The Quarterly Review Vol 4 No 4 (Winter 2010) is out

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. 

11. http://www.envocare.co.uk/aboutus.htm

Advertisements
Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

Trackbacks

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: