by Sean Adl-Tabatabai
August 20, 2023
The World Economic Forum
has declared that the dramatic decline
the world's population
is "good for the planet" because
on Earth means less pollution"...
According to a
high-level WEF official, plummeting
birth rates around the globe combined with the spike in deaths
following the jab rollout will help our planet heal from decades of
man-made climate change...
Sarah Harper is a very powerful
The Telegraph article
listing her credentials forgot to mention that she serves on the Global Agenda Council on Ageing Societies of the
Prof Harper is
thrilled about recent declines in fertility:
Prof Harper told
"I think it's a good thing that the
high-income, high-consuming countries of the world are
reducing the number of children that they're having. I'm
quite positive about that."
The academic said declining fertility in rich countries
would help to address the "general overconsumption that we
have at the moment", which has a negative impact on the
declines in births will bring about reductions
in CO2 emissions from
wealthy nations, Prof Harper points out:
Research has found
that wealthy nations tend to have much larger carbon footprints
than poorer countries, as rich people can afford to buy more
goods, travel more and do other activities that generate
Carbon emissions from high-income countries were 29 times larger
than low-income countries on a per capita basis in 2020, World
Bank figures show.
or Population Replacement?
Here's the strange part:
If the leadership of the World Economic
Forum wanted to reduce emissions from wealthy countries, I could
understand how they would hope that population reductions would lead
to a decline in economic output.
Aside from moral implications, it
is simple math that fewer people means fewer cars on the road, less
food consumed and so on.
However, something entirely different is going on!
population of local-born natives is no longer reproducing at the
levels needed to maintain the population, new immigration picks up.
It accounts for a larger and larger share of births...!
While the number of births in Britain is declining, the share of
children born to parents who immigrated from outside Britain has hit
a record high.
Almost one in three
children born last year were delivered by mothers born outside
of the U.K.
The number of births by women born outside the U.K.
rose 3,600 year-on-year to account for 30.3% of all births. The
previous peak was 29.3% in 2020.
When including the father, more than one in three children born
last year had at least one foreign-born parent. In London, the
figure was two thirds.
This development is
inconsistent with wanting to reduce the populations of
It seems self-defeating to celebrate
birth reductions while simultaneously amping up the arrivals of new
immigrants who work hard to live well, consume a lot, have many
children and realize the 'British dream'.
Please do not interpret me pointing out the above inconsistency as
my hostility towards immigrants:
I immigrated to the United States,
worked hard to have a good life and am blessed with a beautiful
family and two grown children.
I am immensely thankful for the
opportunity to live in this wonderful land of the free - and I am
sure that most other immigrants want to live well and work hard,
just as I did.
However, even though I am equally sympathetic towards immigrants,
just as I am towards the natives, I cannot shake the feeling that
Prof Harper and the WEF have an inconsistency between stated goals
and actions that I cannot explain easily.
This inconsistency is not something I can quite understand:
immigrants want to consume just as much as native residents.
encourage immigration from poor countries to rich countries if the
goal is a reduction of carbon and other emissions that would occur
due to declines in the population of rich countries?
Help me understand this puzzle!
Are we missing something?
they really want...?