Thursday, May 24, 2012

Organic Agriculture suffers a Double Whammy

A new study published in the most cited scientific journal, Nature, finds 'organic crops yield 25% less overall than conventional crops'. It debunks claims by organic activists that organic yields can equal or exceed conventional yields.
This article below this introduction is written by Mischa Popoff, an IOIA Advanced Organic Inspector and is the author of the best selling book Is it Organic?  who observed" 
'I will continue to believe what I saw with my own eyes while carrying out over 500 organic farm inspections: that organic yields are closer to half what conventional and biotech yields are'
Yields are an important variable to consider when assessing different farming systems. In the end, whatever one's objections against conventional agriculture, it has to be acknowledged that its high yields have spared land for nature (known as the land sparring effect) and have improved the food situation of many people. Growing more per acre leaves more land for nature. The alternative is to chop down rainforests so that we may dine on organic vegetables or fruits. Accordingly, the claims of conventional agriculture as a "Green" technology rest on a solid foundation and that of organic exposed as of pseudo environmentalism.

If India has been maintaining a healthy agricultural growth rate in recent years, twice its population growth rate and thereby avoid the Malthusian trap, it is because of significant productivity increases are contributed by the Eastern region of the country, states like Assam and West Bengal, where the government launched a second Green Revolution who were by and large untouched by the first. If one wants to see the contrasting productivity offered by organic farming all we need to do is visit one of our North Eastern states like Mizoram whose agriculture is still almost completely organic, whose economy will completely collapse if unable to import subsidized food from the mainland.

One of the dirty secrets of “organic farming” is that “it’s big business.” The industry has come to be dominated by large corporations that are normally the dreaded bogeymen in the minds of many organic consumers. Besides, "organic" farming is often far from organic, with suppliers using high yielding seeds, pesticides and other chemicals and fooling consumers they are 100% chemical free and of non-hybrid seeds to pay a premium for it. The main problem is related to the bodies that approve the logos, for organic or fair trade foods. Its an open secret that the industry is characterised by widespread bribery and shadowy business deals. Farmers and indigenous people are being lied to, promised the earth and stolen from. This then becomes another form of slavery and economic exploitation. Despite how it may look from afar, the system meant to ensure ethical standards and ecological well-being can deal small farmers out from the start. It is refreshing that Popoff being a veteran of the organic certification industry decided to tell it all.
Many of these tales are tragic and shameless as they are inter-mediated by NGOs who claim their are "rights" based organizations. Despite what is on the label, the Fair Trade status binds these growers to a single processor and trader because the cost of certification is so high. And its through revenues earned by certification that significantly offset the food import bill of organic food products in western countries like Germany, Holland and the UK. Land that could otherwise be used to feed local people is diverted to feed the already surplus agriculture population of the Western countries. The added supply reduce food costs in western countries and the reduced supply in developing countries increase food costs within their own countries, increasing hunger. Organic farming therefore is not only friends of population control, but also enemies of environmental conservation.
WWF in their new report on “Sustainable Development” prepared specially for Rio-20 Summit, have advocated Only Global Poverty Can Save the World. We have already seen evidence of how this fanatical eco-fascist policies implemented the world over has been successful in not only widening the gap between the rich and the poor but also in succeeding in forcing the global economy to a grinding halt. By simultaneously not allowing further agriculture expansion and reducing agricultural yields through the advocacy of adopting organic farming; this becomes a call for creating more hunger in this world. Africa offers a living testimony of such destructive aid policies.  And these foreign funded NGOs now want to replicate the African experience in countries like India.
Not only are global citizens unable to afford food but more and more cannot afford the cost of energy, and the escalating costs of energy due to their obsession to promote renewable energy are in turn driving up prices of all commodities; goods and services. The share of food items  and energy in the overall disposable income of people have escalated so high that it leaves them with nothing else to spend for, increasing incidence of indebtedness.
Yesterday the government of India raised petrol prices by over Rs 7 all over the country, the steepest one time ever increase. This they did so as our economy has lost its near double digit momentum growth and as a result the Rupee getting devalued with development whether power, industrial; mining; roads and other infrastructural and economic projects stalled on one pretext or other by NGOs who were financed by western governments. If these nefarious activities of NGOs have suddenly subsided, at least overtly, then it is because over 130 NGOs have found their foreign funding licenses cancelled or suspended with their bank accounts frozen. The government should do well by turning the screws on another 100-200 such NGOs to drive in the message - behave or face extinction.

As these NGOs become more and more blatantly anti-people, they increase more and more their pretense to speak on behalf of the poor as their self appointed representatives but accountable to none except their foreign donors. Their people base is a myth; a fact all insiders within the NGO sector knows about. They can only conjure crowds by transporting people, paying them daily allowance, providing food and alcohol on a daily basis or bribing them with project benefits. Once their foreign funds dry up, their “crowd pulling” capacity instantly disappears as well. The anti-nuclear Kudunkulam agitation offers a typical case study how NGO crowds disappeared and their “movement”  fizzled out when their foreign funds were cut off.

Climate Smart Agriculture (CSA), an integral element of their ideological perversion of hatred against all humanity particularly the developing economies, promotes the adoption of organic farming,  packaged ironically as a solution to increase yields when it can only reduce them, accentuating hunger. NGOs like Oxfam, ChristianAid, ActionAid and their likes shamelessly make money both ways - creating hunger and giving relief to hunger. This is in addition of many of them getting large amounts of funding from the organic farming input and renewable energy industry. Here’s Popoff’s article telling you what a rip off CSA is for the poor and hungry in this world.

Does organic (farming) measure up? By Mischa Popoff
Courtesy: Climate Depot

A study reported in the journal Nature shows it's time to put the thirty years' war between organic and conventional agriculture behind us. 

Just like the real Thirty Years' War (1618–1648) in which Catholics fought Protestants on ecclesiastical grounds, the organic-versus-conventional war has been an entirely pointless undertaking. 

A handful of organic activists have made outlandish claims against conventional and biotech food, giving consumers the false impression that paying double or more for organic groceries is the only way to feed your family safely. Meanwhile, the majority of salt-of-the-earth organic farmers have ignored the battle, appreciating that it's not their place to “beat” their neighbours, but rather to simply offer an alternative to consumers. 

The report − “Comparing the yields of organic and conventional agriculture” by Verena Seufert, Navin Ramankutty and Jonathan Foley − indicates that organic crops yield 25 percent less overall than conventional crops. But speaking as an organic inspector, I must report, regrettably, that things are actually a lot worse for the organic activist mob. 

First of all, the study does not account for residual, synthetic fertilizer in organic fields. Second, and of far greater significance, the authors fail to consider that isolated organic fields benefit from all the pest-protection being carried out by neighboring farmers, which makes it difficult if not impossible for insects, bacteria and fungi to even reach organic fields.


But of greatest significance is the issue of fraud. If only a few organic farmers were cheating, the results of this study might be accurate. If, however, just 20 percent of organic farmers cheat by using synthetic ammonium nitrate, thereby doubling or tripling their yields, then this handful of charlatans could easily rival the combined production of the rest of the organic industry! 

I communicated with Seufert and Ramankutty right after their study came out. Seufert insists that fraud could not possibly have influenced her results because she relied “on data from experimental stations of research institutes where the management practices were controlled thoroughly.” Fair enough. 

But, in the same breath she admits, “We also included data from farm surveys,” and this, I pointed out, is where fraud would most certainly have an impact on her results. 

Naturally, she insists that “management practices were strictly controlled and all inputs documented,” but this brings us to the crux of the single biggest challenge facing organic agriculture: You can document all you want, but it does not guarantee compliance. Bernie Madoff proved that. 

Since organic certification in the United States and Canada is all done on paper without any field testing, one could very well ask whether side-by-side comparisons of this sort can even be done. Still, it's a long-overdue study thoroughly debunking claims by organic activists that organic yields can equal or exceed conventional yields,[ii] a patently absurd notion.

It's not that the authors of the Nature article deliberately overlooked the issues discussed here. Most people simply aren't aware of the complete lack of field testing in the multi-billion-dollar organic biz. So, no one should be upset if the results of this study are taken with a grain of salt.

In the meantime I will continue to believe what I saw with my own eyes while carrying out over 500 organic farm inspections: that organic yields are closer to half what conventional and biotech yields are, which is perfectly fine because, after all, organic agriculture is all about quality, not quantity. 

This brings us full circle to the inescapable upshot of this study: organic farming is most certainly NOT part of the solution to feeding the world. It remains a perfectly valid, alternative food-production system for those willing to pay more for quality, hopefully in the form of purity and nutrition. But we need to start guaranteeing that organic food is genuinely organic each and every time. Otherwise, consumers will continue to be duped by a phony political agenda. 

Mischa Popoff is an IOIA Advanced Organic Inspector and is the author of Is it Organic? which you can preview at

Related posts are given below. Please click link to read:

Has Oxfam finally seen the Light? Yields of Organic Agriculture are too low for solving problems of global hunger??

Oxfam's Discussion Paper on Sustainability: A Critique

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Climate Rebellion at NASA grows: Rebels attend Heartland Climate Conference, send 2nd Letter to NASA

A month ago, 49 NASA staff wrote to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden asking the organization to look at empirical evidence rather than climate models. Read here. Yesterday, 4 such rebels, attended the Heartland Climate Conference and then shot off a second letter to Bolden responding to NASA’s reply:

May 11, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.  NASA Administrator,
NASA Headquarters,
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie: 

In our letter of March 28, 2012, we, the undersigned, respectfully requested that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. On April 11th, Dr. Waleed  Abdalati responded, holding that: 
As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue ‘claims’ about research findings.”  Eight days later, at a senate hearing, Dr. Abdalati, did just that, concluding that Sea-Level rise within the next 87 years projects within a range of 0.2 meters to 2 meters, with lower ranges less likely while 
“the highest values are based on warmest of the temperature scenarios commonly considered for the remainder of the 21st century.” Abdalati added: “The consequences of a 1 meter rise in sea level by the end of this century would be very significant in terms of human well-being and economics, and potentially global socio-political stability.”
The range and imprecision of this conclusion is astounding!
“Commonly considered?”  Is this science by poll?  If hard data points to a provable rise, it should be stated with its probability.  Can you imagine one of your predecessors, Dr. Thomas Paine, declaring, “Our Apollo 11 Lunar Lander’s target is the Sea of Tranquility, but we may make final descent within a range that includes Crater Clavius”?
We are not trying to stifle discourse, but undisciplined commentary, lacking in precision, is wholly inappropriate when NASA’s name and reputation is attached.
This letter should end the discussion, as a protracted discourse on this topic is not in NASA’s interest, but a commitment from you to equal or exceed the agency’s reputation for careful reliance upon rigorous science and accurate data most certainly is!
Join us, please, in encouraging your colleagues to achieve the level of excellence the world has come to expect from America’s National Aeronautics and Space Administration! 
Waiting to do so is not an option!
[signed 41]

PS Waiting to send was not an option either –we have fewer signatures than the first, as not everyone was reachable and only one opted out.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Cargo Engineering, Crew Syst. Div. 32 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Director of Mission Support, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Div., MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald D. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. PE – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 14 years

/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Div., MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass’t. for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Div., Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

/s/ Richard McFarland – ARC, Mgr. Tech development VMS & Motion Simulators, 28 years

/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

/s/ Alex Pope – JSC, Aerospace Engineer, Engr. Directorate, 44 years

/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Div., Engr. Dir., 48 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC, Sim. Dev. Branch Chief, Systems Dev. Div., Mission Support Dir., 26 years

/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years

/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq.–  Dir. Expendable Equipment (Ext. Tank, Solid Boosters, & Shuttle Upper Stages), 20 years

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Monsoon misses date with Andaman Islands

Courtesy: Hindu Businessline

 Thiruvananthapuram, May 21: The south-west monsoon has missed its date of onset over Andaman Sea, the first port of call in the Indian territorial waters. 

The normal timeline for the onset here is May 15 to 20; this passed on Sunday. On Monday, the India Meteorological Department (IMD) extended the onset window to ‘next three to four days.'


The IMD said conditions are becoming favourable for advance of monsoon over Andaman Sea and adjoining southeast Bay of Bengal during next 3-4 days. 

The European Centre for Medium-Range Forecasts suggested that the winds might start to pick up speed by Tuesday ahead of the onset of the Bay branch of monsoon. 

This, however, may not necessarily mean that the onset of the Arabian Sea branch would be delayed by as many days. 

In the normal course, the monsoon would take a fortnight or so from here to make it to the Kerala coast for precipitating the onset over mainland. 

In between, the seasonal weather phenomenon bursts forth over Sri Lanka, just to the south of the peninsular tip. From here, it takes five more days to hit Kerala.


Varying models have pointed to the unfavourable upper-level conditions around the southern peninsula that could inhibit a timely onset. 

But others have suggested that this may not take too long, and that the onset could happen well within the first week of June. The IMD satellite pictures showed convective (rain-bearing) clouds over parts of Kerala, north, central and south-east Bay of Bengal, Comorin area and south-east Arabian Sea. 

An outlook for the next two days said that rain or thundershowers would occur at a few places over Andaman and Nicobar Islands and increase thereafter.


An extended outlook valid until Saturday said that rain or thundershowers would expand coverage to many places over Andaman and Nicobar Islands. 

Significantly, this would also be the time when the plains of north-west India would likely witness delayed development of heat wave conditions. 

In fact, model predictions said north-west and adjoining central India getting sizzling hot as the first wave of monsoon rains break out over the southern peninsula.
Related Posts, Click Title to Read

International Climatic Models Turn Even More Pessimistic of a “Normal” Indian Monsoon

Monsoon onset seen around normal date
The summer heating of the Indian sub-continent begins
Official Monsoon forecast disappoints: The IMD plays safe, hedges its bet!
South Asian Climate Outlook Forum-3: Monsoon likely to be below normal over south and northwest India
Vagaries of Weather: Monsoon Watch-2
India sees 2012 monsoon normal, no El Nino threat
July rains could fail India, says Japanese models

Sunday, May 20, 2012

USAID/DFID target tens of millions Dalit women in India for forcible sterilizations to fight global warming

The UK Telegraph’s investigating report a few months ago revealed that new evidence suggested British Aid to India is more important to the donor than to the recipient who dismissed the so-called assistance as:
“...a peanut in our total development exercises. According to a leaked memo, the foreign minister, Nirumpama Rao, proposed ‘not to avail [of] any further DFID [British] assistance with effect from 1st April 2011,’ because of the ‘negative publicity of Indian poverty promoted by DFID.
But officials at DFID, Britain’s Department for International Development, told the Indians that cancelling the programme would cause ‘grave political embarrassment’ to Britain, according to sources in Delhi.”
But the issue was far more serious than this. In fact, Indian parliamentarians, then more bluntly told the UK to keep their bloody aid money as they felt that since UK now has been reduced to a third world economy, they may need it more than India! They were reacting angrily to a section of British parliamentarians who expressed their disappointment that despite Britain being one of the top three aid givers to the country, India did not favour Britain for a multi-billion dollar fighter aircraft deal as sort of their quid pro quo expectation!

The ugly face of international aid being all about increased exports for the donor country and their touted altruism was just a camouflage was here on full display for everyone to see. If India were to show the door to Dfid, then it is bound to create a ripple effect with more countries being embolden to act similarly. This would have been a big blow for Britain and their NGOs internationally and so they were extremely relieved that India consented to their request not to stop their aid flow. But the only people who celebrated in India David Cameron's decision were those who lived within the British Aid Enclaves viz. those who worked for Dfid and UK NGOs like Oxfam; ChristianAid; ActionAid etc and their NGO partners who live lavishly off the aid and undoubtedly the only section who benefited from such aid in the country.

In contrast, the poor, the touted target of their aid continued to end up being increasingly hurt by British Aid. Dr Benny Peiser of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), UK in a brilliant exposé reveals how UK funding is currently targeting 9.5 million sterilizations of the poorest of the poor as part of their “global warming solution”. But as Indian media reported, this was not confined only to Dfid but also US and other European government funding.
What makes this crime more horrendous is the fact that their primary target belongs to a community called Dalits the traditional social “outcastes” of Indian society who are subject to all kinds of exploitation and atrocities. Indian NGOs led by Centre for Health and Social Justice (CHSJ) accused the West, particularly the UK of trying to foster Colonialism, Racism, for Funding Forced Sterilisations in the name of fighting global warming. You can read Bharat’s article and a Russian TV News Video at the end of this introduction for the full story.

Court documents filed in India earlier this month claim that many victims have been left in pain, with little or no aftercare. Across the country, there have been numerous reports of deaths and of pregnant women suffering miscarriages after being selected for sterilisation without being warned that they would lose their unborn babies. One sterilization office was set up in a local school. Police raided the makeshift sterilization camp and found video evidence that the NGO who run the “facility” were abusing the women who came to have the sterilization procedure.
Yet a working paper published by the UK's Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes. The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases, although it warned that there were "complex human rights and ethical issues" involved in forced population control.

The latest allegations centre on the India's poorest states of Madhya Pradesh and Bihar, both targeted by the UK government for aid after a review of funding last year. In February, the Chief minister of Madhya Pradesh had to publicly warn off his officials after widespread reports of forced sterilisation.

It is significant to note that UK NGOs operating in India - Oxfam; ChristianAid; ActionAid etc - all who overtly claim to champion the cause of Dalit Rights in the country are keeping a pin drop silence on this incident. So are US funded NGOs like CARE, People’s Watch; Dalit Foundation; Jan Vikas, Indian Institute of Dalit Studies, National Federation of Dalit Women (NFDW) etc  In fact, so are the Dalit Human Rights groups, all deeply dependent on funding by European & US based NGO’s generosity.
Significantly within the CHSJ network is the country’s premier Dalit Human Rights body, National Campaign on Dalit Human Rights (NCHDR) who are heavily funded by the EC and ChristianAid, UK.  The NCDHR raise all kind of petty issues related to Dalits but yet do not utter a word on this particular issue. Highly dependent on foreign funds, particularly Europe and the US, these NGOs rather betray their own cause - their raison d’etre - than attack Western Government’s aid policy which is why they are seen as foreign government stooges in this country!
The moot question is why sterilizations are considered as a solution to global warming? The reason is not too complicated to fathom - global warming is just another name for population control as both are different expressions of the Malthusian ideology:
"Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits ... we should ...crowd more people into the houses, and court the return of the plague. ... But above all, we should reprobate specific remedies for ravaging diseases; and those benevolent, but mistaken men, who have thought they were doing a service to mankind by projecting schemes for the total extirpation of particular disorders. If by these and similar means the annual mortality were increased from 1 in 36 or 40, to 1 in 18 or 20, we might possibly every one of us marry at the age of puberty, and yet few be absolutely starved." -Thomas Malthus, The Essay on Population, 5th edition, 1817.
“A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people…. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions.” –Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb

“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill…. But in designating them as the enemy, we fall into the trap of mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself.” –Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution, 1991

“In the event I am reborn, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.” – Prince Philip, quoted in Deutsche Presse Agentur, August 1988
There are two basic kinds of global warmists. The first know you can’t have too many cars without too many people but they can’t make themselves say “Stop breeding you f****ing wetbacks!” So they take out their rage by transferring them to cars, aeroplanes and ships by advocating that these be made more expensive for the common man.
The second is the cruder variety. “We should supply contraceptives to all those 180 million people in the developing world,” says Norman Myers of the World Wildlife Fund. “Population growth is directly involved in the pollution and degradation of our environment” adds Sierra Club head Carl Pope. Whatever the difference between the two, the impact is always the same. They always leave the global elite off the hook and target exclusively the poorest and weakest in society. And they call this Climate Justice!
Dr. Abhuit Das, the director of the Centre for Health and Social Justice, says that this discovery “smells of racism” referencing population control in India under the guise of saving the planet as a plot to simply reduce the Indian population for its sake. Das says that the UK should worry about their own greenhouse emissions and leave the Indian population alone: “[The UK] says that the poor is the problem when it comes to greenhouse gases. This is simply unacceptable.” 

Women’s rights advocates are angered by this misappropriation of the sterilization procedure. To simply mass sterilize women for the concentrated agenda of eliminating the Indian population is a violation of women’s rights, say the advocates. There is evidence of quotas to be reached by the sterilization camp directors and bonuses for exceeding those quotas. This reduces this procedure to a business opportunity and not a medical procedure that needs to be handled with respect and care.  
So poor Dalits in India with one of the “smallest carbon footprints” globally are targeted for sterilizations as part of the “global warming solution” while the global elite with gigantic carbon footprints wherein  NGOs like Oxfam and ChristianAid are apart of; are the perpetrators of this crime against humanity. If they are so intend of reducing human population why not make it compulsory that only individuals having got rid of their testes or ovaries are eligible to join NGOs like Oxfam? But no such rule operates in these organizations. Better still, they can make the supreme sacrifice - killing themselves to save the world instead of driving innocents like the Dalit community to death and torture!

US & UK Funding Forced Sterilizations in India

U.S. and British taxpayers are funding brutal forced sterilizations and a growing network of appalling “camps” in India through foreign-aid programs and even the World Bank, according to human rights activists and news reports. But as the scandal surrounding the controversial population-control campaign grows with an Indian Supreme Court investigation into the matter, governments are publicly distancing themselves from the program.
Citing dubious United Nations theories about “climate change,” population-reduction fanatics — especially in the West — have been working fiendishly around the world for decades to scale back the number of humans. Their methods include everything from promoting abortion and contraception to developing sterilization programs targeting poor women in particular. And the barbarity is largely being bankrolled by taxpayers and elite donors in the U.S. and the United Kingdom.

According to recent reports, the foreign-aid “family planning” money is being used by Indian authorities to forcibly sterilize Indians using outright deception or even coercion. In some cases, authorities coerce families into consent by threatening to withhold food or other essentials. Sometimes the victims are bribed using Western tax money without being told what the procedures really accomplish — let alone the risks.

The consequences, meanwhile, have included numerous bleeding deaths from botched operations, miscarriages, infections, and long-term health problems for the victims, according to reports from around India. Generally poverty-stricken and under-educated people — who often hail from lower “castes” and do not even have a chance to object — are targeted for the barbaric treatment.

“I tell you they treat them not as human beings, but as cattle or goats,” Human Rights Law Network activist Devika Biswas told the National Catholic Register after filing a petition about the matter with the nation’s Supreme Court. “They just cut and take out veins. They were bleeding profusely. It is butchery.”

Last month, activists including Biswas submitted video evidence and sworn affidavits by victims showing that population-control officials were completely out of control. Consider, for example, the story of just one night at one sterilization camp in the Indian state of Bihar: More than 50 poor women were allegedly rounded up and sterilized in wildly unsanitary conditions by unqualified “medical staff.”

A video of the tragedy presented to the court showed all of the women crying out in pain after having been quickly sterilized that night by staff using a flashlight for illumination. Nobody came to help the writhing victims. One pregnant woman even lost her unborn baby to the procedure. The court gave state and national authorities two months to respond to the charges, according to news reports about the case.

“All of them are forced,” Biswas was quoted as saying. “Generally, the people in the village are very simple. They are very poor. Some of them married at the age of 12 or 13. They do not know what it means. They are told it will be good for them. They are not told it will make them permanently unable to bear children. No risks are explained to them.”

According to reports, a perverse system of incentives helps the system mass-sterilize countless victims. Doctors, for instance, are paid bonuses if they operate on more than a certain number of people per day. So-called “motivators,” who go out in search of hapless prey for the schemes, are also rewarded based on how many people they can round up for the procedures.

India, of course, has around 1.2 billion people; and that is despite a brutal and coercive mass-sterilization campaign from the 1970s that was only “halted” after massive riots broke out and forced the government to back down. But for Western elites convinced that people are bad — either for the “environment” or the “climate” — the number is still way too high.

“They’re using bad science, outdated theories of population and an unproven theory about climate change to justify real harm to real people in real time,” explained Population Research Institute chief Steven Mosher, noting that elitists have long used a wide range of largely bogus crises to justify barbaric eugenics campaigns around the world. And it is still going on today from Asia and Africa to Latin America – often with subsidies extracted from Western taxpayers at the behest of shadowy senior policy makers.
In the U.K., which once ruled over India as its colonial master, the Department for International Development (DFID) gave a grant totaling more than $250 million in 2005 to the so-called “Reproductive Child and Health Program.” The scheme was supposed to offer “family planning” services to Indian women – and sterilization is by far the most common “service” provided under the plan.

The U.K. government, of course, responded to the recent scandal over forced sterilizations by denying that taxpayers were funding it. “British aid has not been used for forced sterilization now or in the past,” a DFID spokesperson claimed in a recent statement, though an official with the department later told the Wall Street Journal that tax funds were indeed being used for “voluntary” sterilizations.

“The government of India has strict guidelines for quality of family-planning services, which include ensuring consent,” the statement alleged, apparently oblivious to the reality on the ground. “The program started in 2006 under the last government. Support will end completely next year.”

Though critics have said the population-control scheme smacks of racism and neo-colonialism, one of the project’s stated goals was to slash India’s fertility rate, supposedly to deal with “climate change.” And the program could be considered a stunning success — at least in terms of its designers’ goals.

According to a government report cited by the U.K. Guardian, some 500,000 Indians were sterilized in 2008 alone. Experts say the true figure is much higher. About half of India’s 26 state governments, meanwhile, have reportedly already achieved compliance with a controversial UN dictate seeking to restrict population to two children per mother. And a “National Family Health Survey” cited by the Global Post reported that some 37 percent of Indian women have undergone sterilization so far. The rest are apparently still in the crosshairs.

American taxpayers have also contributed to the controversial programs. In recent years, for example, the U.S. government distributed well over $20 million in taxpayer funds per year just to sponsor “family planning” and “reproductive health” programs in India. But like British officials, American authorities involved in the scheme attempted to downplay the growing scandal as well.
“USAID programs provide technical support to improve family planning information and services,” a spokesman for the agency wasquoted as saying, alleging that the program was committed to improving the health of vulnerable Indians. “USAID assistance has helped improve maternal health and reduced infant mortality across India.”
Despite the platitudes about helping Indians, however, analysts say something much more sinister is going on. Consider the fact that at the highest levels of the Obama administration are people like “Science Czar” John Holdren, who suggested controlling population by forced abortions and secret drugging administered by a “planetary regime” in his highly controversial book “Ecoscience.”

Decades ago, senior officials were on the same page. Under the leadership of top establishment figure Henry Kissinger, for instance, the U.S. National Security Council outlined widely criticized official policies to curb population growth among the poor in the infamous “Memorandum 200.” Citing dubious theories about alleged overpopulation, the report proposed a massive global campaign that included propaganda, contraception, the use of food for coercion, and more. India was one of the top targets.

Like in Communist China, where the regime enforces a brutal “one-child policy” by forced abortion if necessary, India has a growing gender imbalance resulting in far more men than women. The consequences will be rough, according to experts. But Western elites — apparently undeterred by the tragedies and despair caused by the “population control” they promote at taxpayer expense — show no signs of scaling back support for the brutality.