Obama's Biggest Radical
When Barack Obama nominated John P. Holdren as his Science Adviser last December 20, the
president-elect stated "promoting science isn’t just about
providing resources" but "ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or
obscured by politics or ideology." In nominating John Holdren, his words could
scarcely have taken a more Orwellian ring.
Some critics have noted Holdren's penchant for making apocalyptic predictions that never
come to pass, and categorizing all criticism of his alarmist views as not only wrong but
dangerous. What none has yet noted is that Holdren is a globalist who has endorsed
"surrender of sovereignty" to "a comprehensive Planetary Regime" that
would control all the world's resources, direct global redistribution of wealth, oversee
the "de-development" of the West, control a World Army and taxation regime, and
enforce world population limits. He has castigated the United States as "the meanest
of wealthy countries," written a justification of compulsory abortion for American
women, advocated drastically lowering the U.S. standard of living, and left the door open
to trying global warming "deniers" for crimes against humanity. Such is Barack
Obama's idea of a clear-headed adviser on matters of scientific policy.
First Lab on the Left
All of these positions are consistent with a man who began his career as a "dissident
scientist." Peter Collier remembers Holdren working by day at a national laboratory
and by night writing for Ramparts, the intellectual journal of the New Left. Holdren has
authored numerous books and journal articles with his mentors Paul and Anne Ehrlich, the
infamous doomsayers who predicted overpopulation would force most of the world's
population to perish during the 1980s "great die-off." Holdren has gone on to a
distinguished academic career in his own right. A longtime professor at the University of
California at Berkeley, Teresa Heinz Kerry used her late husband's tax-exempt billions to endow
a chair at Harvard for Ehrlich's disciple; Holdren is now the Teresa and John Heinz
Professor of Environmental Policy at the Kennedy School of Government, where his (and her)
ideas influence the next generation of policymakers. Holdren himself has a background in
political "philanthropy," serving for 14 years on John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation's Board of
Trustees, steering its grants to far-Left organizations. He also pursued the intersection
of science and diplomacy by joining the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs,
an organization founded during the Cold War by former nuclear scientist and fellow traveler Joseph Rotblat. Pugwash hewed to the
Communist Party line and was subsequently feted by Czechslovakian and Polish Communist
leaders.
The Neo-Malthusians
Holdren gave a clear indication of his philosophical views in the 1977 book Ecoscience,
which he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich. [1] In its pages, the authors
noted, "The neo-Malthusiasn view proposes...population limitation and redistribution
of wealth." They concluded, "On these points, we find ourselves firmly in the
neo-Malthusian camp" (p. 954).
Economist Thomas Malthus is one of the most literally anti-human theorists in human
history. He viewed overpopulation as the fount of all woe, but one which could be
staunched with enough blood. In "An Essay on the Principle of Population"
Malthus wrote, "All the children who are born, beyond what would be required to keep
up the population to a desired level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for
them by the death of grown persons...if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid
form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we
compel nature to use...and court the return of the plague." Like their intellectual
forebear, Holdren and the Ehrlichs proposed their own acceptable sacrifice to the
environment.
Compulsory Abortion for American Women
The trio prescribed a rigidly enforced, government-imposed limit of two children per
family. Holdren and the Ehrlichs maintained "there exists ample authority under which
population growth could be regulated." Hiding behind the passive voice, they note,
"it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws
requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing constitutionif
the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society." (Emphasis
added.) To underscore they mean business, they conclude, "If some individuals
contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children, and if the need is
compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" (pp.
837-838). Moreover, if the United States government refuses to take proper measures, they
authorize the United Nations to take compelling force.
"A Comprehensive Planetary Regime"
Holdren believed a world government might play a moderate role in the future: setting and
enforcing appopriate population levels, taxing and redistributing the world's wealth,
controlling the world's resources, and operating a standing World Army.
Such a comprehensive Plenetary Regime could control the development, administration, conservation, and distribution of all natural resources, renewable or nonrenewable...not only in the atmosphere and oceans, but in such freshwater bodies as rivers and lakes...The Regime might also be a logical central agency for regulating all international trade...The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits...the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. (p. 943.)
Part of the power wielded by this "Regime" would be in the form of a World
Army. The trio wrote that the United States must destroy all its nuclear arsenal. But this
would not render us defenseless against Communist aggression. "Security might be
provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force...The
first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international
organization" (p. 917, emphasis added).
Far from distancing himself from this wooly-headed notion as he matured, Holdren
explicitly reaffirmed it in his 1995 Nobel Prize acceptance speech on behalf of Pugwash,
declaiming, "The post-Cold-War world needs a more powerful United Nations, probably
with a standing volunteer force -- owing loyalty directly to the UN rather than to
contingents from individual nations." As recently as last January, he told
the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) the world needs "a
universal prohibition on nuclear weapons, coupled with means to ensure confidence in
compliance." (Emphasis added.)
U.S. Blood and Treasure for the UN
The redistribution of blood and treasure were high priorities for Holdren, et. al. They
advised the "de-development of overdeveloped countries...should be given top
priority" (p. 926), and such nations -- e.g., the United States and the developed
West -- should "divert their excess productivity into helping the poorer people of
the world rather than exploiting them" (p. 931).
How much wealth redistribution would be sufficient? The authors favorably cited a proposal
that "the rich nations devote 20 percent of their GNPs for ten or fifteen years to
the task of population control and development of the poor countries." They comment,
"We believe an effort of this magnitude is not only justified but essential."
(p. 925). Reaffirming the goal in his 1995 Nobel speech, he stretched this to a program
"sustained over several decades." (Emphasis added.)
He detailed the mechanism for global socialism just two years ago. In a February 2007 report of which he was a coordinating lead
author, urges the United Nations to undertake "a global framework" that is
"more comprehensive and ambitious" than the Kyoto Protocol. Holdren states the
UN must mandate "A requirement for the early establishment of a substantial price on
carbon emissions in all countries, whether by a carbon tax or a tradable permit
approach." Although he prefers a global carbon tax presided over by a United
Nations-strength IRS, he is open to a stringent global cap-and-trade program. However,
that program must contain: "A means for transferring some of the revenue produced by
carbon taxes upon, or permits purchased by, countries and consumers with high incomes and
high per capita emissions to countries and consumers with low incomes and low per capita
emissions" (pp. 70-72). (Emphases in original.)
Every Man a Duke
His thirst for economic redistribution (read: socialism) is not limited to foreign
affairs. In a chapter of Ecoscience entitled "Changing American Institutions,"
Holdren and the Ehrlichs call for a "considerably more equitable distribution of
wealth and income" in the United States, offering in passing, "Possibly this
would be achieved by some formal mechanism" (p. 875). Might that mechanism perchance
be government force? The text praises an economist's plan to limit American achievement at
a $100,000 maximum annual salary, or just under $350,000 in 2009 dollars, adjusted for
inflation (p. 850). Such would be the most socialistic proposal made in
modern times. Even Huey Long allowed men a million dollars a year, in
1934.
"The Meanest of Wealthy Countries"
But the intervening years have not been pleasant ones for such as Holdren. In a 1995 article
co-written with Paul Ehrlich, he lists among the factors preventing a
"sustainable" world such "Underlying human frailties" as "Greed,
selfishness, intolerance, and shortsightedness." These, he expounds,
"collectively have been elevated by conservative political doctrine and practice
(above all in the United States in 1980 92) to the status of a credo."
Holdren blasted his country last January before the AAAS as
"the stingiest among all" wealthy nations in its development of the Third World,
making us "the meanest of wealthy countries." He summed up his view of the U.S.
budget by favorably quoting Robert Kates: "Too
much for warfare, too little for welfare."
Making You Poorer For Your Own Good
The function of such welfare is twofold: to enrich citizens of the Global South and to
impoverish Americans for their own good. In a 2006 paper, Holdren noted that reducing "GDP per
person" -- that is, cutting your personal wealth -- also reduces Greenhouse Gas
emissions. True, it is "not a lever that most people would want to use to reduce
emissions"; "People are not getting rich as fast as they think, however, if GDP
growth is being achieved at the expense of the environmental underpinnings of
well-being" (pp. 15-16).
Holdren addressed the economic costs of his massive restructuring of the economy some 32
years ago, acknowledging it "will entail considerable retraining and temporary
unemployment in the workforce" (p. 853). Yet he continues to support economy-crushing
energy taxation. In a 1997 press conference, he surmised that if alternative energy sources were to get
a foothold, either they "would have to get a great deal cheaper, which seems
unlikely, or natural gas would have to get considerably more expensive. The latter is
actually a good idea." One is hardly encouraged to learn that last December,
environmentalist Dr. James Hansen sent a four-page letter via Holdren to "Michelle and
Barack." (Hansen wrote it as surgeons in Vienna placed a stent in his wife's chest
following an unexpected heart attack.) His personal note to "John" states,
"When gasoline hits $4-5/gallons again, most of that should be tax." Five months
earlier, Holdren rated Hansen "one of the most distinguished climate
scientists in the world."
Anti-Military, Anti-Christian Statements
Dr. James Hansen may be in Holdren's good graces, but neither the military nor the
Apostle Paul are. Holdren and company warn, "Civilians should realize that peace and
freedom from tension are not viewed as an ideal situation by many members of the
military-industrial-government complex. By and large, professional military officers,
especially field grade and higher, hope for an end to international tensions about as
fervently as farmers hope for drought" (p. 918).
And in their eyes, what soldiers are to war, Jesus is to the climate. "The Christian
concept of life in this world, as voiced by Saint Paul, that 'here we have no abiding
city,' for example, conceivably could help explain why some people show rather little
concern for the long-term future of the global environment or for the well-being of future
generations" (p. 807).
P.S.: He's Frequently Wrong
With a values system like this, it should come as little surprise that Holdren is
frequently mistaken about his alleged field of specialization, environmental science --
often tremendously so. As with Ehrlich, he has been predicting global catastrophes since
the 1970s, beginning with the global cooling scare. Modern critics have noted his role
in Paul Ehrlich's famous wager with Julian Simon: Holdren chose five metals that
he believed would be more expensive in ten years' time due to scarcity, while Simon
predicted each would be less expensive. A decade hence, Ehrlich's group was $1,000 poorer
(a chance to reduce their carbon footprint, perhaps). Holdren advised Al Gore on An Inconvenient Truth, a film that by
one scholar's count contained 10
pages of falsehoods, exaggerations, distortions, and ignored
evidence.
And there is the little matter of his prediction a billion people will die within the next
11 years.
Paul Ehrlich recorded that in 1986 Holdren predicted "carbon
dioxide-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020."
Holdren reiterated this view in Newsweek just two years ago.
When he faced Senate questioning this February 12, only one man, Sen. David Vitter, R-LA,
dared to ask him about his failed predictions. The Washington Post reported Holdren's response as a brilliant riposte,
artfully parrying the query. On the contrary, the transcript
shows Holdren actually reaffirmed that he still believes one billion people may die within
the next 11 years from a climate-related drought:
Vitter: So you would stick to that statement?
Holdren: I don't think it's likely. I think we should invest effort - considerable effort
- to reduce the likelihood further.
Vitter: So you would stick to the statement that it could happen?
Holdren: It could happen, and ...
Vitter: One billion by 2020?
Holdren: It could.
Vitter managed to show Holdren was wrong on yet another front: just two years ago, he wrote
that current emissions levels could cause the a 13-foot rise in sea levels. Under
cross-examination, Holdren admitted science's most dire estimates are now half as much as
Holdren pronounced just two years ago. Yet this "expert" will have the ear of
the president in setting scientific policy.
Criticizing Holdren = "Crimes Against Humanity"?
Holdren reacts to correction the way a rattlesnake reacts to sudden movement: with
velocity and venom. As long ago as the early 1970s, he and Paul Ehrlich engaged in a campaign to silence fellow radical Barry Commoner, a
onetime fringe presidential candidate, because the latter viewed technology as more
damaging than overpopulation. More recently, he co-authored a scathing, 11-page attack against Bjorn Lomborg for
having the temerity to question Green-Left orthodoxy. Yet that pales in comparison to his
view of some global warming "deniers."
Last July 3, as an advisor to the Obama campaign,
Holdren appeared on the radical program "Democracy Now!" hosted by Amy Goodman. Goodman asked him about comments made by
his friend Dr. James Hansen (see above). Specifically, Hansen said, "large energy
companies are guilty of crimes against humanity, if they continue to dispute what is
understood scientifically and to fund contrarians, and if they push us past tipping points
that end up destroying many species on the planet and having a huge impact on humanity
itself." Goodman asked Holdren if he agreed "the CEOs of large energy companies
are guilty of, should be tried for crimes against humanity?"
Holdren replied: "I couldn't really say. I'm not qualified
to assess what the heads of oil companies, past or present, have done in this domain. My
understanding is that Exxon, in particular, did fund a variety of small think tanks to
generate what amounts to propaganda against understanding of what climate change was
doing, the human role in causing it. Whether that sort of activity really constitutes
crimes against humanity is something for people more embedded in the legal system than I
to judge." He went on to say heads of oil companies now were more
"enlightened" on carbon emissions, so "I guess I would find the statement
that all oil company CEOs, past and present, are guilty of crimes against humanity is
maybe a little bit over the top." (Emphasis added.)
In other words, he hedged his bets, pleaded that he was not a legal scholar, but still
held out that at least some of the CEOs may well be guilty of crimes against humanity. His
reply to whether American citizens should be tried for a capital offense because they
exercised their First Amendment rights to disagree with him was a firm maybe.
DDT: A Truly Malthusian Policy
The lack of correction has led to a correlative lack of introspection. This author could
find no retraction of his 1977 statement, "In our opinion, no biologist has made a
greater contribution to humanity in this century than Rachel Carson" (p. 854).
Carson's primary contribution, through banning the DDT on erroneous grounds, has been the preventable death of 50-90 million souls in Sub-Saharan
Africa and the Indian subcontinent.
In a way, Holdren's support for Carson is a microcosm of his entire philosophy: a deadly
and ill-conceived policy based on false evidence of potential harm, whose catastrophic
impact has been the opposite of that intended -- never retracted, never regretted, never
reconsidered. Such a reflexively self-reverential tone is unhelpful in any public servant.
John Holdren's globalist, redistributionist, Malthusian views could prove more damaging
for the world than those of his hero.
ENDNOTES:
1. Unless otherwise noted, all page citations are from Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and
John Holdren. Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment. (San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman and Company, 1977). (Front Page Mag.com,
2.27.2009, Ben Johnson)
Ben Johnson is Managing Editor of FrontPage Magazine and co-author, with David
Horowitz, of the book Party
of Defeat. He is also the author of the books Teresa Heinz Kerry's Radical Gifts (2009) and 57 Varieties of Radical Causes: Teresa Heinz Kerry's Charitable
Giving (2004).
http://www.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34198