China and the U.S. hit an impasse Monday at the Copenhagen climate change conference, with China refusing to accept outside monitoring of its first-ever goal for reducing emissions, and the U.S. saying it won't support any deal without strict verification of China's progress. A Chinese official last week said other countries could do more to help reduce greenhouse gases by copying China's controversial "one-child" policy. Could a coercive population control program ever be enforced here? (Watch a report about how China fights climate change with population control)
No way -- we're talking about forced abortions: This may be "what Global Warming alarmism leads to," says Ken Blackwell in Townhall.com, but don't expect Americans to accept such an "inhuman" policy. It's evil, and doesn't work -- after 30 years of forced abortions, "China is still one of the world’s leading polluters."
"A modest proposal"
A one child policy is the answer: The "inconvenient truth" isn't that the planet is warming, says Diane Francis in Canada's Financial Post, "but that humans are overpopulating" it." The leaders at Copenhagen can announce all the cap-and-trade subsidies and giant wind farms they want, but nothing "will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed."
"The real inconvenient truth"
It's scary that people are suggesting this: "This is absolutely chilling," says Rod Dreher in BeliefNet. Only someone, like Diane Francis, who has two children and has never had "one of her children murdered in utero by government order" could possibly think imposing a one child policy worldwide is a good idea. Even China is having second thoughts -- it's now overwhelmed with elderly people, with too few young ones to care for them.
"Climate change? Bring on the forced abortions!"
China's policy will never go global, but ...: It feels "silly" to have to point out that Beijing's cruel biological experiment would never be accepted, and could never be imposed worldwide, says Colby Cosh in Canada's Macleans. But most industrialized countries had worse per capita pollution rates decades ago -- so clearly population growth is a big part of the problem. So maybe instead of buying a hybrid, environmentalists should be adopting "zero-child policies for themselves."
"So you really want to save the planet, do you?"
THE WEEK'S AUDIOPHILE PODCASTS: LISTEN SMARTER
- This is what happens when Republicans actually enact their radical agenda
- 43 TV shows to watch in 2014
- How to be the most productive person in your office — and still get home by 5:30 p.m.
- 6 things the happiest families all have in common
- The science of sex: 4 harsh truths about dating and mating
- How I dug myself out of debt — and stayed that way
- Russia is stealthily threatening America with nuclear war
- The Obama administration's nonstop incoherence on ISIS
- 6 super-helpful iOS8 tricks you probably don't know about
- Why so many Christians won't back down on gay marriage
Subscribe to the Week