How Near is the Coming Time of Trouble?

Cap-and- Trade

(From Wikipedia)

Emissions trading is a market-based approach used to control pollution by providing economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of pollutants.

A central authority (usually a governmental body) sets a limit or cap on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted. The limit or cap is allocated or sold to firms in the form of emissions permits which represent the right to emit or discharge a specific volume of the specified pollutant. Firms are required to hold a number of permits (or carbon credits) equivalent to their emissions. The total number of permits cannot exceed the cap, limiting total emissions to that level. Firms that need to increase their emission permits must buy permits from those who require fewer permits.

The transfer of permits is referred to as a trade. In effect, the buyer is paying a charge for polluting, while the seller is being rewarded for having reduced emissions. Thus, in theory, those who can reduce emissions most cheaply will do so, achieving the pollution reduction at the lowest cost to society.

There are active trading programs in several air pollutants. For greenhouse gases (including Carbon Dioxide - C02) the largest is the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. In the United States there is a national market to reduce acid rain and several regional markets in nitrogen oxides. Markets for other pollutants tend to be smaller and more localized.

Pollution as an Externality

By definition, an externality is an activity of one entity that affects the welfare of another entity in a way that is outside the market mechanism. Pollution is the

prime example most economists think of when discussing externalities. There are many different ways to address these from a public economics perspective including emissions fees, cap-and-trade, and command-and-control regulation. Here we will discuss cap-and-trade as the chosen public response to externalities.

Overview

The overall goal of an emissions trading plan is to minimize the cost of meeting a set emissions target. The cap is an enforceable limit on emissions that is usually lowered over time aiming towards a national emissions reduction target. In other systems a portion of all traded credits must be retired, causing a net reduction in emissions each time a trade occurs. In many cap-and-trade systems, organizations which do not pollute may also participate, thus environmental groups (such as the Sierra Club and other heavily funded NGO's (Nongovernmental organizations funded by huge foundations, such as the Rockefeller Foundation) can purchase and retire allowances or credits and hence drive up the price of the remainder according to the law of demand. Corporations can also prematurely retire allowances by donating them to a nonprofit entity

(again, an NGO that has been funded and set up primarily to drive up the price of Carbon Credits) and then be eligible for a tax deduction.

Definitions

The economics literature provides the following definitions of cap and trade emissions trading schemes.

A cap-and-trade system constrains the aggregate emissions of regulated sources by creating a limited number of tradable emission allowances, which emission sources must secure and surrender in number equal to their emissions.

In an emissions trading or cap-and-trade scheme (a scheme - alright!), a limit on access to a resource (the cap) is defined and then allocated among users in the form of permits. Compliance is established by comparing actual emissions with permits surrendered including any permits traded within the cap (which will, of course, set up another huge bureaucracy in order to monitor the actual emissions of EVERY business in America!)

Under a tradable permit system, an allowable overall level of pollution is established and allocated among firms in the form of permits. Firms that keep their emission levels below their allotted level may sell their surplus permits to other firms or use them to offset excess emissions in other parts of their facilities.

Market-based and least-cost

Economists have urged the use of “market-based" instruments such as emissions trading to address environmental problems instead of prescriptive "command and control" regulation. Command and control regulation is criticized for being excessively rigid, insensitive to geographical and technological differences, and for being inefficient. However, emissions trading requires a cap to effectively reduce emissions, and the cap is a government regulatory mechanism. After a cap has been set by a government political process, individual companies are free to choose how or if they will reduce their emissions. Failure to reduce emissions is often punishable by a further government regulatory mechanism, a fine that increases costs of production. Firms will choose the least-costly way to comply with the pollution regulation, which will lead to reductions where the least expensive solutions exist, while allowing emissions that are more expensive to reduce.

Emission markets

For trading purposes, one allowance or Certified Emission Reduction (CER) is considered equivalent to one metric ton of C02 emissions. (How else is C02 produced? By the breathing of human beings!) These allowances can be sold privately or in the international market at the prevailing market price. These trade and settle internationally and hence allow allowances to be transferred between countries. Each international transfer is validated by the UNFCCC (the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change - promoting the LIE that too much C02 in the air is the cause of Global Warming, a gas that ALL green plants need to live). Each transfer of ownership within the European Union is additionally validated by the European Commission.

Climate exchanges have been established to provide a spot market in allowances, as well as futures and options market to help discover a market price and maintain liquidity (and to make large amounts of money from the trades). Carbon prices are normally quoted in Euros per ton of carbon dioxide or its equivalent (C02e). Other greenhouse gasses can also be traded, but are quoted as standard multiples of carbon dioxide with respect to their global warming potential. (Naturally, it's not nearly as important to limit the amount of these other greenhouse" gases, because they are not involved in the act of breathing by human beings, the ones the New World Order wants to limit drastically!) These features reduce the quota's financial impact on business, while ensuring that the quotas are met at a national and international level.

Currently there are six exchanges trading in carbon allowances: the Chicago Climate Exchange, European Climate Exchange, NASDAQ OMX Commodities Europe, PowerNext, Commodity Exchange Bratislava and the European Energy Exchange. (Eventually, your breath - you exhale carbon dioxide - will be a stock exchange commodity, to be limited by your government.) NASDAQ OMX Commodities Europe listed a contract to trade offsets generated by a CDM carbon project called Certified Emission Reductions. Many companies now engage in emissions abatement, offsetting, and sequestration programs to generate credits that can be sold on one of the exchanges. At least one private electronic market has been established in 2008: CantorC02e. Carbon credits at Commodity Exchange Bratislava are traded at special platform - Carbon place.

Managing emissions is one of the fastest-growing segments in financial services in the City of London with a market estimated to be worth about 30 billion in 2007. (Your breath - or more accurately, the CONTROL of your breath - is BIG BUSINESS!) Louis Redshaw, head of environmental markets at Barclays Capital predicts that "Carbon will be the world's biggest commodity market, and it could become the world's biggest market overall." (Because they will be controlling the number of breaths that ALL SEVEN BILLION people on the earth can breathe. And even more so, because there won't be any industry to make pollution anyway, at least in America, because ALL the manufacturing jobs are gone!)

Public opinion

In the United States, most polling shows large support for emissions trading (oftentimes referred to as cap-and-trade). (Not surprising, because the public has NO IDEA that the goal of this "scheme" is to limit how many BREATHS you an I will be allowed to breathe in our Iifetimel) This majority support can be seen in polls conducted by Washington Post/ABC News, Zogby International and Yale University. (Certainly, entities we can "Trust" - who LOVE us and are interested in our well-being!!!!!)

According to Politi Fact, it's a misconception that emissions trading is unpopular in the United States because of earlier polls from Zogby International and Rasmussen which misleadingly include “new taxes" (taxes aren't part of emissions trading) or high energy cost estimates. Of course "new taxes" are a part of it. In fact, the whole thing is a "tax" because the business must BUY the "carbon units," a cost that is just passed on to the consumer - just the same as a "tax."

Cap-and-Trade versus Carbon tax

Regulation by Cap-and-trade emissions trading can be compared to emissions fees or environmental tax approaches under a number of possible criteria.

Responsiveness to inflation: In the case of inflation, cap-and-trade is at an advantage over emissions fees because it adjusts to the new prices automatically and no legislative or regulatory action is needed. (So the price can go up dramatically and there will be NO discussion in Congress, nor will the people have a right to vote on it.)

Responsiveness to cost changes: It is difficult to tell which is better between cap-and-trade and emissions fees therefore it might be a better option to combine the two resulting in the creation of a safety valve price (a price set by the government at which polluters can purchase additional permits beyond the cap). (Which, of course, is a TAX!)

Responsiveness to uncertainty: As with cost changes, in a world of uncertainty, it is not clear whether emissions fees or cap-and-trade systems are more efficient, it basically depends on how fast the marginal social benefits of reducing pollution fall with the amount of cleanup. (No mention that their biggest "social benefit" is getting rid of Millions of people.)

Economics of international emissions trading

World trade

It is possible for a country to reduce emissions using a Command-Control approach, such as regulation, direct and indirect taxes. The cost of that approach differs between countries because the Marginal Abatement Cost Curve (MAC) the cost of eliminating an additional unit of pollution differs by country. It might cost China $2 to eliminate a ton of C02, but it would probably cost Sweden or the U.S. much more. International emissions-trading markets were created precisely to exploit differing MACs.

How in the World did the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Declare C02 a "Dangerous Pollutant" when it no trees, grass, flowers, or any other foliage can live without it?

EPA Formally Declares C02 a Dangerous Pollutant

By Nicolas Loris

December 7,2009 at 2:04 pm

Step aside, elected Members of Congress. If you can't pass cap and trade legislation, The Environmental Protection Agency will move in with massively complex and costly regulations that would micromanage just about every aspect of the economy. They announced today that carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases (GHGs) threaten public health and the environment.

Since 85 percent of the U.S. economy runs on fossil fuels that emit carbon dioxide, imposing a cost on C02 is equivalent to placing an economy-wide tax on energy use. The kind of industrial-strength EPA red tape that the agency could enforce in the name of global warming would result in millions of dollars in compliance costs. These are unnecessary costs that businesses will inevitably pass on to the American consumer, slow economic growth and kill jobs. Although the crafted rules say only facilities that emit 25,000 tons of carbon dioxide per year or more will be affected, businesses fear the exemption may not hold up in court and could now be imposed on many smaller commercial buildings, farms restaurants, churches and small businesses (and eventually individuals - people!!!).

Even EPA administrator Lisa Jackson acknowledged top-down regulations would be more costly than a cap and trade system, saying, "Legislation is so important because it will combine the most efficient, most economy-wide, least costly, least disruptive way to deal with carbon dioxide pollution," she recently stated, adding that "we get further faster without top-down regulation." Of course, this isn't a legitimate argument to pass cap and trade legislation. Cap and trade, a climate treaty and EPA regulations are the three ugly step-sisters of climate policy. Yet they're trudging forward anyway.

The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis study of the economic effects of carbon dioxide regulations found cumulative gross domestic product (GOP) losses of $7 trillion by 2029 single-year GOP losses exceeding $600 billion in some years, energy cost increases of 30 percent or more, and annual job losses exceeding 800,000 for several years. Hit particularly hard is manufacturing, which will see Job losses In some industries that exceed 50 percent. (A Great Way for the New World Order to DESTROY the economy In EVERY country!)

And George Will writes that any emissions reduction targets, whether they come from the EPA, cap and trade, or a Copenhagen treaty are simply unattainable: “Barack Obama, understanding the histrionics required in climate-change debates, promises that U.S. emissions in 2050 will be 83 percent below 2005 levels. If so, 2050 emissions will equal those in 1910, when there were 92 million Americans. But there will be 420 million Americans in 2050, so Obama's promise means that per capita emissions then will be about what they were in 1875. That. Will. Not. Happen."

In the press release today, the EPA stated, "Science overwhelmingly shows greenhouse gas concentrations at unprecedented levels due to human activity," and that "GHGs are the primary driver of climate change." (BALONEY! - An outright LIE!) When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued the initial endangerment finding in April, administrator Jackson noted that the agency

"relied heavily upon the major findings and conclusions from recent assessments of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPPC)." Not only does Climategate seriously call this into question but so do the 700 dissenting scientists refuting claims made by the IPCC report. That 700 figure is more than 13 times the number of scientists (52) who had a direct role in the IPCC report.

http://blog . heritage. org/2009/12/07/epa-formally-declares-c02-a-dangerouspollutant!

The Environmental Protection Agency's decision to classify rising carbon-dioxide emissions as a hazard to human health is the latest twist in a debate that has raged for decades among politicians, scientists and industry: whether a natural component of the earth's atmosphere should be considered a pollutant.

The EPA's finding doesn't say carbon dioxide, or C02, is by itself a pollutant -- it is, after all, a gas that humans exhale and plants “inhale.” Rather, it is the increasing concentrations of the gas that concern the agency (as in - "there are too many people on the earth, and we've got to kill off a whole bunch of them!").

The Real Goal of Decreasing Carbon Emissions Is Population Extermination

AI Gore, Agenda 21 And Population Control

Imagine going to sleep one night and waking up many years later in a totally different world. In this futuristic world, literally everything you do is tightly monitored and controlled by control freak bureaucrats in the name of "sustainable development" and with the goal of promoting lithe green agenda". An international ruling body has centralized global control over all human activity. What you eat, what you drink, where you live, how warm or cold your home can be and how much fuel you can use is determined by them. Anyone that dissents or that tries to rebel against the system is sent off for lire-education". The human population is 90 percent lower than it is today in this futuristic society, and all remaining humans have been herded into tightly constricted cities which are run much like prisons. Does all of that sound good to you? Well, this is what Agenda 21 is all about.

Yes, I know all this sounds like a plot from a science fiction novel. But it is actually real. 178 nations have signed on to Agenda 21. "Eco-prophets" such as AI Gore travel all over the world teaching us how wonderful "sustainable development" will be. This agenda is being pushed in our schools, at our

universities, on our televisions and in our movies (because the Press is controlled by the Jews, one of which is AI Gore).

So exactly what is Agenda 21? The following is how the United Nations defines Agenda 21 ....

Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.

When you start doing deep research into Agenda 21, you will find that describing it as a "comprehensive plan" is an understatement. Virtually all forms of human activity impact the environment. The rabid “environmentalists" behind the green agenda intend to take all human activity and put it into a box called "sustainable development.”

One of the key elements of "sustainable development" is population control. The United Nations (along with radical “environmental" leaders such as AI Gore) actually believes that there are far too many people on earth.

So what is the solution?

Sadly, they actually believe that we need to start reducing the population.

Just this week, AI Gore made the following statement regarding population control ....

“One of the things we could do about it is to change the technologies, to put out less of this pollution, to stabilize the population, and one of the principle ways of doing that is to empower and educate girls and women. You have to have ubiquitous availability of fertility management so women can choose how many children to have, and the spacing of the children. (This eventually will be done by FORCE, as it is in China.)

"You have to lift child survival rates so that parents feel comfortable having small families and most important, you have to educate girls and empower women. That is the most powerful leveraging factor, and when that happens, then the population begins to stabilize and societies begin to make better choices and more balanced choices.

Do you notice how whenever global leaders talk about "empowering" women these days it always ends up with them having less children?

This population control agenda is also reflected in official UN documents.

The following is language from a UN resolution that was adopted by the UN General Assembly that was designed to further the implementation of Agenda 21 ....

" Population growth rates have been declining globally, largely as a result of expanded basic education and health care. That trend is projected to lead to a stable world population in the middle of the twenty-first century. The current decline in population growth rates must be further promoted through national and international policies that promote economic development, social development, environmental protection, and poverty eradication, particularly the further expansion of basic education, with full and equal access for girls and women, and health care, including reproductive health care, including both family planning and sexual health, consistent with the report of the International Conference on Population and Development.

Most Americans don't grasp it yet, but the truth is that the global elite are absolutely obsessed with population control. In fact, there is a growing consensus among the global elite that they need to get rid of 80 to 90 percent of us.

The number one commandment of the infamous Georgia Guidestones is this:

"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature."

Unfortunately, a very high percentage of our global leaders actually believe in this stuff.

Sadly, this philosophy is now regularly being reflected in official UN documents. For example, the March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief begins with the following shocking statement...

“What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?”

Apparently the poorest nations are the primary target for the population control freaks over at the UN.

Bill Gates Wants to Vaccinate EVERYONE in Africa! Not Altruism, it's Population Control!

Bill Gates, President and Founder of Microsoft and Multi-billionaire (and a Jew), has publicly stated that he wants to vaccinate every African child (and, in fact, every child on the planet) and has set up a foundation to do just that.

But what he doesn't tell you is that there are sterility agents in the vaccinations. Many African parents are suspicious and have been choosing NOT to have their children vaccinate so the children have been FORCED to get vaccinations - at GUNPOINT!

Gates Foundation Ordered African Vaccinations By Gunpoint!

Written by Gerren Keith Gaynor on July 28, 2011 3:46 pm

Share http://newsone.com/world/ggaynor/gates-foundationordered-african-vaccinations-by-gunpointl on Twitter

AFRICA - The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation reportedly ordered its partners in Africa to give children vaccination shots by gunpoint. The organization has a goal to vaccinate every single child on the planet.

Your Black World Reports:

According to a recent report in the Malawi Voice, at least 131 Malawian children were vaccinated this week at gunpoint after having previously fled the country with their parents to avoid the pokes.

United Nations BIG on Population Extermination (Not surprising since the UN was set up by - and is still run by - the Jews!)

This agenda showed up again when the United Nations Population Fund released its annual State of the World Population Report for 2009 entitled "Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate.”

The following are three quotes that were pulled right out of that document..

1) "Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendants. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time.

2) "No human is genuinely "_carbon neutral," especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way."

3) “Strong family planning programs are in the interests of all countries for greenhouse-gas concerns as well as for broader welfare concerns.

If no human is "carbon neutral," then what is the solution?

To those that are obsessed with Agenda 21 and “sustainable developmenf,” the fact that you and I are alive and breathing air is a huge problem.

The population control agenda is also regularly showing up in our newspapers now.

In a recent editorial for the New York Times entitled “The Earth Is Full,” Thomas L. Friedman made the following statement ....

You really do have to wonder whether a few years from now we wlll look back at the first decade of the 21st century when food prices spiked, energy prices soared. world population surged, tornados plowed through cities, floods and droughts set records, populations were displaced and governments were threatened by the confluence of it all, and ask ourselves: What were we thinking? How did we not panic when the evidence was so obvious that we had crossed some growth/climate/natural resource/population red lines all at once?

But Friedman is quite moderate compared to many of the "eco-prophets" that are running around out there today.

For example, James Lovelock, the creator of the Gaia hypothesis, stated in an interview with the Guardian earlier this year that "democracy must be put on hold" if the fight against global warming is going to be successful and that only" a few people with authority" should be permitted to rule the planet until the crisis is solved. (Talk about a "Power-Grab!")

A Finnish environmentalist named Pentti Linkola has gone even farther than that. Linkola Is openly calling for climate change deniers to be "re-educated" , for an eco-fascist world government to be established, for humans to be

forcibly sterilized and for the majority of humans to be killed. (But why don't they ever start - by killing themselves?)

That doesn't sound pleasant, now does it?

This agenda is even being taught by professors at our top universities.

The truth is that academia is brimming with nut jobs who want to see the vast majority of humans wiped out.

For example, Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin, (Jewish) Eric R. Pianka is a very prominent advocate of radical human population control.

In an article entitled "What nobody wants to hear, but everyone needs to know", Pianka made the following shocking statements ....

*First, and foremost, we must get out of denial and recognize that Earth simply cannot support many billions of people.

*This planet might be able to support perhaps as many as half a billion people who could live a sustainable life in relative comfort. Human populations must be greatly diminished, and as quickly as possible to limit further environmental damage.

*1 do not bear any ill will toward humanity. However, I am convinced that the world WOULD clearly be much better off without so many of us." (Again, if he's really serious about this, why doesn't he start the "game" going by killing himself?)

Now keep in mind that this is a university professor that is teaching our kids. People actually pay a lot of money to get educated by this guy.

If those pushing Agenda 21, “sustainable development " and population control get their way, the world is going to be a much different place in the future.

In fact, we see radical steps being taken all over the globe even now.

In Europe, the European Commission has unveiled a plan to ban all cars from major European cities by the year 2050.

In Europe, the mantra “carbon dioxide is causing global warming" has become gospel. This banning of cars from city centers is all part of a draconian master plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in Europe by 60 percent over the next 40 years.

Hopefully this plan will never come to fruition, but the fact that the European Commission is seriously pushing it just shows how far things have progressed.

But we don't have to peer into the future to see how this agenda is going to affect us.

Today, the U.S. government and governments all over the industrialized world have become so obsessed with reducing carbon emissions that now they even tell us what kinds of light bulbs we are allowed to buy.

There are millions of Americans that love the old light bulbs. But soon we will not have the choice to buy them anymore.

What kind of freedom is that?

In some areas of the United States, government snoopers actually sort through the trash of residents to ensure that environmental rules are being followed. For example, in the city of Cleveland, Ohio authorities have announced plans to have "trash supervisors" go snooping through trash cans to ensure that people are actually recycling according to city guidelines.

How would you feel if government officials went snooping around in your trash cans?

The world is changing. The global elite have immense amounts of wealth and power and they are intent on imposing a radical environmental agenda on all the rest of us.

The reality is that many of the wealthiest and most prominent people in the world are absolutely obsessed with the green agenda and with population control. Just consider the following quotes....

David Rockefeller: “The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”

CNN Founder Ted Turner: "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”

Dave Foreman, Earth First Co-Founder: “My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world."

Maurice Strong of the UN: "lsn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"

Michael Oppenheimer: 'The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.

This radical agenda is even represented in the White House.

John P. Holdren, Barack Obama's top science advisor, co-authored a textbook entitled "Ecoscience" back in 1977 in which he actually advocated mass sterilization, compulsory abortion, a one world government and a global police force to enforce population control.

On page 837 of Ecoscience, a claim is made that compulsory abortion would be perfectly legal under the U.S. Constitution ....

Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.

On pages 942 and 943, a call is made for the creation of a "planetary regime" that would control the global economy and enforce population control measures ....

Perhaps those agencies, combined with UNEP and the United Nations population agencies, might eventually be developed into a Planetary Regime, sort of an international superagency for population, resources, and environment. Such a comprehensive Planetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable, at least insofar as international implications exist. Thus the Regime could have the power to control pollution not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but also in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes that cross international boundaries or that discharge into the oceans. The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade, perhaps including assistance from DCs to LDCs, and including all food on the international market.

On page 917, the surrender of U.S. national sovereignty to an international organization is advocated ....

If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization.

As mentioned earlier, Holdren is the number one science advisor to Barack Obama, and the truth is that the top levels of the U.S. government are packed with people that believe this stuff.

Yes, a lot of what you have read in this article sounds crazy. But the global elite really do believe in population control and they really are seeking to implement a radical environmental agenda across the entire planet.

They want total control of everyone and everything so that they can impose the measures that they believe are necessary to "fix" the planet.

Yes, They Really DO Want to Exterminate the Population

22 Shocking Population Control Quotes From The Global Elite That Will Make You Want To Lose Your Lunch

Most Americans have absolutely no idea, but a very dark philosophy is spreading like wildfire among the global elite. This philosophy is an obsessive belief that humanity has become a cancer that is destroying the earth. There are now large numbers of global leaders that are convinced that the exploding population of the world has become like a virus or a plague, and that it must be combated as such. In fact, it would be very difficult to understate just how obsessed many members of the global elite are with population control. The United Nations puts out position papers about it, universities have entire courses dedicated to it, radical population control advocates have been appointed to some of the highest political positions in the world, and some of the wealthiest people on the planet get together just to talk about it. Those who believe in this philosophy are constantly talking about the need for "increased access" to abortion, contraception and other "family planning" services. But even with all of their efforts, the population of the world is still expanding and those who believe in this population control philosophy are getting nervous.

So just who are these people among the global elite who believe so fervently in population control? Some of the names you are about to read below might totally shock you. Many of them are some of the biggest names in the world. For example, Prince Charles gave a major speech just the other day in which he bemoaned the rapidly expanding world population: "I could have chosen Mumbai,

Cairo or Mexico City; wherever you look, the world's population is increasing fast. It goes up by the equivalent of the entire population of the United Kingdom every year. Which means that this poor planet of ours, which already struggles to sustain 6.8 billion people, will somehow have to support over 9 billion people within 50 years."

Many among the global elite believe that the growing world population is the number one problem facing the world. Many of them are absolutely convinced that overpopulation is the primary cause of climate change", is ruining our environment, and threatens to turn the entire globe into one gigantic third world slum.

Of course all of that is nonsense, but this is what they actually believe, and the scary thing is that most of them are in positions of power and influence where they can actually do quite a bit to advance their insidious agenda.

The following are 22 shocking population control quotes from the global elite that will make you want to lose your lunch ....

#1) The March 2009 U.N. Population Division policy brief.. ..

"What would it take to accelerate fertility decline in the least developed countries?"

#2) Microsoft's Bill Gates ....

“The world today has 6.8 billion people. That's heading up to about nine billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 0 or 5 percent.”

#3) Barack Obama's top science advisor, John P. Holdren ....

"A program of sterilizing women after their second or third child, despite the relatively greater difficulty of the operation than vasectomy, might be easier to implement than trying to sterilize men.

The development of a long-term sterilizing capsule that could be implanted under the skin and removed when pregnancy is desired opens additional possibilities for coercive fertility control. The capsule could be implanted at puberty and might be removable, with official permission, for a limited number of births."

#4) George W. Bush's science advisor Paul Ehrlich ....

"Each person we add now disproportionately impacts on the environment and life-support systems of the planet.”

#5) U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg ....

"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of.”

#6) A United Nations Population Fund report entitled "Facing a Changing World:

Women, Population and Climate" ....

"No human is genuinely 'carbon neutral,' especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation.”

#7) David Rockefeller ....

“The negative impact of population growth on all of our planetary ecosystems is becoming appallingly evident.”

#8) Jacques Cousteau ....

"In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day."

#9) CNN Founder Ted Turner ....

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."

#10) Dave Foreman, Earth First Co-Founder. ...

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it's full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”

#11) Prince Phillip, the Duke of Edinburgh ....

"lf I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”

#12) David Brower, first Executive Director of the Sierra Club ....

"Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license ... All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing."

#13) Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger....

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it. “

#14) Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12 ....

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

#15) Princeton philosopher Peter Singer....

"S₀ why don't we make ourselves the last generation on earth? If we would all agree to have ourselves sterilized then no sacrifices would be required - we could party our way into extinction!"

#16) Thomas Ferguson, former official in the U.S. State Department Office of Population Affairs ....

"There is a single theme behind all our work-we must reduce population levels. Either governments do it our way, through nice clean methods, or they will get the kinds of mess that we have in EI Salvador, or in Iran or in Beirut. Population is a political problem. Once population is out of control, it requires authoritarian government, even fascism, to reduce it. ... "

#17) Mikhail Gorbachev ....

"We must speak more clearly about sexuality, contraception, about abortion, about values that control population, because the ecological crisis, in short, is the population crisis. Cut the population by 90% and there aren't enough people left to do a great deal of ecological damage.”

#18) John Guillebaud, professor of family planning at University College London ....

"The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights. An extra child is the equivalent of a lot of flights across the planet.”

#19) Professor of Biology at the University of Texas at Austin Eric R. Pianka ....

"This planet might be able to support perhaps as many as half a billion people who could live a sustainable life in relative comfort. Human populations must be greatly diminished, and as quickly as possible to limit further environmental damage."

#20) U.S. Secretary Of State Hillary Clinton ....

"This year, the United States renewed funding of reproductive healthcare through the United Nations Population Fund, and more funding is on the way. The U.S. Congress recently appropriated more than $648 million in foreign assistance to family planning and reproductive health programs worldwide. That's the largest allocation in more than a decade - since we last had a Democratic president, I might add."

#21) Clinton adviser Nina Fedoroff ....

"We need to continue to decrease the growth rate of the global population; the planet can't support many more people.”

#22) The first of the “New 10 commandments" on the Georgia Guidestones ....

"Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature."

The Dangerous Myth Of Overpopulation

Today, there is a growing belief that many of the world's problems are directly related to overpopulation. Whether it is world hunger, the lack of fresh water, the damage we are causing to our environment, or "climate change", those who believe in the myth of overpopulation have no hesitation blaming all of those problems on the "fact" that there are way too many people in the world. What is even more frightening are the solutions that many of those people who believe that the world is overpopulated are proposing. The solutions they propose include more abortion and "family planning" services, “one child" policies and mass sterilizations. In fact, there are even some in the radical environmental movement that insist that we need to get rid of 80 to 90 percent of humanity in order to “save" the environment.

The sad thing is that even the United Nations has fully bought into the myth of overpopulation. (Again - not surprising, because the UN is run from behind by the Jews - who started the UN - and their agenda is to DESTROY the GOYIM as it states in the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and in the "Holiest" book(s) of

the Jews - the Talmud.) Most Americans never read any of the reports that the UN regularly puts out, but they contain some pretty shocking stuff. In particular, the United Nations Population Fund is advancing some rather bizarre theories. A great example of this was last year when the UNFPA released its annual State of the World Population Report entitled "Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate.”

This shocking report went farther than any UN report has ever gone before in linking climate change with overpopulation. According to the report, the only way to avoid a massive climate disaster is to dramatically increase "family planning" services around the globe and to do whatever it takes to reduce worldwide fertility rates. In a statement accompanying the release of the report, UNFPA Executive Director Thoraya Obaid stated that rapid population growth and industrialization have led to a rapid rise in greenhouse gas emissions. We have now reached a point where humanity is approaching the brink of disaster."

The brink of disaster?

That is a bit dramatic, isn't it?

Well, the truth is that the folks managing globalist organizations like the UNFPA are absolutely convinced that climate change will bring about the end of the world as we know it unless we take urgent action.

And according to those who believe in a coming climate change disaster, the number one contributing factor to climate change is overpopulation.

Just consider the following quotes about the link between overpopulation and climate change from the UNFPA report ....

**“The importance of the speed and magnitude of recent population growth in boosting future greenhouse-gas emissions is well recognized among scientists, including the authors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's reports.”

**"Still, calculations of the contribution of population growth to emissions growth globally produce a consistent finding that most of past population growth has been responsible for between 40 per cent and 60 per cent of emissions growth.”

**”Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendents. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time."

**"Fear of appearing supportive of population control has until recently held back any mention of 'population' in the climate debate. Nonetheless, some participants in the debate are tentatively suggesting the need at least consider the impacts of population growth.”

**”No human is genuinely "carbon neutral,” especially when all greenhouse gases are figured into the equation. Therefore, everyone is part of the problem, so everyone must be part of the solution in some way."

**"Strong family planning programs are in the interests of all countries for greenhouse-gas concerns as well as for broader welfare concerns."

Are you starting to get the picture?

This UN report uses a lot of thinly veiled, politically correct language to suggest that in order to fight climate change, radical population control measures must be implemented worldwide.

And thanks to Barack Obama, the UNFPA will have plenty of money with which to pursue that agenda.

Shortly after taking office, Barack Obama directed that 50 million dollars be given to the United Nations Population Fund.

So not only is the United Nations Population Fund busy promoting their population control agenda around the globe, they are also using U.S. tax dollars to do it.

But unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident when it comes to the Obama administration. The truth is that population control is a very high priority for Obama.

In fact, during remarks that she made for the 15th Anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton indicated that population control was now going to become one of the centerpieces of U.S. foreign policy.

Not only that, but Barack Obama's top science advisor, John P. Holdren, actually co-authored a book in 1977 in which he advocated mass sterilizations using the food and water supply, mandatory bodily implants that would prevent couples from having children, forced abortions for American couples trying to have too many children and a global police force to enforce population control. The following is just one of the incredibly shocking quotes in Holdren's book ....

Remember, this guy is Barack Obama's number one science advisor.

Are you scared yet?

The sad thing is that the earth is not overpopulated at all.

In fact, we could give every single family on earth a house and a yard and still fit every single person in the world in just the state of Texas.

If it wasn't for all of the greed and corruption, there would be plenty of food and resources for everyone.

Where Did the Overpopulation Myth Get Started?

Where did this myth come from? When was humanity supposed to end?

It began in 1798 with the theories of Robert Malthus

* Did Malthus really say to kill off the poor?

* Malthus thought doctors shouldn't cure diseases?

* Did Paul Ehrlich really say that famines would devastate humanity in the

1970s?

· What’s the UNFPA? How do they profit from fear?

· No way everyone could fit into Texas …

· Where are you getting these numbers?

· The world’s population will peak in 30 years? Prove it.

Did Malthus really say to kill off the poor?

Yep. In his Essay on the Principle of Population, Malthus calls for increased mortality among the poor:

All the children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons ... To act consistently therefore, we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower, crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. In the country, we should build our villages near stagnant pools, and particularly encourage settlements in all marshy and unwholesome situations. (Book IV, Chap. V) - Read it online.

Malthus thought doctors shouldn't cure diseases?

"But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but much mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. (Book IV, Chap. V) - Read it online."

Did Paul Ehrlich really say that famines would devastate humanity in the 1970s?

Yep. In his 1968 work The Population Bomb, Ehrlich stated:

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s the world will undergo famines--hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now."

What's the UNFPA? How do they profit from fear?

The United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA) was founded in 1969, the year after Ehrlich published The Population Bomb. They have been involved in programs with governments around the world who deny their women the right to choose the number and spacing of their children. Their complicit work with the infamous "one-child policy" mandated by the government of the People's Republic of China, uncovered by an investigation of the U.S. State Department in 2001, led the United States to pull its funding.

The wealthy of the West, in their terror of poverty, have given copiously to the UNFPA and its population control programs. Visit Population Research Institute for more info.

No way everyone could fit in Texas ...

According to the U.N. Population Database, the world's population in 2010 will be 6,908,688,000. The landmass of Texas is 268,820 sq mi (7,494,271,488,000 sq ft).

So, divide 7,494,271,488,000 sq ft by 6,908,688,000 people, and you get 1084.76 sq ft/person. That's approximately a 33¹ x 33¹ plot of land for every person on the planet, enough space for a town house.

Given an average four person family, every family would have a 66' x 66¹ plot of land, which would comfortably provide a single family home and yard -- and all of them fit on a landmass the size of Texas. Admittedly, it'd basically be one massive subdivision, but Texas is a tiny portion of the inhabitable Earth.

Such an arrangement would leave the entire rest of the world vacant. There's plenty of space for humanity.

Where are you getting these numbers?

The U.N. Population Database.

While they provide Low, Medium, and High Variants, the Low Variant is the one that keeps coming true, so the Low variant numbers are the ones used. According to the U.N. Population Database, using the historically accurate low variant projection, the Earth's population will only add another billion people or so over the next thirty years, peaking around 8.02 billion people in the year 2040, and then it will begin to decline. Check their online database.

Who was Robert Malthus?

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Reverend Thomas Robert Malthus FRS (14 February 1766 - 29 December 1834) was an English scholar, influential in political economy and demography. Malthus popularized the economic theory of rent.

Malthus has become widely known for his theories about population and its increase or decrease in response to various factors. The six editions of his An Essay on the Principle of Population, published from 1798 to 1826, observed that sooner or later population gets checked by famine and disease. He wrote in opposition to the popular view in 18th-century Europe that saw society as improving and in principle as perfectible. William Godwin and the Marquis de Condorcet, for example, believed in the possibility of almost limitless improvement of society. So, in a more complex way, did Jean-Jacques Rousseau, whose notions centered on the goodness of man and the liberty of citizens bound only by the social contract-a form of popular sovereignty.

Malthus thought that the dangers of population growth would preclude endless progress towards a utopian society: “The power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man". As an Anglican clergyman, Malthus saw this situation as divinely imposed to teach virtuous behaviour. Believing that one could not change human nature, Malthus wrote:

Must it not then be acknowledged by an attentive examiner of the histories of mankind, that in every age and in every State in which man has existed, or does now exist:

That the increase of population is necessarily limited by the means of subsistence,

That population does invariably increase when the means of subsistence increase, and,

That the superior power of population is repressed, and the actual population kept equal to the means of subsistence, by misery and vice.

Malthus placed the longer-term stability of the economy above short-term expediency. He criticized the Poor Laws, and (alone among important contemporary economists) supported the Corn Laws, which introduced a system of taxes on British imports of wheat. He thought these measures would encourage domestic production, and so promote long-term benefits.

Malthus became hugely influential, and controversial, in economic, political, social and scientific thought. Many of those whom subsequent centuries term evolutionary biologists read him, notably Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace, for each of whom Malthusianism became an intellectual stepping-stone to the idea of natural selection. Malthus remains a writer of great significance and controversy.

Who Is Paul Ehrlich?

Paul Ralph Ehrlich (born 29 May 1932) is an American biologist and educator who is the Bing Professor of Population Studies in the department of Biological Sciences at Stanford University and president of Stanford's Center for Conservation Biology. By training he is an entomologist specializing in Lepidoptera (butterflies), but he also a prominent ecologist and demographer. Ehrlich is best known for his warnings about population growth and limited resources. Ehrlich became well-known after publication of his controversial 1968 book The Population Bomb, a book that he wrote at the suggestion of the President of the Sierra Club, David Brower.

In one of the earlier versions of the book, Ehrlich made the following statement.

"The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate ... "