The Quarterly Review,
26 Meadow Lane,
Sudbury,
Suffolk,
CO10 2TD,
United Kingdom
Telephone: (01507) 339 056
(+44 1507 339056 if calling from overseas)
We can accept debit and credit card payments from UK or non-UK
subscribers, or donations in any currency, via PayPal (see nearby
buttons). Please ask if you require a standing order form
Quarterly Review Vol 4 No 4 (Winter 2010)
CONTENTS
The end of the world (economy)? (editorial) Derek Turner (PDF
available below)
The rise of anti-Western Christianity
Matthew A. Roberts on Third World Christianity (PDF available below)
Too many people – the world’s worst enemy Robert Henderson on
overpopulation
The lure of false enlightenment Ezra Mishan on PC ‘logic’
The Amazons – source of sex equality?
Kenneth Royce Moore on sex roles in ancient Greece (PDF available
below)
Banking on Germany
Frank Ellis on Deutschland schafft sich ab by Thilo Sarrazin
Lost in translation – the legacy of Edmund Burke
Paul Gottfried on Edmund Burke by Dennis O’Keeffe
Anti-commonsense conservatism
Edward Dutton on 10 Books Every Conservative Must Read by Benjamin
Wiker
Futurology imperfect
Derek Turner on Archeofuturism by Guillame Faye
Cross of iron
Leslie Jones on The Aryan Jesus by Susannah Heschel
The last word in Holocaust scholarship
Mark G. Brennan on Histories of the Holocaust by Dan Stone
Ride of the Wagner debunkers
Stoddard Martin on Cosima Wagner – The Lady of Bayreuth by Oliver
Hilmes
Taki’s Universe Taki on the new rich
Assange is us Ilana Mercer on Wikileaks
Conserve with alcohol Bill Hartley on binge-drinking in Wakefield
The Mercenary Peter Stark (poem)
Northwards J. K. Murphy (poem)
Sample article
Too many people – the world’s worst enemy
ROBERT HENDERSON says Third World overpopulation and industrialization
are the real threats to the global environment
This is an article about climate change with a difference. It does not
deal with whether man-made global warming is occurring, for
circumstances render that question redundant. Global greenhouse gas
emissions will inexorably rise far above their current levels thanks
to the industrialisation of the developing world and the still rapidly
increasing population of the Earth.
This article is about is the futility of the industrialised world
imposing limits on its greenhouse gas emissions when it is clear that
the developing countries continue incontinently to increase their
emissions. I shall also cast a jaundiced eye over at the reliability
of greenhouse gas emission estimates from the developing world.
Our overcrowded planet
A hulking elephant sits ignored in the green crusaders’ room. Amidst
all the angst about man-made greenhouse gases, the greatest and most
obvious cause of increases is ignored by mainstream politicians – the
already great and rapidly rising population of the world and the rapid
spread of industrialisation to major parts of what until recently was
the Third World .
The world population is projected to reach 7 billion in 2011.
Extrapolations to 2050 go as high as 9.5 billion (1). At a generous
estimate, a billion live in the developed world in 2010. If the 9.5
billion projection for 2050 comes true, the disproportion between what
are now the developed countries and the developing countries now will
have become even more skewed in favour of the developing world,
because the populations of underdeveloped countries have startlingly
younger populations than those of the developed world, viz:
“One of every six people on earth is an adolescent. In the developing
world, more than 40 percent of the population is under age 20. The
decisions these young people make will shape our world and the
prospects of future generations.” (2)
The US Bureau of Census projections for the populations of individual
countries for 2050 show only one country (the United States) from the
currently developed world in the largest twenty countries by
population in 2050, with the first European country (Germany) coming
in at number 22 (3).
If the swelling world population was overwhelmingly due to increases
in the still very white First World , you may be sure that we would be
daily berated for our selfish breeding. We would be told that any
increase in our population was at the expense of the Third World ,
that the production of every extra Western mouth to feed, house,
clothe and supply with energy was absolutely unconscionable. Western
governments would be signing up to programmes of ever more punitive
reductions in their countries’ greenhouse emissions and some of the
bolder would be advocating the rationing of children.
But the overwhelming majority of people living today do not live in
the developed world and the projected future expansion of the world’s
population is due almost entirely to increases in the developing
world, the developed world having at best stabilised their native
populations and at worst actually set themselves on the path of
decline through a mixture of contraception and too readily available
abortion (4). Such population increases in the developed world as
occur have been primarily due for several decades to immigration from
the Third World and any increases in the next half century in the
present developed world will probably come from the same source.
The subject of a rising world population and its ever growing effect
on greenhouse gas emissions goes largely unmentioned by politicians
because it is beyond the Pale for the liberal internationalist elites
who currently control the developed world to suggest that the
developing world either restrain its breeding or its economic
development and it is not in the interests of the developing world to
raise it. This conspiracy of silence renders the debate about man-made
global warming meaningless because the gross population imbalance
between the developed and developing world obliterates any chance of
reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.
Let us suppose for the sake of argument that global warming is
occurring largely or wholly because of man-made emissions. Even in
those circumstances it would be madness for Britain or any other
developed country to load themselves with taxes and other burdens,
because quite clearly the five sixths of the world’s population which
does not live in the developed world is going to carry on
industrialising without regard to what the developed world is doing.
China is already the largest carbon dioxide emitter and has reached
that point much more rapidly than anticipated:
“ China , one of the fastest growing economies of the world is all set
to overtake U.S as the leading air polluter by as early as 2010; a
whole decade faster than the previous estimates of 2020.” (5)
Of course, vast and rapidly growing as she is, China is simply part of
a larger picture of the developing world’s greenhouse gas output. Take
the second largest country on Earth , India . Just as China is happy
to build old-fashioned coal-fired power stations with abandon (one a
week, if media reports are to be believed), India is content to engage
in a policy of small wood-powered stations, a policy which not only
introduces CO2 into the atmosphere but results in deforestation which
reduces the natural capture of CO2.
India is changing its greenhouse emissions contribution very rapidly:
“Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous
oxide, contribute to global warming and climate change. According to
the US-based ‘think tank’ the World Resources Institute, India was
responsible for over four per cent of total emissions in 2000 – making
the country the sixth largest emitter in the world. Emissions are set
to rise further still over the next 20 years as the Indian economy
rapidly develops. Both the International Energy Agency and the
government of the United States ’ Energy Information Administration
predict over 90 per cent growth in carbon dioxide emissions alone by
2025….
“ India ’s coal consumption has increased from 110 million tonnes in
1980 to more than 350 million tonnes in 2000, representing an annual
growth rate of almost 6 per cent. Natural gas consumption has grown
similarly, at 5.6 per cent a year, to 75 million cubic metres in
2000.
“But petroleum consumption has grown fastest since the 1980s, at an
annual rate of 14 per cent, to over 350 million tonnes in 2000….
“ India emitted 16 million tonnes of methane in 1990, and 24 million
tonnes in 2000 — a little under 35 per cent of the country’s overall
greenhouse gas emissions.” (6)
The hopelessness of the liberal internationalist’s belief that the
West sets an example to the developing world is clear. Even if the
developing world population was stabilised immediately and they
restricted their emissions growth to half of the average of the
developed world (roughly 13 tonnes per capita, although which
countries are included in the developed world is debatable), something
wildly improbable, that would increase global emissions by several
times the current levels. If the developed world ceased to emit
anything at all, the increase in the rest of the world’s emissions,
through development and expanding population, would still push the
emissions level way beyond today’s levels and what climate scientists
who support the idea of man-made global warming consider to be safe.
This can be seen from the current differences in per capita CO2
emissions between developed and developing countries:
United States 19.10 tonnes
United Kingdom 8.60 tonnes
China 4.57 tonnes
India 1.18 tonnes (7)
As will be seen shortly, there are problems with the way that CO2
statistics are collected and the treatment of greenhouse gases other
than CO2. But regardless of their veracity, the statistics have great
importance because they are used by supporters of man-made global
warming to justify the differential treatment of emissions between the
developed and developing world. If the advocates of global warming
honestly believe the statistics which support their case then they can
draw only one rational conclusion: if greenhouse gas emissions are to
be kept to the levels they advocate, the developing world must stop
industrializing.
Calculating emissions
How is that the developed world, with only one billion of population
at most living in countries which monitor and control their emissions
ever more rigorously, is judged to be so much more at fault for
emissions than the six billion who live in countries where most energy
is generated either by the direct burning of fossil fuels or through
power stations, mainly coal-fired, which pump pollution into the air
with poor filtration and who are responsible for far more agricultural
generated greenhouse gas emissions than the developed world?
The answer lies in the availability of statistics and the convenience
of scientists. The UN Environment Programme website gives the game
away:
“Central to any study of climate change is the development of an
emissions inventory that identifies and quantifies a country’s primary
anthropogenic sources and sinks of greenhouse gas. Emissions are not
usually monitored directly, but are generally estimated using models.
Some emissions can be calculated with only limited accuracy. Emissions
from energy and industrial processes are the most reliable (using
energy consumption statistics and industrial point sources). Some
agricultural emissions, such as methane and nitrous oxide carry major
uncertainties because they are generated through biological processes
that can be quite variable.” (8)
In other words, scientists rely on models primarily based on the sort
of statistics which the developed world produces (and the developing
world does not) while ignoring at worst and grossly under-estimating
at best emissions which are not readily calculated or available. Take
the cases of methane and nitrous oxide, the most plentiful greenhouse
gases after water vapour and carbon dioxide:
“The primary sources for the additional methane added to the
atmosphere (in order of importance) are rice cultivation; domestic
grazing animals; termites; landfills; coal mining; and, oil and gas
extraction…an accurate estimate of how much methane is being produced
from rice paddies has been difficult to ascertain. More than 60% of
all rice paddies are found in India and China where scientific data
concerning emission rates are unavailable. Nevertheless, scientists
believe that the contribution of rice paddies is large because this
form of crop production has more than doubled since 1950. Grazing
animals release methane to the environment as a result of herbaceous
digestion. Some researchers believe the addition of methane from this
source has more than quadrupled over the last century. Termites also
release methane through similar processes. Land-use change in the
tropics, due to deforestation, ranching, and farming, may be causing
termite numbers to expand…Methane is also released from landfills,
coal mines, and gas and oil drilling.” (9)
There is an important point on methane from domesticated animals,
important because it is another string to the bow of those who wish to
demonise the developed world as arch-polluters because the diet of the
developed world is much more dependent on meat than that of the
developing world. The implication is that fewer domesticated
herbivores would equal less methane. This makes the unwarranted
assumption that the land freed by having fewer domesticated grazing
animals would not be turned over to methane-producing agriculture such
as paddy fields or be left to Nature to populate it with large wild
herbivores or to turn it into methane-producing marshland.
As for nitrous oxide:
“Sources for the increase of nitrous oxide in the atmosphere include:
land-use conversion; fossil fuel combustion; biomass burning; and soil
fertilization. Most of the nitrous oxide added to the atmosphere each
year comes from deforestation and the conversion of forest, savannah
and grassland ecosystems into agricultural fields and rangeland…The
use of nitrate and ammonium fertilizers to enhance plant growth is
another source of nitrous oxide. How much is released from this
process has been difficult to quantify. Estimates suggest that the
contribution from this source represents from 50 % to 0.2 % of nitrous
oxide added to the atmosphere annually.” (10)
As with methane, the major emitters of nitrous oxide seem to come from
the developing not the developed world.
It is also important to understand that the quantity of the various
gases in the atmosphere is not a simple guide to their effectiveness
as greenhouse gases. Methane and nitrous oxide are thought to be much
more effective than carbon dioxide at warming the atmosphere.
According to the campaigning group Envocare, the global warming
potential (GWP) of methane is 21 times that of carbon dioxide, and
nitrous oxide 310 times. (11)
Where responsibility really lies
The only sensible conclusion to draw from the foregoing is that
nothing is going to prevent a massive increase in greenhouse gases as
the developing world industrialises. This being so, the rational
response of Western politicians would be to stop burdening their own
countries with expensive green laws and concentrate instead on dealing
with the effects of global warming, if they materialize, insofar as
they affect their own countries. This should not be impossible because
any changes will be gradual and our technological ability, already
very substantial, will increase greatly over the next century.
If man-made global warming really is occurring, the two main arguments
used to justify the call for swingeing cuts in the CO2 emissions of
the developed world whilst developing countries have no such
restrictions placed upon them make no sense.
The first argument is that the developing world has the right to
industrialize in a polluting way because that is how the developed
world industrialized. The second argument is that greenhouse gas
levels should be calculated on a per capita basis rather than the
total emissions from each country, that is, each person living should
have the right to generate the same greenhouse gas emission. Both
arguments are clearly absurd if man-made global warming is true, for
what is important is the global total of greenhouse gas emissions not
whether the developed world or whether there can be worldwide equity
in greenhouse gas emissions.
Western politicians should start pointing out certain facts to the
developing world. These are that greenhouse gas emissions from the
developing world are on schedule to dwarf those of the developed world
– that developing countries must take responsibility for their
population growth, the pollution they create and its effects on their
own people – and that the developed world should no longer be expected
to pay for the ill-effects of industrialization created by the
developing countries.
Overpopulation, headlong industrialization, and the resultant
greenhouse gases, deforestation, pressure on resources and mass
migration are all the responsibility of the developing nations. If
they cannot or will not reform their practices, it is they rather than
we who should take the consequences.
ROBERT HENDERSON is a freelance writer in London who blogs at
livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com
NOTES
1. See GeoHive – http://www.xist.org
2. See Oxford University ’s Department of International Development
website at www.forcedmigration.org
3. GeoHive, ibid.
4. Britain does not have a fertility crisis but an abortion crisis,
with 200,000 abortions being carried out a year. If those babies were
born, Britain ’s birth rate would be above replacement level
5. themoneytimes.com, 11 July 2006
6. SciDev.Net, 31 August 2006
7. www.carbonplanet.com/country_emissions
8. www.maps.grida.no, National carbon emissions per capita, 2002
9. www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html
10. www.physicalgeography.net, ibid.
Living In A Madhouse 