Britain must cut population in half

[Amby 490]

JONATHON PORRITT, one of Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, is to warn that Britain must drastically reduce its population if it is to build a sustainable society.

Porritt’s call will come at this week’s annual conference of the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), of which he is patron.

The trust will release research suggesting UK population must be cut to 30m if the country wants to feed itself sustainably.

Porritt said: “Population growth, plus economic growth, is putting the world under terrible pressure.

“Each person in Britain has far more impact on the environment than those in developing countries so cutting our population is one way to reduce that impact.”

Population growth is one of the most politically sensitive environmental problems. The issues it raises, including religion, culture and immigration policy, have proved too toxic for most green groups.

However, Porritt is winning scientific backing. Professor Chris Rapley, director of the Science Museum, will use the OPT conference, to be held at the Royal Statistical Society, to warn that population growth could help derail attempts to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Rapley, who formerly ran the British Antarctic Survey, said humanity was emitting the equivalent of 50 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.

“We have to cut this by 80%, and population growth is going to make that much harder,” he said.

Such views on population have split the green movement. George Monbiot, a prominent writer on green issues, has criticised population campaigners, arguing that “relentless” economic growth is a greater threat.

Many experts believe that, since Europeans and Americans have such a lopsided impact on the environment, the world would benefit more from reducing their populations than by making cuts in developing countries.

This is part of the thinking behind the OPT’s call for Britain to cut population to 30m — roughly what it was in late Victorian times.

Britain’s population is expected to grow from 61m now to 71m by 2031. Some politicians support a reduction.

Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, said: “You can’t have sustainability with an increase in population.”

The Tory leader, David Cameron, has also suggested Britain needs a “coherent strategy” on population growth.

Despite these comments, however, government and Conservative spokesmen this weekend both distanced themselves from any population policy. ”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle5950442.ece

[Nagishkaw 510]

[Yoink 7]

bubonic plague....

[fozzie 41]

Deport all illegal immigrants that should cut about 1/4. Offer no benefits for unemployment, that should get rid of the other useless 1/4

[alienlovechild 75]

Many experts believe that, since Europeans and Americans have such a lopsided impact on the environment, the world would benefit more from reducing their populations than by making cuts in developing countries.

This is part of the thinking behind the OPT’s call for Britain to cut population to 30m — roughly what it was in late Victorian times.

Britain’s population is expected to grow from 61m now to 71m by 2031. Some politicians support a reduction.

Phil Woolas, the immigration minister, said: “You can’t have sustainability with an increase in population.”

The UK has a very slow increase in population so the enemy for the Greens are solely those who produce and consume more resources. They'll have to be very anti-immigrant or immigrants will simply move in as the native British population goes back to 1890's level. The irony of the UK being colonized by the teeming poor of the world is telling.

176 United Kingdom 0.28 2009 est.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/th...r/2002rank.html

[*Robert* 2]

Here's a chance for them to come up with a new national dish!!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Maybe it's time to dust off the old Colonialism Manuel and do it again?

[Peikko 1,575]

Actually, I admire someone who is ready to honestly address the problem. That there is no easy solution, and certainly one that is not an isolationist option is rather harder to address.

I notice the conservatives want nothing to do with it though, that would scupper their re-election chances

Edited March 25, 2009 by Madame Cleo

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Are the tories still pushing that "New Green" line?

[peejay 327]

This same message has been splitting the US environmental community for some time too. SUSPS is a splinter group of Sierra Club activists that do not believe the Sierra Club is agressive enough in addressing the rapid self induced US population increases primarily caused by mass US immigration (legal and illegal) and the huge impact these rapid population increases have on the US environment. The website below has not been updated to reflect that the US population has surpassed the 305 million mark in 2009 and continues to rise to a projected 420+ million by 2050 if there are no changes to present immigration policy. Obama wants to increase immigration.

http://www.susps.org/overview/population.html

Our political leaders are also cowards in this regard. As we approach 10% unemployment here in the USA the government still imports nearly 140,000 foreigners into our economy every month. At that rate all these jobs Obama is creating is for naught. Utterly ridiculous!

Edited March 25, 2009 by peejay

[Peikko 1,575]

Peejay, you are a fool IF you think that the way to address overpopulation is to concentrate on isolating your country from the rest of the world. Immigration issues are a very big red herring in this regard. I know it seems like the easy answer, but it is no answer and the money could be far better spent in other areas.

[AlHayatZween 2]

Release the virus...

[almaty 19]

sent them to america..worked long ago..

[peejay 327]

Peejay, you are a fool IF you think that the way to address overpopulation is to concentrate on isolating your country from the rest of the world. Immigration issues are a very big red herring in this regard. I know it seems like the easy answer, but it is no answer and the money could be far better spent in other areas.

I never subscribed to the "misery loves company" school of thought. Just because the third world can't help but to breed uncontrollably is no reason to take in infinite numbers via immigration from them just to relieve the pressure of their own self induced problem. Why should any country be required to do that? Throughout American history immigration was about benefit to America...not as an act of charity or some misguided feelings of guilt.

In any event...charity begins at home.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This same message has been splitting the US environmental community for some time too. SUSPS is a splinter group of Sierra Club activists that do not believe the Sierra Club is agressive enough in addressing the rapid self induced US population increases primarily caused by mass US immigration (legal and illegal) and the huge impact these rapid population increases have on the US environment. The website below has not been updated to reflect that the US population has surpassed the 305 million mark in 2009 and continues to rise to a projected 420+ million by 2050 if there are no changes to present immigration policy. Obama wants to increase immigration.

http://www.susps.org/overview/population.html

Our political leaders are also cowards in this regard. As we approach 10% unemployment here in the USA the government still imports nearly 140,000 foreigners into our economy every month. At that rate all these jobs Obama is creating is for naught. Utterly ridiculous!

peejay, those were nativists with an ant-immigration agenda who infiltrated Sierra Club in attempt to disguise their views as environmentally motivated. I posted stuff on them awhile back along with Tom Tancredo - they have close ties and affiliations with racist groups. If you want, I'll dig it up again. I'm not sure why you keep refering to them....are you on some kind of mail list or a member of NumbersUSA?

Edited March 25, 2009 by Mister Fancypants