Population Control to Combat Climate Change

The opening sentence of the Lancet1 article paints a grim picture. The normally staid British medical journal reports on a new health threat that “will affect most populations in the next decades and put the lives and wellbeing of billions of people at increased risk.”

Billions, no less! If “billions of lives” are at risk—given that there are less than 7 billion of us on the planet—that must mean that half of us are in danger of dying.

But from what? An airborne version of HIV/AIDS? A new, more virulent strain of Avian Flu? A deadly biological weapon that has somehow escaped from the lab?

If you guessed any of the above, you would be wrong. The authors, as it turns out, are not talking about some new pandemic at all. Rather the risk to our very lives comes from … a possible rise in the earth’s average surface temperature of 2 degrees centigrade by the year 2100.

Don’t you dare laugh.

The authors of “Managing the health effects of climate change,” take themselves very, very seriously.

In fact, they go on to solemnly inform us that the health dangers of climate change will be even more severe at high latitudes, with the potential for 4-5 degrees centigrade rises in northern Canada, Greenland, and Siberia.

I, for one, am not alarmed by the thought that a little warmth might come to these frozen northlands. Neither, I am fairly certain, will their scattered residents object to a break from the bone-chilling cold—if such a rise in temperatures should truly come to pass.

I have my doubts on this score, however, and not just because of the crazed behavior of so many global warming fanatics. There are so many variables involved, and our evidence is so sketchy, that any conclusion about the effect of human activities upon the earth’s climate is not only premature, it is also likely to be wrong.

I mean, we can’t even predict, with any accuracy, what the weather will be like two weeks out. Now we are supposed to be able to calculate what the climate will be like a century from now? Are you kidding me?

The authors actually admit they are essentially clueless. Read the following passage carefully: The “policy response to the public health implications of climate change will have to be formulated in conditions of uncertainty, which will exist about the scale and timing of the effects, as well as their nature, location, and intensity.” (p. 1694)

This ignorance doesn’t stop them from proposing vast increases in government expenditures and powerful new international institutions to “mitigate” and “adapt to” global climate change, however. Nor does it stop them from arguing for a vast expansion of population control schemes to “combat climate change.”

Indeed, this new consortium of climate change theorists and population controllers sees itself as the pioneering vanguard of a “new advocacy and public health movement” which is “needed urgently” to help humanity “adapt to the effects of climate change on health.”

But even if we do see a slight rise in global temperatures over the next century—and I believe that on this question the jury is still out—diverting vast resources to address the potential health problems that this might cause is a misuse of resources.

The article’s subtitle claims “climate change is the biggest global health threat of the 21st century.” But this is simply not true.

Everyone reading the Lancet article will be dead in a hundred years, and I guarantee that they will not die from “climate change.” Rather, they will die from infectious diseases, from cancers, from heart attacks, from strokes, and so on.

These are the real health threats of our age. These are the threats to our lives and wellbeing that should command our attention and our resources, not some vague, unpredictable and indirect health consequences of supposed “global warming.”

By distracting us from more immediate threats to our health, by delaying the discovery of cures for illnesses that cost tens of millions of lives each year, these people are killing us.

But that is, after all, what they want.

1 Anthony Costello et al, “Managing the Health Effects of Climate Change,” The Lancet 373: 1693–733. May 16, 2009

Steven W. Mosher


Steven W. Mosher is the President of Population Research Institute and an internationally recognized authority on China and population issues, as well as an acclaimed author, speaker. He has worked tirelessly since 1979 to fight coercive population control programs and has helped hundreds of thousands of women and families worldwide over the years.

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • daveknecht

    As a physician I wonder how doctors would respond to a drug with similar statements backing it?

    Read the following passage carefully: The policy response to the public health implications of this medication will have to be formulated in conditions of uncertainty, which will exist about the possible benefits and side effects, as well as their nature, location, and intensity.

    I would hope that “mediation” would not get through the FDA

  • applegrower

    Normally I wouldn’t respond to articles written by religious zealots (I was going to use the more brutal term “fanatics); however, this article was posted on my weekly Google search on Climate Change. I was appalled to read the by-line for Mr. Mosher as President of the Population Research Institute. A quick search of Wikipedia reveals that the institute is “pro-life” and doesn’t believe in “over population” as a problem. I thinks that gives most of the reason for his “rationale” in not believing in climate change. Although I am not an exponent of long range travel, I suggest the Mr. Mosher should make two trips: one up to either the Arctic or the Antarctic to see the glacial melting or another up to the various glaciers throughout the Rockies, South American Andes or the Himalayan Mountains to see the significant retreat of the glaciers. Let’s put it this way–I have far more faith in the scientists who say that there is a severe threat from Climate Change, which cannot be equated with our daily “weather” changes, than some quack who runs something as innocuous as the Population Research Institute, which is simply a useful instrument of Catholic non-logic.

  • Mary Kochan

    Appplegrower, the ice at the arctic is decreasing, but the ice at the south is increasing — although not evenly, the western part is shrinking and the eastern part is expanding. There is no net change in the total amount of polar ice.



    And the melting at the top will be a good thing for sea transport — maybe save some fossil fuel. So don’t fret.

    When I was kid we were all going to die because there was an ice age coming. Now we are all going to die because of global warming. The only thing true about both things is that we are all going to die… eventually. And one does not have to be a religious fanatic to understand that eternity is worth preparing for.

    So how you coming along on that?

  • applegrower

    And I don’t normally reply to comments that I make, but I must say a “Bless you” to Mary Kochan for a reply that lack the usual vitrolic that a lot of people use in responding. I have done a considerable amount of research on climate change and am familiar with all the arguments the climate change deniers use. Far too many of them know very little about the topic and are going just by hunches. I like to refer to studies done by NASA or other scientific groups, which by and large have spent a lot of time studying the topic. It is a topic much like “creationism”. You can spend a great deal of time and effort in proving to this latter group that their arguments hold no water, yet their “faith” is such that you will never convince them of their error. From a personal point of view, I believe in Nature, and nature tells me that the temperatures are getting warmer. I have been growing apples now for over 40 years, and just last year planted a variety that would only grow in California. Our growing season now is of such duration that I can easily grow this variety of apples and depend on not having them hanging on the tree in mid December. Thanks to Catholic Exchange for printing my comments–at least you are willing to look at the other side of a story.

  • Mary Kochan

    Applegrower, that is kind of the thing about climate. It changes. I’m not denying climate change. Now I garden also in my part of the country, and guess what? Things are getting a bit cooler around here.

    I don’t know that Mosher denies climate change — he seems agnostic on it to me. I do know that there a lot of very reputable scientists who deny various pieces of what has been touted as “global warming.” But whether/ how the climate is changing and whether the changes are being caused by human activity versus other natural cycles/phenomena are two very different issues.

    And whether climate change should be used as an excuse by global elites to seek a reduction in human population is quite another issue, especially when we note that they never seem to volunteer themselves for extermination but always seem to have somebody with less power and money in mind. History has taught us to pour the entire shaker of salt on that idea.

    Around here, we like humans. Shoot, we even think God became a human. How about you? You like humans?

  • applegrower

    I like your colloguilsms, Mary. My biggest issue with humanity is that most humans (99.5%) tend to take themselves too seriously. Think about this, Mary. Would it have made that much difference to you and the rest of the world if you had not been born? This is not a facitious question. I was one of 11 children with parents that obviously didn’t practice safe sex. One of my brothers died at birth–he would have been part of 12 children. I don’t think he was missed by his older siblings and since none of his younger siblings knew anything about him except his name, I don’t suppose they thought much about him either. We don’t know whether he would have practiced medicine and saved 100’s of lives, or whether he would have grown up to be another Hitler. If I had not been born, my wife probably would have married someone else and would probably be just as happy with her 2.5 children. Someone else would (and they are) be growing apples as I do. What I’m trying to point out is that with the horrendous number of people on earth today, we have become unsustainable and you and I are just an added burden to Nature. Now, since we are both here, we should try to make sure that the children we have borne have an opportunity to live a life that will not destroy the precious little that we have left of Nature’s limited resources. So, even if we deny the fact that the climate is changing (which includes places that might be getting colder, or wetter, or drier as well as getting warmer) we cannot deny the fact that we are running out of natural resources and, unless some miracle comes along, we may be running out of food in the near future.
    Thanks for your reply, Mary. I had a two year long conversation via email, with a climate change denier, which I recently terminated because I concluded that we could never see eye to eye. If both you and I live another 20 or 30 years we might just see things go either way.
    I have two books that I would recommend you read: Susan Jacoby– The Age of American Unreason; and Dr.’s Meadows, Rander and Meadows–Limits to Growth. I think you will see why I believe we are in real trouble.

  • Mary Kochan

    Applegrower, regarding your dead brother, no we do not know what his potential was. But God knew and knows and he went to a new world. Someday you may know him and when you do the real value of his life will enter you consciousness. You will understand that he was willed and loved and that his life, however brief intersected those of you and your siblings in ways you cannot now fathom. It may be that someday you find out that some aspects of your life that you enjoy have depended upon his prayers.

    I read Club of Rome’s Limits to Growth years ago. The current collapse is 180 degrees from being a result of scarcity of resources.

    The most important thing to comprehend about “resources” is that there is no “naturally occurring” resource. Nature does not label coal as fuel or even label apples as food. It takes a human mind and ingenuity to take the raw materials of the earth and devise creative uses for them such that they suddenly become “resources.” Please check out Julian Simon. http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/

    As for running out of food: Do you know what in terms of land use, the largest single irrigated crop of the United states is right now? Lawn grass. There is about three times the acreage devoted to lawns as devoted to growing corn. We just have so much slack in our ability to grow food, that it is beyond amazing. A grower such as yourself would probably recognize that if you had not absorbed a scarcity mentality. Please examine the agenda of those who want you to live in fear and desire death for others.