Yesterday I must have hit a hard nerve, because it was the highest viewed blog in one day that I've posted in three years.  Thanks for everybody who came by to check out what's going on.  Thanks for the comments here on the blog, on twitter, and via e-mail.  You guys make this thing worth doing. 

For a bit of clarification

I agree we need to pay attention to global climate events. 
I believe we need to make sure we're using our resources responsibly.
I do study CO2 issues quite a bit, I'm just not a Ph.D in Climate issues.

So you can understand my outrage when I hear absurd agendas masked as climate change, such as is this population growth argument.

Some of you twittered and were pretty upset I was calling China out on this argument.  Believe me…I've been to China, on numerous occasions.  I love the country.  I love the economic growth, the history, the beauty of the countryside, but don't be mistaken; China is the largest dirty coal burning country in the World. 

When they try and make the climate change issue about population growth, instead of the real issues of carbon emissions, it's just plain offensive.  It's as if China wants to validate it's one child policy without giving the obvious consequences to its current civilization.

It's a worldview some adopted in the mid-70's when the one child policy was introduced.  The culture demanded that the child be a boy, as the only retirement policy for parents lies in the hope of their children, and women weren't as valuable.  So you had mass killings of baby girls.  Orphanages are chalked full of girls, not to mention; now China has a bigger problem with gender imbalance. 

Again, let me repeat…Climate Change is a debate that needs to happen, but not at the risk of human life. 

This planet can sustain a lot of people.  Maybe not at the same level of convenience as we live here in America.  But like I posted yesterday, travel 500 miles in any direction of where I'm sitting right now, and life can be lived. 

We can grow food.  Maybe it's not like going to the local grocery store, but farming might not be all that bad.
We can drink clean water.  Maybe not out of a Desani plastic bottle, but rivers are flowing, and there's no shortage of water. 
We can build shelter. Maybe not like going to Home Depot and using all the supplies made from fossil fuels, but there are plenty of environmental friendly ways to re-cycle materials to build high efficiency homes. 
We can live life. Maybe not like we're living it hear.  But who's to say our way of life is the only way of life?

Like I said yesterday…if population control becomes the solution, I propose all those who vote for that direction to volunteer their lives first.  It's somewhat hypocritical to ask for the life of someone without displaying a willingness to fall on your own sword. 

You see, I believe in a worldview that allows for us to come up with solutions to the problems without compromising our own species. 

We can think through auto emissions.  What would the world look like with high efficiency automobiles that emitted water instead of the by-products of fossil fuels?

We can think through industry, and continue to clamp down on clean air policies (which, by the way, America is the leader in the world. just travel to a third world country and try to breath in the cities.)

We can fight the use of energy wastefully, and conserve our resources.

We can find different ways to produce those energies, in order that we can sustain life. 

What we can't afford, is a government policy that decides who gets to have children, who gets to live, and who has to die for the planet to survive.  That's a worldview of limitation, and I don't believe we have to stoop to this absurdity.

We may not be able to continue our use of fossil fuel, but that doesn't mean we have to institute policies of abortion, infanticide, or euthanasia. 

May we be a people who take this VERY SERIOUS.
May we be careful before we buy into a limited worldview.
May God direct our decisions before we dive into a problem without proper care for life at all angles. 


  1. Agreed, the solution to global climate issues should not be found in the limitation of life
    Disagree: “But like I posted yesterday, travel 500 miles in any direction of where I’m sitting right now, and life can be lived.” Of course, drive anywhere and find countryside, but space is not the issue (I used to think it was), it’s the resources avaliable. The tragedy is that the planet can only support so much farm-land, grazing land, etc before we begin to compramise the integrity of the land. Should we tear up every acre of available free space to support agriculture and housing for a booming population? Negative…that would be just as ridiculous as the idea of population control. The key is to find a way to utilize the resources we have effectively to accomodate the growing population without destroying the land, while reducing emissions…so basically what I’m saying is I agree with you, just not on all your reasoning I guess. Thanks for keeping the reading interesting, conference room, 5 minutes…

Let me know what you think

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s