U.N., Climate and Sacrificing Something (or Someone)

Is the U.N. a danger to humans?

Officials within the UN are pushing the notion that we, humans, are a danger to the world. They suggest the human population be reduced in order to combat climate change more effectively. Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) has been a leading proponent in this field. In 2013, Figueres had a conversation with Climate One founder Greg Dalton regarding “fertility rates in population,” as a contributor to climate change. (Climate One is a self described public affairs forum which advocates extreme action to combat climate change. It is a branch of The Commonwealth Club of California based in San Francisco.)

“But isn’t it true that stopping the rise of the population would be one of the biggest levers and driving the rise of green house gases?” Dalton asked.
“Obviously less people would exert less pressure on the natural resources,” Figueres answered, also noting that estimates suggest the Earth’s population will rise to nine billion by 2050.

Dalton then questioned whether that figure could in some way be stalled or halted. “So is nine billion a forgone conclusion? That’s like baked in, done, no way to change that?” he asked Figueres.

“There is pressure in the system to go toward that; we can definitely change those, right? We can definitely change those numbers,” Figueres said in response. “Really, we should make every effort to change those numbers because we are already, today, already exceeding the planet’s planetary carrying capacity.” 

“So yes we should do everything possible. But we cannot fall into the very simplistic opinion of saying just by curtailing population then we’ve solved the problem. It is not either/or, it is an and/also,” the UN official added.

Figueres previously described the goal of the UNFCC as “a complete transformation of the economic structure of the world.”

She has also repeatedly said that a Chinese style communist dictatorship is better suited than the U.S. constitutional system to fight “global warming.”

Figueres told Bloomberg News last year that the Chinese government is “doing it right” when it comes to climate change, even though China is by far the biggest emitter of greenhouse gasses. Perhaps she means "doing it right" outside of carbon production, maybe by decreasing human carbon units through forced abortions, infanticide and compulsory sterilization.

Figueres noted that a partisan divide in the U.S. Congress--by this she presumably means "debate"--is “very detrimental” to passing climate related legislation, while the Chinese Communist Party, sets policies by decree.

It is so annoying when people get in the way of planners' good ideas. Perhaps President Obama  could start issuing executive orders on climate change. Culling the population might be an urgent problem, too urgent to pursue by lower birth rates. So maybe a more pro-active approach should be used. Now, how to determine what humans to cull.....

What is irksome is our underwriting this blathering class and their regular meetings in 5-star hotels and restaurants.

Anyone interested in the U.N.'s history of principled and visionary behavior need only retrieve the White Paper on the U.N.'s behavior in Rwanda during the extermination of the Tutsis.


(For those thinking this is too bizarre, please check The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement defined by Wiki as 'an "extinctionist" movement which advocates the self-extinction of humankind. This movement argues that humankind is responsible for ecological unbalance and the destruction of the global environment,and believes that our planet's environment would be better off without humans.')