Kamala Harris Vows To 'Reduce Population' For Climate Change - But Was It Really Just a Gaffe?

As mystery fans likely know, sometimes a small piece of information or a tiny slip can reveal a lot.

Such is the case with what some might depict as a typical Biden-Harris Administration slip of the tongue, delivered by none other than the cackling Californian “serving” as Vice-President, Kamala Harris.

At a July 14 event in Baltimore to promote “Climate Change Response Investment,” (because, as we all know, both the anthropogenic Climate Change bogeyman and the federal power to toss around cash like this are totally real, totally legit) Harris attracted a bit more attention than the already sketchy government handout might have received, when she “used the wrong word” or “misspoke."

Reports Charlie Nash, for Mediaite:

“Vice President Kamala Harris mistakenly spoke about investing to ‘reduce population’ during a speech on climate change on Friday, sparking concern on social media before the White House revealed she had meant to say ‘reduce pollution.’

‘When we invest in clean energy, and electric vehicles, and reduce population, more of our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water,’ declared Harris during her speech on tackling climate change and creating a ‘clean energy economy.’”

Here's that moment, in person:

“ Invest in reduced population.”

- Kamala Harris

This is insane. Every American should see this clip. Let’s Make it happen pic.twitter.com/KbhfotBnuU
— Terrence K. Williams (@w_terrence) July 15, 2023

That’s quite a gaffe. But before we look at its significance as more than a flub, some fundamental points require attention.

First, the VP conveniently conflates more than just “population” and “pollution.” She conflates carbon-dioxide with particulate air pollutants – and that is a significant, and seemingly intentional, conflation.

Despite Harris and others of the Climate Cult attempting to depict it as such, CO2 is not a pollutant, and this gathering in Baltimore was not about air and water pollution. It was about their mythological Minotaur “Climate Change.”

It just so happens that one of the books I am reading is “Behind the Green Mask: UN Agenda 21,” by Rosa Koire, and something she mentions in it inspired me to look up the term, “Sustainable Communities Strategy Grants.”

If you do so, likely one of the first things you’ll see… will be Harris’ appearance in Baltimore, because the gathering was part of their self-congratulatory promotion of the feds handing to politicians in Baltimore and to their special-interest friends a chunk of $20 BILLION in our money -- money they will use for their “sustainable” community fantasy lands.

When Koire released the book in 2011, she offered on p. 67 an explanation of the grants and a warning that political machinations would see handouts of cash for “projects” to change land and building use into “special” aka “green” projects, and, lo-and-behold, on July 14, the Baltimore Banner reported:

“Vice President Kamala Harris stopped at Baltimore’s Coppin State University Friday to announce $20 billion in federal funding to help finance clean energy projects in disadvantaged communities across the nation.

The vice president described the new stream of funding as ‘the largest investment in financing for community-based climate projects in our nation.’”

In other words, this is a warmed-over rehash of the corrupt special interest pork handout M.O. we’ve seen in myriad other fields, over many generations, going back to the kingpin of it, FDR, and even further, really, to the corrupt Trans-Continental Railroad, which was unconstitutional, massively over-budget, incredibly late in completion, and saw numerous politicians and their friends making oodles of cash because they were able to attach themselves to the grift through land sales and other contracts.

And that’s just the corrupt backdrop to Harris’ flub, which, itself, is powerfully revealing.

Many pop-media chatterboxes either have overlooked the century-long connections between the contemporary “green” agenda and its “Climate Change” vanguard, and both eugenics and Malthusian population reduction. But Harris’ slip can serve as a teachable moment, and allow people to investigate the deadly collectivist iceberg hiding many fathoms below the surface.

Long after Plato and Socrates pushed the idea of “special” people being born with gold in their systems, making them the perfect “rulers” and able to dictate how others worked, married, and were educated, a British vicar named Thomas Malthus published a screed pushing his own elitist belief that the world was headed towards “over-population.”

In 1798, Malthus published his unmistakably erroneous “Essay on The Principle of Population,” and, as The Population Research Institute notes:

“Subsequent editions of Malthus’ Essay were widely read among the upper classes in Europe, many of whom bought into the false belief that high birth rates among the poor would overwhelm Western society and lead to war, famine and poverty.

Malthus’ ideas quickly became the foundation for a movement that began to preach population control and contraception as the keys to socioeconomic development and the betterment of Western society. Although Malthus himself generally opposed on religious grounds the use of birth control and abortion as methods of population control, his followers—the Neo-Malthusians—had no such concerns.”

Eugenics, abortion, forced-sterilization, and “environmental” movements soon both followed and wove back and forth with the Malthusian cult, seeing the rise of figures such as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, utopian socialist (and Sanger’s lover) H.G. Wells, Hitler, numerous U.S. politicians on every level, and even Winston S. Churchill become involved (prior to him becoming Prime Minister).

Subsequently, the most prominent of the Neo-Malthusians arguably would be Stanford biology professor Paul Ehrlich, a doomsaying scientist to whom pop media gave a lot of press as the Age of Aquarius enviro-mother-Earth hippie vibe caught on in the late 1960s and early 1970s. In 1968 Ehrlich saw published his book, “The Population Bomb,” in which he expressed his clammy thesis that population growth could not be sustained and he called for precisely the wrong thing to “save” the environment: government power over private property claims.

Ehrlich’s dismissal of private property and even the individual nature of valuation meant that he dismissed the real market creation, discovery, and valuation of resources; he dismissed market incentives to create more resources, and he overlooked or dismissed the private ability to claim harm should private property be damaged by someone else’s pollution. His prediction of resource disaster and civilizational collapse unless population growth was reversed not only was proved wrong, it was proved wrong many times over.

Economics students who study the nature of resources, natural productivity growth, and the market basis of growing living standards quickly become aware that Ehrlich in 1980 made a wager with free market economist Julian Simon that in ten years a basket of commodities would be less plentiful, more depleted, and much more expensive, signifying Ehrlich’s thesis of population overwhelming resources to be correct.

Ehrlich was wrong.

As Marian L. Tupy and Gale Pooley wrote in 2018 for the Foundation for Economic Education:

“In October 1980, Ehrlich and Simon drew up a futures contract obligating Simon to sell Ehrlich the same quantities that could be purchased for $1,000 of five metals (copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten) ten years later at inflation-adjusted 1980 prices. If the combined prices rose above $1,000, Simon would pay the difference. If they fell below $1,000, Ehrlich would pay Simon the difference. Ehrlich mailed Simon a check for $576.07 in October 1990… The price of the basket of metals chosen by Ehrlich and his cohorts had fallen by more than 50 percent.”

And they add:

“The Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., has recently published an update to the Simon story. It looked at population, prices, and income from 1960 to 2016. Over these 56 years, world population increased by 145 percent, from 3 billion to almost 7.5 billion. Yet, inflation-adjusted gross domestic product (GDP) per person increased by 183 percent, from $3,689 to $10,391. So, income grew 26 percent faster than population—just as Simon had predicted.”

And that’s not all.

If Harris let slip something that she believes, if she, like many, argue -- as Bill Gates has argued -- that the way to solve their trumped-up, baseless “Carbon-Climate-Catastophe” clamor is to attack population growth, to literally REDUCE the population of the planet and see fewer kids, smaller and fewer families, and less human ingenuity in the world, she might want to think about the ethics of such a belief.

And if she, like so many collectivists, doesn’t care about basic human ethics like freedom and free enterprise, perhaps the practical side of freedom could help her and turn her away from the flub of fascism and population control.

Write Tupy and Pooley:

“What about natural resources? After all, as people grow richer, they consume more stuff. The study looked at prices of 42 natural resources from 1960 to 2016, as tracked by the World Bank. Adjusted for inflation, 19 declined in price, while 23 increased in price. Out of those 23 commodities, only three (crude oil, gold, and silver) appreciated more than GDP per person. Put differently, GDP per person grew faster than 92 percent of the commodities measured.”

The world is not in danger of burning up. Carbon is not a pollutant, and it is not leading to a climate crisis. Population growth is not a threat and never has been.

The doomsayers have been proven wrong over and over and over, while freedom has been shown to allow for more lives, better lives, and better prospects for the future.

Curiously, no subsidies are needed for that.