Global Warming: The New Word for Mandates and Population Control

Robert L. Hale

Right Side News
October 5, 2009

It is exceptionally difficult to deny people what they want and enjoy unless force and threats are used to scare them into cooperation and compliance.

featured stories   Global Warming: The New Word for Mandates and Population Control
enviro
If the world’s bureaucrats can make a crisis of global warming aka greenhouse gases aka carbon footprint aka environmental harm, the next step may well be population control mandates.

The President’s chief advisor, Rahm Emanuel, has said, “It’s a shame to waste a good crisis” — certainly this is sound advice. People are willing to give up freedoms and self-determination in times of crisis. In the absence of a crisis, those who wish to force an ideology on a population must create one. Otherwise, it is exceedingly difficult in a free society to convince the population to do what otherwise makes little sense.

We have heard so much about the dangers of global warming over the last few years that the average person believes it threatens the survival of mankind.

It makes little difference that there is considerable disagreement over whether global warming even exists. If indeed global warming exists, it is even less certain whether it is a normal phenomena or caused by man, or whether it is good or bad thing.

Nevertheless, we have been told repeatedly that certain disaster looms unless we stop global warming. The claims range from global flooding in a few short years to food and resource shortages that will mandate the imposition of worldwide Marshall Law. Al Gore recently said that if we do not act in the next several years, it will be too late.

Despite the rhetoric that bombards us, the possibility of positive impacts of a warmer world is simply not discussed. Instead we are told we must take immediate steps — even draconian ones — or life as mankind has known it will come to an irreversible end.

Bureaucrats aggressively push the imposition of policies to curb “greenhouse gases” (GHG). These emissions include carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The feared “carbon footprint” is a measure of GHG emissions. All we hear is how we must reduce the carbon footprint. The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed a bill that will impose “cap and trade” rules on emitters of carbon. The biggest emitters are power plants. This bill, if implemented, will result in an increase in the average household utility bill, according to the U.S. Treasury Department, of $1,761 per year — equal to a 15-percent income-tax hike. If enacted, according to a Heritage Foundation study, it would eliminate over 3 million jobs between 2012 and 2035.

The crisis promoters point to an Oregon State University study (Oregon was the first political jurisdiction in the world to legalize assisted suicide). Professor Paul Murtaugh tells us, “Up to this point, little attention has been given to the overwhelming importance of reproductive choice.” Murtaugh says each child born in the U.S. contributes 9,411 metric tons of carbon dioxide. He claims this is about 5.7 times the amount an average person should contribute.

Where is all this going? Maybe we should look to the United Kingdom. In March, a study produced at the behest of Prime Minister Brown warned that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a “sustainable society.” Sustainable is defined as, “Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” The British study suggests it must reduce its population to 30 million if it wants to feed itself sustainably. The current population stands at 60 million. Jonathon Porritt, spokesmen for the study said, “Cutting our population is one way to reduce (environmental) impacts (on developing countries).”

If the world’s bureaucrats can make a crisis of global warming aka greenhouse gases aka carbon footprint aka environmental harm, the next step may well be population control mandates. In the dead of night, the U.S. House passed a bill that will, in effect, be the largest tax increase in the history of this country. Could power rationing or mandatory population controls be far behind?

Nurse confidence in swine flu vaccine falling

Nurses’ confidence in the safety of swine flu vaccination has fallen over the last two months, Nursing Times’ latest survey suggests.

With the first doses of vaccine expected to arrive at trusts in the next week or two, just under half of frontline nurses say they do not intend to have the jab, according to a snapshot survey of nearly 1,700 readers.

The results suggest fewer nurses are likely to get vaccinated now than in August, when Nursing Times asked readers the same questions about immunisation against swine flu.

In August, 31 per cent of respondents said they would not get vaccinated while 35 per cent said they would. However, in the latest online survey, carried out last week, the percentage of nurses saying they will not get vaccinated has increased to 47 per cent. Those saying they will has fallen to 23 per cent

The main reason nurses cited for not having the vaccine was concern over its safety – the percentage of nurses saying this is the main reason they do not intend to get immunised has increased from 60 per cent in August to 78 per cent in now.

A sizeable minority – 25 per cent – said they do not consider the risks to their health to be great enough. The comments suggest many nurses hold both views – believing that the condition is not serious enough to warrant trying a relatively new vaccine.

Both vaccines ordered by the Department of Health have now been licensed, having undergone trials. But many nurses responding to the survey raised concerns that the approval process had been rushed.

One respondent said: “I don’t believe that it has been tested properly and there is not enough information regarding side effects. It could come back and haunt us in years to come.”

“I am not confident that it has been sufficiently tested. I would rather take the risk of getting the flu,” another said.

Other common reasons cited by nurses for remaining unvaccinated were that the infection was mild enough for them not to bother, or that they had previously experienced flu-like illness after receiving the seasonal flu vaccine.

One respondent said: “I have worked on a swine flu isolation ward and have not become ill. I feel good barrier nursing with the correct masks has allowed me to build up my own resistance.”

Both the RCN and Unison have publically encouraged NHS staff to get vaccinated. Last month Unison head of nursing Gail Adam said: “We are strongly recommending that all health workers have the swine flu vaccination.”