people aren’t so green.

November 6, 2019 11:17 pm

Interesting that those who advocate population reduction never volunteer to take one for the team, it’s always someone else.

Larry in Texas
November 6, 2019 11:30 pm

I think the only decent thing these 11,000 “scientists” should do (along with little girl Ocasio-Cortez and Malarkey Markey) is practice what they preach. If they think there are too many people, they can solve the problem by going first and doing themselves in.

This comment is in the vein of “A Modest Proposal” by Jonathan Swift. Satire is good for ruthless criticism of such mountebanks.

November 6, 2019 11:34 pm

Anyone told the Africans, Asians and South Americans? You know, the ones that are actually increasing the population, unlike whites. Or is this just another race replacement (white genocide) attempt?

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
November 7, 2019 2:25 am

Actually, Asia is stabilising, and South America too. Africa is the continent where population is still expanding fast. What brings stability is economic growth and education, especially education of women. Hans Rosling, and since he died his son Ole, have set this all out very clearly based on UN statistics on their site Also check out Hans Rosling’s superb video presentations on youtube.

November 6, 2019 11:48 pm

Tom Steyer, huh? How’s he doing in polls of likely Dimocrat voters? I hope he keeps spending his own money like a Russian sailor on shore leave on TV ads.

November 6, 2019 11:51 pm

Just as new reports predict a natural cessation of population growth later this century and a decline thereafter.
And note the switch from climate alone to a variety of more legitimate environmental concerns.
Very scary people.

November 7, 2019 12:58 am

It could be that certain population levels and certain amounts of economic activity are necessary for technological development.

It could well be that if we reduce prosperity and population, we will also kill technology. Then it’s back to the stone age.

The reductio ad absurdum argument is this: Could a population of a million people support a semiconductor industry? No way. So, what population is necessary to support a semiconductor industry?

Buckminster Fuller showed that we are doing more and more with less and less. It could be that with a large global population we can become so efficient that any negative impacts on the environment are actually less than would be created by a much smaller population.

Reply to  commieBob
November 7, 2019 1:38 am

Indeed, technological and knowledge breakthrough can only be achieved with a free market economy (not the eco crony captilasm) that generates prosperity and brings capital to many skilled researchers, engineers and brillant minds wich are statistically more likely to emerge from 8 or 10 billions of a healthy population than from 350 millions of idiotic brainwashed Malthusians.

Reply to  Petit_Barde
November 7, 2019 10:30 am

… technological and knowledge breakthrough can only be achieved with a free market economy …

That’s mostly true. The Soviets did manage the occasional goal. My favorite is electrical discharge machining (EDM). In WW2, the Americans wouldn’t supply the Soviets with the carbide bits necessary to drill fuel injectors. The Soviets got around the problem by inventing EDM. link

In fact, WW2 led to the rapid development of new technology on all sides. (For the life of me, I can’t think of an Italian example though.)

After the invention of the integrated circuit, lots of companies started in university dorms and garages, leading to the proliferation of computers and eventually smart phones. I have a hard time imagining that happening in the Soviet Union.

What’s the ratio of innovation in free market vs. command economies? My guess is that it’s an order of magnitude or more.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  Petit_Barde
November 19, 2019 6:12 am

cB, “What’s the ratio of innovation in free market vs. command economies.”

Could be buried here:

Serge Wright
November 7, 2019 1:12 am

We already know what to expect here. The focus will be on the smaller populated western countries to reduce their populations by 50% by 2030 and the mega population centres such as China and India will get a free pass to continue their expansions.

November 7, 2019 1:24 am

Do also check out the UK Green party UK election manifesto (we are having an election in the UK December 12th)

Reply to  griff
November 7, 2019 7:37 am

I hope that Mickey Mouse and Lord Dumbledore are running.

CD in Wisconsin
Reply to  griff
November 7, 2019 7:50 am

And how many MP seats in this last parliament that just dissolved did the UK Green party have Griff? My source below says just 1. Perhaps they will do better on Dec. 12th–perhaps not. We will have to wait and see.

At any rate Griff, if you get the chance, I would be interested in knowing how your I.Q. number compares to the capacity factor of solar panels in the U.K. Could you do that for me Griff? Thanks so much.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  CD in Wisconsin
November 7, 2019 11:13 am

Aw, quick pickin’ on Griff… and as Dad said: “Leave ‘im be… just consider the source.”

November 7, 2019 1:51 am

One sure way of curbing population growth is to stop suppling food and
other aid to such countries. Plus of course no migration from such countries.

But then we will get the usual TV pictures of little boys and girls, never the

The Rev. Malhus right,”” Ä species will expand to the limit of its food
supply, then it will die. “”.

As the Indonesian President said to Australia at the height of the Boat
People coming from that country, he said “”Take the Sugar off the table “” .

A countries welfare system should be only available for its citizens.


Reply to  Michael
November 7, 2019 3:27 am

Looks like you would like the Recipes in Swift’s Modest Proposal. Ragout?

Rod Evans
November 7, 2019 2:04 am

As the AOC minder/manager/script writer admitted. The Green New Deal has nothing to do with climate, it was never that. ” You never thought that was the objective…. did you”? as he said when AOC was completely unable to advance the climate change due to CO2 science.
We all know what it is about. What we don’t know is how evel the Greens will get. Will they be just a bit evil as in the witch finder general evil. Will they be pretty evil as in National Socialist German evil and kill a few innocent millions, Maybe become full on evil as in Stalin’s domestic depopulation and removal of scientists, and kill tens of millions. Or perhaps they will go full on evil and try to outdo the top communist killer regime so far as in Mao’s China that manged to kill even more tens of millions than the USSR did all based on control of food and who eats and who doesn’t.
When the Greens, try to stop you eating meat, you know which regime they are looking to improve on….
Depopulation is just the acceptable name for it, genocide would be more accurate.

William Haas
November 7, 2019 2:12 am

The reality is that, based on the paleoclimate record and the work done with models, the climate change that we are experiencing is caused by the sun and the oceans over which mankind has control. Despite the hype, there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate and there is plenty of scientific rationale to support the idea that the climate sensitivity of CO2 is zero. That is what the scientific research that I am familiar with has uncovered. There may be many good reasons to be controlling human population because on Earth since we have finite space and finite resources, but climate change is not one of them. The idea is that if mankind does not control his own population then Mother Nature will, catastrophically.

November 7, 2019 2:30 am

Reduce our carbon usage by 80% can only be achieved by reducing “carbon consumers” by 80%. Population reduction has always been the ultimate plan to achieve their goals. (If people can’t stay warm by burning oil, then we would burn wood)
The green movement is a death cult. The mask is off.

Reply to  Max
November 7, 2019 5:30 am

As long as they set an example by going first, I won’t mind. 🙂

November 7, 2019 2:33 am

From the 11,000 scientists – “Shift goals away from the growth of gross domestic product and the pursuit of affluence. ”

I guess that leaves those who currently struggle in poorer countries should just suck it up and stay downtrodden. Child labor in the Congo etc.

Reply to  lee
November 7, 2019 4:29 am

sounds a lot like those georgia guidestones scripting

Reply to  lee
November 7, 2019 7:45 am

“Shift goals away from the growth of gross domestic product and the pursuit of affluence. ”

In my experience, those who advocate such goals fall into two categories.
Those who are already on top of the heap.
Losers who never stood a chance of becoming affluent on their own.

Reply to  lee
November 7, 2019 7:47 am

“Shift goals away from the growth of gross domestic product and the pursuit of affluence. ”

In my experience, those who advocate such goals fall into two categories.
1) Those who are already on top of the heap.
2) Losers who never stood a chance of becoming affluent through their own efforts.

November 7, 2019 2:45 am

Meghan Markle is said to be decided on having her second child in the US

Has she got the memo?

November 7, 2019 3:06 am

So confronting AOC in NY with Swift’s Modest Proposal, “We have to eat the babies” was precisely on target.
AOC’s dumbfounded response was not to deny that, but “there are many ways to do this”.

Jonathan Swift who had to leave England for Ireland, presented his “Modest Proposal” to the British elites as a solution for the mass poverty, complete with recipes.

That was 1729, world population around 670 million, no industry, some coal and wood burning. So eugenics was already British Empire policy then as now. After it got a bad rap in WWII, it was renamed Conservation by Prince Philip, Prince Bernard (SS member), and spawned the WWF.

The attempt to roll back history to before 1783, as Hitler said, predates even WWI.

So let us roll history forward, with an eye on fusion. While we work on that, coal , gas, oil are essential. Those grotesque wind turbines mark the grave of the British Empire.

Reply to  bonbon
November 7, 2019 3:25 am

I think you’ll find the turbine manufacturers are Danish etc

Reply to  fretslider
November 7, 2019 4:38 am

I’ll think you’ll find the British Empire is the only actual global empire ever.
That’s why the graveyard is global.
Only the combined action of the USA, Russia, China, and India will do the needfull on this.
Hence the hysteria that these 4 are starting to work together.

Shakespeare’s Hamet , in Denmark :
“Has this fellow no feeling of his business, that he sings at grave-making?”

Reply to  bonbon
November 7, 2019 5:47 am

Also the only empire, ever, to free slaves.

Reply to  Chaswarnertoo
November 7, 2019 7:14 am

Pursuit of Happiness is not possible under any Empire. Without Pursuit of Happiness there is no Liberty, and without these there is no Life. Which brings us back to the theme here, eugenics.

November 7, 2019 3:36 am

The rhetoric cloud of today’s version of a population bomb – the GND – sounds/reads more and more like the mass delusion that that gave us Jonestown. It’s also just a repackaging of a lousy ad campaign for a lousy product. If it weren’t for an apparently limitless supply of other peoples’ money, this crap would cease.

November 7, 2019 3:53 am

I think all these idiots should spend an hour watching Hans Roslings video regarding world population.

Indeed even one of the graphs from this ridculous ‘scientific report’ showing global fertility at approx. 2.4 children per woman. That’s almost static. Peak child has already occurred. All that is going to happen now if the fill up of the world with adults with ultimate population peaking at about 11 billion. The only way to stop this is to kill people – and it kind of scares me that this may be indeed where these ‘Democrats’ may end up.

Peter Ålund
Reply to  ImranCan
November 7, 2019 6:07 am

Well it seems that even 11 billion is over the mark according to these guys

November 7, 2019 4:21 am

Well, if you take a celebrity like Leo DiCaprio, who owns multiple houses, makes films, and flies private jets all over the place, he has what, 1000x the carbon footprint of a normal person? So maybe instead of a “drastic reduction of population”, the world should be very selective, and go for the most efficient number, those who use the very most energy first, until the complaining stops. Hmmm….

Charles H
November 7, 2019 4:29 am

Isn’t this what Delingpole was saying back in 2012 with his book “Watermelons”. To “normalise” extreme ideas and sell it to the masses in order to “save the planet”, increase taxation and lower population growth. That has always been their goal.

Jeff L
November 7, 2019 5:01 am

Did anyone see the movie ” Kingsman: The Secret Service” ?

The bad guys wanted to “save the earth from global warming” by killing off everyone except a few “selected elites”.

Sounds a a little like this article.
The movie is of course fiction … but the movie looks more & more like a sick Hollywood fantasy when you read about people actually supporting population control to control global warming.

John Endicott
Reply to  Jeff L
November 7, 2019 5:40 am

At least Drax in Moonraker was more honest, he wanted to kill everyone off so that only the “perfect” elite would survive and repopulate the planet. Which is really the same things as those claiming to be “saving the planet” are aiming for.

Mumbles McGuirck
Reply to  Jeff L
November 7, 2019 9:56 am

Of course, at the end of the film the ‘elites’ get their heads ‘blowed up real good’. 🙂 That included the POTUS, who from behind look an awful lot like #44.

November 7, 2019 5:56 am

Demographics seem to indicate that the global population will peak at around 10 billion and then begin to decline naturally. I believe that this is within the next 50+ years for the peak.

Thomas Homer
November 7, 2019 6:14 am

If overpopulation is a natural occurrence then we should be able to list examples from the natural world.

Are there any? Do we see continuous examples of rat, penguin, wildebeest overpopulations? Or do large groups naturally manage and stabilize their population sizes?

Perhaps a food source disappears and specific populations are decimated, but how frequently does this actually happen naturally?

lee Riffee
Reply to  Thomas Homer
November 7, 2019 7:23 am

There is the population cycle of the Canadian lynx and the snowshoe hare which follows a boom and bust timeline. When conditions are good, the hare population swells, and then so does the lynx population, because the hare is a major food source for lynxes. So once the over-populated lynx kill and eat all of the excess hares, then there are too many lynx and not enough hares and the excess lynx starve. Which brings their population back down to “normal”. And fewer lynx means more hares survive to breed and it starts all over again….
There are probably other examples but that is one well known one that I can think of off the top of my head.

Reply to  Thomas Homer
November 7, 2019 7:32 am

Firstly, it is deplorable to imply we, mankind, are not “natural”.

Secondly, 98% of all species on this planet have gone extinct for various reasons.

We are the one species to break this rule – only man can limit man.

Which is what these eugenics-addled nuts are trying.

As Percy Shelley noted,

`Rise like Lions after slumber
In unvanquishable number,
Shake your chains to earth like dew
Which in sleep had fallen on you —
Ye are many — they are few.

John Endicott
Reply to  bonbon
November 8, 2019 10:03 am

Secondly, 98% of all species on this planet have gone extinct for various reasons

really? Preciesely 98%, not 97.2% not 98.5% or 99.9% or any other extremely high number? and where exactly did that number come from? what was the methodology for determining it? Because I think the answers to those last two questions are “your (or someone else’s) butt” and “plucked out of”

November 7, 2019 6:17 am

Emigration reform?

Gary Pearse
November 7, 2019 6:27 am

If Trump doesnt get a massive majority, I’ll be worried. Europe and Canadians, New Zealanders, and particularly Australians are already in the bag, lined up for taking orders. The USA is the only chance for western civilization. Geez get every Deplorable out to vote!

Carl Friis-Hansen
November 7, 2019 6:30 am

Politicians should be a lot more considerate in what they are doing. Most of us elect them to help us to pursue a healthy, safe and joyful life. By pursuing “climate action” with no consideration of cost and benefit to all walks of life, just to stay in office, they are almost certain to do tremendous harm, in making the middle class and the poor poorer and less enjoyment of life.
Even if the global climate, if there is such a thing, had an issue and this issue was caused mainly by homo sapiens and cows, solutions aught to be primarily beneficial to all humans including the middle class and the poor.
There is a good chance that cold and winter will continue to prevail half the year, even if the global temperature should increase. Increasing energy complexity and prices without income gain for the middle class and poor, will not a beneficial to the humans, but rather increase winter death.
If the politicians have little feelings left, they may be helped by reading “The Little Matchgirl” written just before the Russian revolution by Hans Christian Andersen. It is a sad story from the very early days of industrial revolution and a thing that could have bin eradicated if the trillion of dollars spend on the inhuman and absurd way of fighting a most likely non-issue in the most uneconomical way thinkable, had been spend on building NAWAPA and similar projects in Africa and elsewhere.

PS: NAWAPA stands for North American Water and Power Alliance

PS2: Can we have Solvang moved out of California, Solvang deserves better 🙂 Nice little Danish city, which I visited in 1983, just before I began to develop wind turbines. – Yes, I know, for a few years I was the bad guy.

Reply to  Carl Friis-Hansen
November 7, 2019 7:39 am

And Transaqua, with NAWAPA intent, to refill Lake Chad, on the EU table for decades, has now China on board.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  bonbon
November 7, 2019 8:23 am

Once again, the marxbrothers are trying to get ahead of the parade. Lake Chad is growing again and the sahel is greening beyond anyone’s expectations. There is no need for the lake to be artificially refilled.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
November 7, 2019 11:25 am

Bull. There is a need for modern infrastructure.
Depending on the vagaries on “climate” is a game for baboons, or Squires of the British Empire.

Surprising for someone here at WUWT to swear by the “weather”.

Very odd, that. Seems like you are in with the Extinction Rebellion mob.

John Endicott
Reply to  bonbon
November 8, 2019 10:15 am

Bull. There is a need for modern infrastructure

no one was talking about modern infrastructure. Gary was pointing out, correctly, that the “shrinking lake chad” scare story isn’t true, Lake Chad has been growing again as such, artificially refilling based on the scare story isn’t needed.

Surprising for someone here at WUWT to swear by the “weather”.

no one here is “swear(ing) by the ‘weather’ “, just pointing out the facts contrary to what the scare stories would have people believe. No wonder you fall for conspiracy nonsense, you’re reading comprehension skills are shockingly poor.

Guilherme da Fonseca-Statter
November 7, 2019 6:38 am

«Several high-profile Democrats who back the so-called Green New Deal are now apparently supporting a new report calling for a dramatic reduction in the world’s population to stave off a climate crisis.»
As rhe above says «now apparently», I wish this was not true…
Because if it is, then the Neomalthusianism profoundly reactionary stance of those people continues to be unveiled…

Mike McHenry
November 7, 2019 7:08 am

This is beginning to sound like the back to the ’70’s show. The return of a bad dream that I don’t care to relive

November 7, 2019 7:17 am

Another ‘Final Solution’ just like the one from that great environmentalist 80 years ago.

November 7, 2019 7:24 am

It should be obvious why “high profile” Dems are GND – washed. Its the money, stupid!

Look at Bank of England Mark Carney’s plan (seconded by Blackrock) presented at the Jackson Hole FED confab in August :
“Regime Change” from the Dollar to a global strictly green unlimited digital currency, the SHC, Synthetic Hegemonic Currency. Now it turns out Ursula van der Leyen wants an EU GND too, and someone there is calling for a digital Euro. Anyone want to bet their last Dollar that is the SHC with a french accent?

Considering Carney at the moment is a Sterling chap, you just could not make this stuff up!

John Endicott
Reply to  bonbon
November 8, 2019 10:10 am

And yet, like all conspiracy theorist/nutters, the conspiracy you weave is stuff you made up. (Note: I didn’t say anything about the validity of individual data points, for example Mark Carney being at Jackson Hole in Aug, it’s the leaps of illogic that the tin-foil hat brigade jump to that is exercises in “making stuff up”)

Robert W Turner
November 7, 2019 7:25 am

Lifeclocks are a LIE!

Joel Snider
November 7, 2019 7:42 am

Fascism on steroids.

November 7, 2019 7:51 am

Global Warming/Climate Change are the fence posts/barbed wire that will be used to enslave 97% of humanity.

November 7, 2019 8:03 am

Same old same old-

‘If Marxism is understood as the correct, objective, scientific knowledge of history, then this begs the question, ‘who says so?’ Who holds the correct knowledge and how did they gain that knowledge? Who is the subject of the knowledge? The notion of Marxism as ‘science’ implies a distinction between those who know and those who do not know, a distinction between those who have true consciousness and those who have false consciousness.’

Yo’all just have the false consciousness of science so no further correspondence will be entered into.

November 7, 2019 8:12 am

“They call for a “bold and drastic” change in economic growth to slash greenhouse gas emissions, which research shows contributes to climate change.”

No research shows this, only failed models.

The fastest way to slow population growth is to let Africa energize with coal. Of course they oppose every kind of energy that works.

The same leftards who think mass migration is going to prop up their failed social Ponzi Programs also think the globe is overpopulated… The cognitive dissonance and the pain it causes is why they are so ful of rage and hate.

November 7, 2019 8:19 am

According to UNESCO there were 7.8M people doing scientific resource in the entire world as of 2013.
Doubtless the number is significantly higher today.

So we are supposed to give credence to a petition signed by 11K out of 7.8M (likely much more) scientists around the world, which is less than 2 tenths of a percent (0.14% to be more precise).

Yeh, right.

November 7, 2019 8:44 am

Having the true consciousness has its drawbacks. It begets Lysenkoism that the world’s going to run on solar panels windmills and lithium batteries as a result. Mind you they do have a point with population control as the true consciousness has slaughtered countless millions historically.

D Anderson
November 7, 2019 8:49 am

Basically, they hate people.

Jeremiah Puckett
November 7, 2019 9:55 am

Would Democrats block immigration (legal and illegal) of families that had “too many kids” or is this policy just for white Americans?

November 7, 2019 11:08 am

“our country is FULL!” – Donald J. Trump, 7 April 2019

November 7, 2019 11:29 am

Actually, its just for conservative Americans. That’s who they want to get rid.

Ed Zuiderwijk
November 7, 2019 1:18 pm

There is only one strategy that works to reduce birth rates: take people out of poverty, which requires access to cheap energy, and educate women.

The former is obstructed by green lunacy, the latter by retarded religions.

gene stevens
November 7, 2019 1:59 pm

Here’s a link to 5+ entertaining and illustrative minutes about the 11,000…


November 7, 2019 2:58 pm

Implement Muddlecare for all and the population will go down. Easy-peazy.

November 7, 2019 3:25 pm

Nuke China.

It’s the only way.

November 7, 2019 6:33 pm

Since predominantly white nations already have either zero growth or declining populations, then “population control” means culling the non white population. Is that eugenics or just Genocide?

BTW, the population density of Europe is 143 per square kilometre while the population density of Africa is 44. Europeans first. I’m sure the Japanese would love the increased export trade in swords for Hari Kari.

John Endicott
Reply to  JohnB
November 12, 2019 5:33 am

according to worldometers Africa is more densely populated:
◾The population density in Europe is 34 per Km2 (87 people per mi2).
◾The population density in Africa is 44 per Km2 (114 people per mi2).

while Africa has about a quarter more land area, it also has nearly twice the population.

BTW for comparison sake, the stats for the US and China are
◾The population density in the United States is 36 per Km2 (93 people per mi2).
◾The population density in China is 153 per Km2 (396 people per mi2).

I’d say Japan can ship those Hari Kari swords to China, but instead of increased export Trade, China will just rip off the IP and make their own poorer quality imitation Hari Kari swords.

Douglas C Kubler
November 7, 2019 9:12 pm

Great unmasking of the “scientists”.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights