Dear Anna Maria Tremonti,

I listened with some anticipation to your program entitled: IPCC Climate Change Report: Official prophecy of doom? Monday, March 31, 2014. Advertising for your program placed a focus upon availability of water as the world warms. I had recently read a PNAS publication by Schewe et al. (2013) which clearly shows that rising human population is the primary cause of water scarcity with global warming being a perturbation that enhanced that primary effect. Any clear thinking person would also realize that carbon dioxide emissions are only a problem because there are so many people doing the emitting and because the natural ecosystems that assimlate carbon dioxide have been largely obliterated in order to sustain the 7 billion (and growing) human population. So, I anxiously anticipated that The Current would consider the primary influence of population.

Most of your program went by without any mention of population. Nevertheless, it was clear that you were preparing the ground by interviewing guests like Dr Evan Fraser who predicted that agricultural yield would decline by 2% per decade. His solutions: develop more resistant cultivars, forgive loans for farmers, better food storage. Dr Fraser didn't think that overpopulation might be a problem. He trotted out the well-worn line that Canada had a big land base with a small population. Apparently Dr Fraser is not aware that only 13% of Canada is suitable for agriculture and most of that land is only marginally suitable. Presently, what little Class 1 farmland that we have is being built over due to immigrant-driven urban growth.

Dr Fraser also forgets that the world has become globalized. Agricultural production in Canada will not feed poor Canadians if there are rich people elsewhere who will pay more!

The population issue was raised about 16 minutes into the second segment of the program. It began with an introductory recording of Alan Weisman. Mr Weisman observed that environmental impact is related to the the number of people. Mr Weisman proposed that the overpopulation issue could be addressed by ensuring the availability of contraception and female education.

You (Anna Maria) then rephrased "availability of contraception and female education" as "population control" before turning the matter over to your guests.

Anna Maria, now we see the extreme bias of yourself and the CBC. Making contraception available is not "population control". Education is not "population control". "Population control" is what the Pope does when he pressures the Philippine Government to deny access to contraception.

Tzeporah Berman (an environmental activist) says the overpopulation question is "heading us in the wrong direction". Tzeporah thinks that more efficient cars are the solution! In other words, Tzeporah thinks that the market for automobiles is saturated. Isn't it wonderful what those pretty green blinkers will do for you?

Next, you (Anna Maria) turned to Patricia McAnany, an anthropologist. Patricia says that she thinks that the "size of world population is a concern" but then she catches herself. No, Patricia can't agree with Alan Weisman, instead she says that education is the way to go.

What? But Weisman did advocate female education. So we are left wondering why Patricia would enlighten women and then deny them access to contraception? Patricia goes on to say there is NOT enough reproduction in some places! Finally, the clincher, 20 minutes into part 2, Patricia proclaims that "high population is linked to environmental imperialism". Anna Maria purred like a pussy cat...

This isn't programming, it's population-pushing propaganda.

Yours faithfully,
Brian Sanderson

Postscript On Thursday 3 April The Current reviewed correspondence from listeners. There was no mention of any correspondence relating to the role that population has played in causing climate change.