Green members write letter condemning Population Matters
Ahead of Green Party of England and Wales Conference this weekend, a number of Greens Party members from across the country have signed a letter condemning Population Matters, a controversial organisation that has campaigned to ban Syrian refugees from Britain. The letter urges the fringe on Sunday at Green Party conference sponsored by Population Matters to be cancelled:
Population Matters is an ecologist organisation focusing on the risks and mitigation of world population growth.
Throughout history, corrupt establishments have often used population control as a diversionary tactic to shift blame from themselves onto the poor and the destitute; the most notable being Thomas Malthus, who called for starving the poor to stop them reproducing. Any organisation concerning itself with population growth needs to bear this in mind, and act to prevent themselves being taken in by the establishment narrative.
Population Matters has soundly failed in this task. They are a thoroughly capitalist organisation, offering no critique of the dominant economic powers, and showing no understanding of the interplay between capitalism, imperialism, racism and patriarchy.
Population Matters implicit support of racism and imperialism is clear in their call for zero-net migration to the UK, which makes sense only in a world where Britain maintains its unequal share of the world’s resources, and sense of entitlement. [1]Though Population Matters claims to support women around the world, they fail to offer real empowerment. The primary cause of ecological damage and poverty is capitalism, yet Population matters places limiting child benefits as one of their key policy concerns, with no mention of the economic order. [2] At the same time population matters calls for aid to be sent to misogynistic governments for their population control regimes, which inevitably involve forced sterilisations, and botched surgeries. [3]
Given these ideological flaws, we the undersigned, believe that Population Matters presence at conference is a step backwards for decolonization, women, international affairs, racial equality, and environmentalism. We call for their platform to be rescinded.
[1] http://www.populationmatters.org/issues-solutions/population/conflict-migration/
[2] http://populationmatters.org/documents/benefit_credit.pdf
[3] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/apr/15/uk-aid-forced-sterilisation-india
Signed:
Manishta Sunnia – GPEX Equality and Diversity Coordinator
Charlene Concepcion – GPEX Equality & Diversity Coordinator
Samantha Pancheri – GPEx Policy Development Coordinator
Thom French – GPEX Local Party Support Coordinator
Benali Hamdache – Equalities Spokesperson – Islington Green Party
Sahaya James – South West Green Party Coordinator – Greens of Colour Committee
Sofiya Ahmed – Greens of Colour Committee
Sarah Cope – Green Party Women
Deborah Fenney – Equalities & Diversity committee member – Headingley Green Party
Craig Griffiths – LGBTIQ Greens Secretary – Haringey Green Party
Aimee Challenor – LGBTIQ Greens Committee Member – Coventry Green Party
Siobhan MacMahon – Young Greens Co-Chair – Hackney Green Party
Fiona Costello – Young Greens National Executive Committee – Ceredigion Green Party
Sophie van der Ham – Young Greens – Equality & Diversity Officer
Tom Pashby – Young Greens Campaigns Officer
Duncan Davis – Midlands Young Greens Co-Convenor
Paul Cohen – Gender Working Group Co-convener, Federation of Young European Greens
Chris Cotton – Norwich Green Party
Katy Boyce – Bath and North East Somerset Green Party
Andrea Grainger – North Staffordshire Green Party
Sabrina Poole – Stroud District Green Party
Anne Poole – Stroud District Green Party
Mike Poole – Stroud District Green Party
Stella Gardiner -Bromley Green Party
Elliot Folan – Norwich Green Party
Samir Jeraj – Hackney Green Party
Laura Shepherd – Sheffield Green Party
Tom Bolitho – Young Greens Treasurer
Stuart Neyton – Broxtowe Green Party
Molly Arthurs – Ashford Green Party Campaigns Officer
Jack McGlen – South Tyneside Green Party
Jennifer Marklew – Milton Keynes Green Party
Emmanuel Blondel – North Staffordshire Green Party
Chris Atkins – Ashford Green Party
Lee Burkwood – London Green Party
Fez Endalaust – Plymouth Green Party
Shakti Shah – Brent Green Party
Eleanor Edwardes – Stroud District Green Party
Adam McGregor – Nottingham Green Party
Hannah Ellen Clare -Young Greens Senate
William Pinkney-Baird – Durham Green Party
Violeta Vajda – Lewisham Green Party
Adam Ramsay – Oxford Green Party
Caroline Baird – Stroud District Green Party
As Convener of national Conference, as one of those who supported the presence of this fringe and as the one who stepped in to chair the fringe on Sunday night, I’d like to disassociate myself entirely from this letter, signed by so many, several of whom are good friends of mine. I cannot for the life of me understand where the furore is coming from, nor how their energy is maintained to hound a small organization which essentially expounds and represents many of the principles and concerns shared by the GPEW. We are the only political party to be bold enough to present credible policies on ‘population matters’. Sure, PM may have been quoted on issues which show them in a poor light – and the statement on Syrian refugees is unsupportable. But I could not fault the presentation on Sunday night, other than the length (not uncommon). Unfortunately, I could certainly fault the passive/aggressive questioning and posturing from some in the audience afterwards.
I state boldly: Population Matters had every right to have a fringe at Conference, even if some of our members do not agree with everything they stand for. What on earth, in our party of all parties, is wrong with a fringe on such a vitally important subject of real interest to so many of our members? The lack of common courtesy and the seemingly ‘orchestrated’ hostility of a section of the audience was bemusing, confusing and disappointing.
Some time ago, the Guardian published a centre spread photo of a woman and small child in a landfill tip. This photo is on http://tinyurl.com/mog3x6f .
The caption states ‘Atimani Gea, a scavenger, and one of her 11 children, take a break from collecting recyclable plastic items at a rubbish dump in Medan Marelan, N. Sumatra, Indonesia’.
What do you feel for this woman? Why did she have eleven children? Perhaps it was a conscious decision to have children to support her in old age, or she wanted to have help to sort through the material on the tip. Perhaps she just likes having lots of babies. Or then again, perhaps not. Maybe she is one of the 220 million women who have no access to modern contraception. Maybe her church or mosque tells her contraception is sinful. Maybe her man is one of those whose man thinks it is testimony to his manhood to have many children. Maybe supplies of contraception in her country are so difficult to come by that their use is not practicable. In which case no one can say she had made a conscious decision to have that number: she probably had no choice. It is no help to her to say that when there is development, or when we have solved the problem of consumption in rich countries, her situation will improve. Yet her situation is repeated all over the world. This need not be so.
The forces that keep women in that position are oppressive religion, run by men who want to keep women in their place; economists and big business (ie, the very rich) who can only see the world in terms of economic growth; authoritarian leaders who want their countries to be ‘strong’; and generally men in those cultures that belittle women, misinform them, deny them education, and use methods like FGM to control them. All of these, note, amount to male domination. These are the questions that Population Matters address, and a careful reading of their website will confirm this
There is plenty of evidence that, relieved of those pressures and given the opportunity, even those in the poorest communities readily accept contraception. To assume that they cannot is patronising to say the least.
Just to say that I am happy to support this letter
Howard Thorp
GPEX Campaigns Coordinator
You only have to look at the names of the patrons of Population Matters to see this is the very opposite of an uninformed and bigoted organisation; David Attenborough, Chris Packham, Jane Goodall, Jonathan Porritt, Susan Hampshire, Paul Ehrlich…I could go on. There is more wisdom guiding and supporting this organisation than virtually any other I can think of. It is time Bright Green members actually read what is on the PM website and thought about it.
Some of the signatories of this misinformed, misguided and myopic article went on to attend the meeting at conference, and displayed the most appalling behaviour towards the guest from Population Matters. Some spent the entire presentation tapping away on their devices, barely glancing at the visuals and clearly taking nothing in, just waiting for it to end so they could commence their agressive accusations and nasty comments. They were not there to listen and debate, simply to attack. Utterly shameful and a real stain on the reputation of the Green Party. If they have an ounce of decency they will send apologies to the young woman who dared to enter the hornets’ nest.
Everyone I’ve met from Population Matters have been pleasant, earnest people.
I think the root problem here is many Greens do not want to accept our reality; there are far too many people, gobbling up the resources. The bright green tendency within the wider movement has, at its core, the myth of anthropocentric supremacy. This leads to the belief humanity can do pretty as it pleases as long as we recycle, build wind farms, drive less and a technofix for the energy/climate crisis is on the horizon.
Well, we’re running out of time, and there is no technofix and the planet is being trashed. Overpopulation is a root of all our problems. Humanity has overrun the planet; current population levels and projections for growrh are simply unsustainable, even if we were all to go vegan and live simply.
I’m not suggesting the GPEW adopts a deep green position on this; but a sensible, rational debate without resorting to name calling is well over due.
Baz, we have to. This sense of denial really worries me. If we are to become a large movement we have to deal with the real challenges of the globe and that has to include population increase. Rigid, dogmatic viewpoints and an unwillingness to debate belong to the Labour party, not the Greens.
Frankly a reality check is needed, fast.
That really worries me Baz. Such one dimensional views belong to the Labour party, not the Greens. Debate makes the party.
The Green Party has had a policy on population since its foundation.Here are some quotes from the current version. It is on https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/pp.html
PP103 There is a need to explicitly consider population since, if it is ignored indefinitely, the risk of over-consumption of natural resources will increase, leading to conflict and ultimately a reduction in carrying capacity.
PP104 There are many causes of population growth and some of these must be addressed to avoid overpopulation. Causes may be as basic as a lack of family planning information and contraceptives. Inequality and lack of opportunities can result in people having more children than they would otherwise want. On a wider scale, it has been observed that populations often increase following wars, social strife and environmental disasters.
P108 The Green Party notes that the population of the UK currently supports its way of life by consuming more resources than can be sustainably supplied from within the UK, and more than its fair share of global resources – often to the detriment of the people and the environment in producing areas.
The Green Party acknowledges that poverty alleviation and education are crucial for women in poor countries to be able to exercise their reproductive health rights and take control over their own family planning. The UK and other rich countries should do more to support initiatives – both globally and locally – which uphold women’s rights over reproductive health, increase education and which address poverty and potential pressures on the global environment.
This is a moderately expressed statement; nevertheless it expresses clearly some of the reasons why population growth is an issue, and why failure to address it will be disastrous.
The charity Population Matters addresses these problems squarely. It would be a good idea if the Green Party did not react to it with hysterical inaccuracies. Rational argument is fine, but the remarks in this letter suggest closed and inflexible minds. I object, also, to the totally undemocratic way in which those responsible for Green World have taken it on themselves to bar any discussion of population on their pages.
Fully agree.
A debate on the issue of over population is long overdue. It is the flip side to consumption.
There does appear to be a problem with the organisation Population Matters; however, this shouldn’t suggest current global population levels are acceptable.
I am sometimes shocked when I meet so-called environmentalists who have large families. I am as frustrated with them as I am with those who eat meat and own cars.
It’s hard enough making the green argument on the doorstep, without having accusations of hypocrisy within the party thrown at me.
There is so much wrong with Baird’s letter that it is hard to know where to begin.
THE PROBLEM IS POPULATION, NOT INDIVIDUAL CONSUMPTION.
I think the place to start must be to emphasise that the principal cause of the environmental problem is (over-)population, and that the problem can be solved permanently only by reversing population growth. It cannot be solved by reducing per-capita consumption, which unfortunately seems to be only method acceptable to Baird.
Simple arithmetic and logic show this.
Total human impact on the environment is the average individual impact multiplied by the size of the population. Total impact can thus be reduced only by reducing one or both of these factors. Consumption is a proxy for impact.
To stop total impact increasing by addressing only consumption, let alone to reduce it, global average individual consumption must fall at a greater rate than the global population increases. It is now forecast that by the end of the century population will be at least one-third larger than now and still growing.
Average individual consumption can be reduced only so far, as there is a level of consumption below which we die. Moreover, lowering standards of living, correlated with consumption, is hugely unpopular, and utterly rejected by most of the poorer world and their governments. But population can increase without limit (until there is a crash). Each new person born increases total consumption, so population growth will in the end overwhelm consumption reduction So the result of focusing only on consumption reduction (even if it could be achieved) would eventually be an increase in total consumption, accompanied by a continually falling average standard of living. In the end, this approach does not work, because it cannot work.
This implies that the environmental movement should become strongly supportive of the campaign to reverse population growth, and put much less of its effort and funds into the reduction of individual consumption in richer countries. That can challenge some fondly-held beliefs, but is true nonetheless.
CAN POPULATION REDUCTION BE ETHICAL?
Of course it can. This requires two things:
1. It must be achieved via reduced human fertility (i.e. fewer lifetime births per woman on average), not by an increased death rate or shorter human lives.
Malthus (whom I suspect Baird has never read) actually supported this idea. He didn’t “call for” starving the poor – he noted that the poor would (be the first to) starve if population growth were not checked.
2. A woman’s fertility must remain her free choice (i.e. no coercion).
Malthus did call for “moral restraint” (i.e. less sex) to produce fewer children. However, at the time he wrote, woman’s control of their reproduction was rejected by men, who were dominant in most families.
Most population reduction campaigners today (including Population Matters) strongly endorse women’s empowerment in this.
Moreover, although PM does support increased aid for family planning overseas, it opposes forced sterilisation (and all such coercion). It cannot be blamed for UK’s seriously faulty foreign aid practices, or the repressive attitudes of some foreign governments.
However, I agree that PM’s support for excluding third etc. children from child benefit is both foolish and cruel. The organisation is by no means perfect.
THE ROLE OF CAPITALISM.
Capitalism has a far better chance of fixing the environment than socialism.
The market has the capability of being hugely successful in curbing over-consumption, by increasing the price of the thing consumed if consumption increases.
So why is it not preventing climate change, oceanic acidification, extinctions? Because there is at present a general market failure concerning environmental assets,
which are not accounted for as capital, and the consumption of which is usually treated as an externality. In other words, I can consume those assets (by burning coal, say) without paying for the proportion of the atmosphere’s recycling capacity that I use, or by catching fish without paying for them, because the “owner” of these resource is not demanding payment. Fix that problem (through, e.g. a properly-designed system of cap-and-trade pollution rights, or auctioning of commercial fishing licences up to an annually-sustainable total), and we would be a long way towards ending environmental degradation. Of course, some coal mine and fish boat owners don’t like that idea …
On the other hand, socialism makes things worse. It tends to suppress the price mechanism (through e.g. housing rent controls and opposing state school fees). As a result, demand continues to exceed supply, and the true cost of excess fertility is hidden from potential parents.
So, to accuse PM of being capitalist is to acknowledge that it is following the right principles for protecting the environment. It is too bad the environmental movement is so leftish, as this is preventing it from supporting measures that can actually work, instead of just making greens feel good.
DON’T CONFUST ME WITH FACTS.
Baird’s call for preventing the Green Party from communicating with PM is reprehensible. He is letting his dogma over-run basic principles such as free speech, and the common sense of airing and comparing all ideas.
He seems to be so afraid that population (rather than consumption), capitalism (rather than socialism), and education and empowerment of women (rather than withholding such help if it comes from the “wrong” place) may actually prove attractive to the Party if it is allowed to hear the pitch, that he wants to silence those who disagree with him.
I want to support politicians who place a high priority on the state (and fate) of the environment. But not a party that gags those who want to talk and help on the matter, if they are (wrongly) deemed politically incorrect.
I do hope the Green Party feels the same way. And that Baird and his friends gain a better understanding of the reality of the environmental problem before coming up with any more unfortunate petitions.
The above letter is a fabrication of seriously distorted myths. I’m sorry that ”green” party members and activists have nothing ecological to get on with.
Was it them giving out that anti immigration/refugee flier – FAO the “Clone Party” and blathering on about migration from warmer southern to colder northern latitudes – at conference this morning? 😛
No, it definitely was not. PM has been made aware of the leaflet, condemns it, and disassociates itself from it.
Dear Greens,
I have travelled widely and have witnessed first-hand the appalling poverty that is prevelent in many countries.
I once visited an orphanage in Nepal. The lady who runs it managed to fund-raise and buy the land. It is oversubscribed. On enquiring I was told that the men have one “wife” in the town and one in the country. The women give birth regularly, and cannot cope as they are deserted by the men, are unskilled and have little money. I saw the workshop which had been set up so they could learn sewing.
I helped in the classrooms with the children. One of the girls was deaf and was struggling to learn. I was moved to tears when I was told that she had been unwanted. When she was a baby, her mother had thrown her in the river and she had contracted polio. So sad.
These women do not want to be in a continual state of pregnancy or lactation, but they have no access to affordable and reliable contraception.
I would ask the Greens to be a little less prejudiced about the work of Population Matters.
I am a long-standing member of Population Matters and I feel very concerned about the unhelpful content of this letter. Surely we can cooperate and help to make the worrld a better place for all of us?
Thanks. Pamela
ps I can give you the link to this place as they are coping with the aftermath of the earthquake and are always grateful for funds.
“Far leftist faction in Green Party make ridiculous hysterical attack on enviromentalists” is the news story here. That we have members like this, willing to show no regard for truth, honesty, or reason, in a desire to attack any non-far left faction of greenery is a cause for concern.
I am a member of the Green Party and wanted to support the cause, but this pronouncement has made me decide to end my membership. I cannot understand the Green Party’s stand on population and your attack on Population Matters. We must take on the issue of population along with reducing consumption, or all else is completely futile. If we truly believe in ‘saving the earth’ and being a ‘friend of the earth’ we must support an intelligent, non-coercive approach to keeping our human numbers within the bounds of sustainability and the capability of the earth to support us.
I can’t believe how short sighted and lacking in vision the Green Party appears to be on this matter. Your party is all for economic and social growth, but not on the side of the environment. To keep the population problem in focus is to have a compassionate, wise view, to truly care for our beautiful world and to have the welfare of future generations, all over the world, at heart. You should not be afraid of discussing this problem and I hope that you will keep it in your agenda. In blocking Population Matters, you have lost my vote.
Sheena, this letter is written and signed by Green Party activists, it’s not a Green Party position or document.
I agree Sheena, Pamela and Dave,
The above letter, signed by 44 people, is a misrepresentation of serious magnitude. The organisation ‘Population Matters’ is unrecognisable from reading it.
The ‘GREEN PARTY’s second name, after the People’s Party was the Ecological Party; I’m sorry that ”green” party members and activists appear to have nothing ecological to get on with.
Sheena, please do not resign. This thing has to be fought within the Greens:if you resign, they’ve won!
I too was deeply shocked by this affront to “Population Matters”. We should be giving them our backing instead of venom. If the Green Party of all parties does not take this critical issue seriously in all its facets, we will be labelled hypocrites and rightly so.
It is right to blame Capitalism for many of the problems if not the majority. However some ignore the other drivers of population increase. It is also caused by intolerance, extreme religious groups, and backward cultural treatment of women in a few parts of the third world. It might be awkward but it has to be challenged rigorously if we are to have the faintest chance of environmental renewal.
I am unable to understand the hysterical opposition to the rational stance of the charity Population Matters concerning the dangers of letting human numbers go on increasing indefinitely. there are three times as many of us on the planet as when I was born and 60% less of other creatures. I believe the comment by one member of that organisation about UK not accepting unlimited numbers of immigrants has been distorted to give the erroneous impression that Population Matters is some sort of capitalist organisation bent on oppressing the poor of the world, which is the reverse of the truth.None of the well known environment experts who are patrons of that organisation fall into the category of Capitalist Oppressor, on the contrary they are all seriously concerned about the welfare of humanity and other creatures of the world. I suggest that all who put their names to the proposal to ban one of the most innocent charity organisations trying to bring the world to its senses should think again.
Well done comrades. I couldn’t be at conference, but you have my full support.