I'm not sure who would be more likely to unleash some sort of horrible biological weapon upon the world -- Al-Qaeda or an enviro-loonie group that thinks we need to slaughter half the planet to prevent global warming.

First off from NEWs.com.au,

"HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags, says a report to be published today by a green think tank.

The paper by the Optimum Population Trust will say that if couples had two children instead of three they could cut their family's carbon dioxide output by the equivalent of 620 return flights a year between London and New York.

John Guillebaud, co-chairman of OPT and emeritus professor of family planning at University College London, said: "The effect on the planet of having one child less is an order of magnitude greater than all these other things we might do, such as switching off lights.

"The greatest thing anyone in Britain could do to help the future of the planet would be to have one less child."

..."The decision to have children should be seen as a very big one and one that should take the environment into account," he added."

Next, from the Business and Media Institute,

"Apparently, saving the whales is more important than saving 5.5 billion people. Paul Watson, founder and president of the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society and famous for militant intervention to stop whalers, now warns mankind is “acting like a virus” and is harming Mother Earth.

Watson’s May 4 editorial asked the question “The Beginning of the End for Life as We Know it on Planet Earth?” Then he left no doubt about the answer. “We are killing our host the planet Earth,” he claimed and called for a population drop to less than 1 billion.

...“No human community should be larger than 20,000 people and separated from other communities by wilderness areas.” New York, London, Paris, Moscow are all too big. Then again, so are Moose Jaw, Timbuktu and even Annapolis, Md.

...“Sea transportation should be by sail. The big clippers were the finest ships ever built and sufficient to our needs. Air transportation should be by solar powered blimps when air transportation is necessary.”

...Watson essentially called for humans to return to primitive lifestyles. “We need to stop flying, stop driving cars, and jetting around on marine recreational vehicles. The Mennonites survive without cars and so can the rest of us.”

We need to return to primitive lifestyles and only use sail boats....yeah, right. Is it just me or does this guy sound like the Unabomber?

One of the problems with liberalism in general and environmentalists in particular is that they commonly use rhetoric that would fully justify horrific violence if it were true. If you believe Bush is Hitler, well then why would you feel any qualms about committing violence against Hitler? If you think the government was behind 9/11, then would you think it was wrong to seek payback for the innocent people that were killed that day? If you think that the only way to save the world is for billions of people to die, then doesn't mass murder on an unimaginable scale become an act of benevolence in your mind?

The only thing that surprises me is that these kooky leftists don't take their rhetoric to its ultimate, violent conclusion more often.