Ever notice how environmental groups are obsesses with anything that can reduce the growth of the human population – disease, poverty, famine, and lack of energy are all pursued as part of the Green agenda.
As the greatest hoax of the modern era, "global warming", bites the dust around the world, it behooves us all to contemplate why environmentalists — Greens — would attempt to hoodwink the world's population into believing they could do anything to "control" the planet's climate.
One singular fact stands out in all Green propaganda and permeates all the legislation and other programs they sponsor. It is a contempt and disdain for the Earth's human population. The leaders of the movement hate humanity. Obsessed with population growth, anything that can reduce it — disease, poverty, famine, or lack of energy is pursued as part of the Green agenda.
The Green movement grew out of an earlier, more salutary one, conservation. We can surely thank Americans such as John Muir and others who sought to preserve tracts of wilderness such as Yellowstone and the nation's forested areas from the rampant depredations of the 1800s and early 1900s. The nation owes a debt of gratitude to President Theodore Roosevelt for the initial creation of national parks and forests.
As the nation industrialized, rivers suffered pollution and the air was polluted by factories that befouled both. In 1970 President Richard M. Nixon signed into being the Environmental Protection Agency which, empowered by the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, can be credited to early success.
However, like all government agencies, the EPA has steadily sought to expand its powers and, aided by other environmentally related agencies such as the Fish and Wildlife Service and the Corps of Engineers, it has relentlessly pursued ever larger control over all the land and waters of the nation, and by extension over everyone's life.
They pose a threat to the constitutionally protected right to private property, vital to the nation's economy and a keystone of capitalism.
The growth of literally hundreds of "environmental" organizations has led to an endless barrage of scare campaigns, often without any basis in science, and used to undermine the industrial, agricultural, and transportation sectors of the nation's economy.
On a global scale, the United Nations Environmental Program and its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have pursued an agenda devoid of scientific merit or justification.
The lies about Alar came close to wrecking apple growers. The lies about the spotted owl species laid waste to the Northwest's timber industry. New claims about alleged dangers from plastic bottles are based on lies.
The lie that carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, has anything to do with "warming" has driven the totally deceitful "global warming" hoax and is used to create a market for worthless "carbon credits" that ultimately increase the cost of energy and everything else.
The introduction of the Endangered Species Act is one long history of near constant failure in pursuit of a foolish goal, advocating for obscure species while thwarting all manner of projects useful to the human species. It has been used to impoverish farmers in Oregon and California.
The truth is that the Earth is actually cooling, not warming. Carbon dioxide is not a "pollutant." The North and South Poles are not melting. Sea levels worldwide are not rising any more than they have for millennia. Polar bears are thriving. Solar and wind energy is a bust, providing barely 1% of all electricity used daily nationwide.
The truth is that pesticides protect people against insect and rodent-borne diseases and property damage. Saving "endangered species" ignores the fact that 95% of all the species that previously existed are now extinct.
The truth is that nothing humans do has any affect on the climate that is dependent on solar and ocean cycles.
The Greens are now famous for their campaigns against products from toilet paper to plastic bags, bottles, and everything else made from plastic, a petroleum derivative. Anyone who buys "environmentally" approved products is being charged a premium for their own gullibility. Every supermarket and store in America has comparable, safe products at far lower costs.
Americans are constantly harangued to adopt Green lifestyles. Generations of young Americans have suffered the child abuse of being told that the Earth is doomed despite its 4.5 billion-year existence.
Corporations that advertise and promote their "Green" credentials pander to environmental hoaxes in order to avoid criticism and generate an "environmentally friendly" public image.
The real environmental message speaks to a hatred of humanity and the many technological, medical, agricultural, and other achievements that have enhanced, improved, and saved the lives of millions.
If you hate energy, join an environmental organization.
If you hate science, join an environmental organization.
If you hate jobs in America, join an environmental organization.
If you hate industrial and agricultural development and progress, join an environmental organization.
And if you hate humanity, join an environmental organization.
Alan,
In your posting you state; “… it behooves us all to contemplate why environmentalists — Greens — would attempt to hoodwink the world’s population into believing they could do anything to “control” the planet’s climate.”
I’m more inclined to believe that the environmentalists are out to control the planet’s population. It is practically conventional wisdom that as more and more of the radical socialist groups began to be exposed for what they truly were, that most migrated from these ‘outed’ organizations into the ‘green’ organizations.
The EPA’s expanded powers, the UN’s agenda 21, sustainable development, cap & trade, and the other environmental nostrums, are nothing more that social justice income redistribution programs dressed up in the garb of ‘climate change’.
The environmental groups love humanity, its people they can’t stand! One can only draw the conclusion that in their estimation, a smaller US population would be more easily controlled. Environmentalists aren’t clamoring for population reductions in Western European countries. Interestingly enough almost all Western European countries are birthing at well below population replacement rates. Nor are they demanding population control techniques be employed in Muslim countries. Probably because their political philosophy most closely matches up with the Theocratic Principles espoused by the Islamic Religion.
Actually; the more you compare the two, Islamism and environmentalism, the more similarities you discover. Both ‘religions’ preach submission; and they both have strict principles for the control of each and every aspect of one’s life and how to live it. Neither organization brooks any disagreement: And both are likely to issue a violent response to any who object to their teachings.
I think you have done an excellent job of connecting the dots. Bravo!
It is my contention that we should boycott all businesses that proclaim their green credentials. I have told many people who told me about how green their company was that that would be the one reason that I may choose to not do business with them. I have been an advocate for dumping the EPA since their complete bungling of the snail darter fiasco. There can be no accurate figure what this cost our economy not to mention the quality of life that the EPA cost the people that live in the TVA area. Then we can go into the overt lie about the spotted owl. You cannot introduce legislation that would curb the powers of the EPA, they should be closed down. Is this a possibility? Highly unlikely until the people get involved via anti-green tea parties and I don’t see that happening.
hvance,
While I agree with everything about your posting; i.e. that the EPA is a bungling, authoritian, entity; you must understand that they are performing exactly the function the environmental progressives desire.
The environmental progressives’ desire economic chaos, the more the better for them to begin the required re-direction of economic development and redistribution they see as ideal. The EPA is supposed to ruin our present manner of doing business.
I also happen to agree with your premise that the EPA should be disbanded. My belief is that the best manner in which to truly ‘protect’ our resources is through private property ownership. No one takes better care of property that the owners because it is against his/her best interest to fail to properly manage the resources he/she owns. It is when environmental progressives force non-development through ‘forced’ (read court) takings that property deteriorates. One only has to look at our national forests to see this in action. For decades, environmentally progressive activists closed off vast areas of the national forests ostensibly to keep these areas unaffected by humans and save them for future generations. By not managing these areas with controlled burns; now when a fire erupts in one of these areas, we lose the whole forest for generations. Never mind that we have just as many, if not more, trees than when the Pilgrims landed here. This manner of ‘protection’ is practically conventional wisdom.
Look at the mandatory ‘green belt’ areas that are so popularly legislated around the metropolitan areas of large cities. These areas do not do anything other than restrict development of these areas, artificially propping up existing developed property values, and forcing the overwhelming majority of workers into long commutes from areas where housing is affordable, to their jobs in the cities where the employment is. This causes a larger volume of tailpipe emissions, which the same environmental progressives deplore.
Environmental progressives love hybrid vehicles. But electric cars that have to be recharged each night do nothing to save the environment. All they do is change the actual emission point from the tailpipe to the power plant smoke stack.
Environmental progressives are not at all about technological development or energy independence. They are all about control. Their vision of a world that pollutes at the levels of a century ago is actually a vision of the world moving back to the practices of a century ago. If that means the average life span of a human goes back to 50 and that the planet can only support 1 billion people; well then it, in their mind, would be well worth the deaths of 5 billion souls and the abandonment of all the technological, medical, agricultural, and other societal advances of the last 100 years.
Alan,
Although, I agree with and respect much of what you wrote, I found some of it difficult to defend as stated. You know I am no friend of the Greens, but if we are to make headway in debunking nonsense, we need to take care we avoid painting ourselves into indefensible positions, which the opposition can then use to make us appear the fools.
First, your first few sentences infer “all Greens” are meant in the effort to ‘hoodwink’. Your second paragraph amends this somewhat by telling us it is the “leaders of the movement” who do this, yet generally leaves readers imagining the all-inclusive assertion still holds (i.e., leaders and rank-&-file in cahoots to defraud and inflict harm). My experience of Greens is they are sincere in most of what they say and believe. The real problem is they are wrong, and dangerously so in their closed-to-reason zealotry. Surely, we all realize most Greens are convinced of what they are doing with very little real animus against mankind (other than to scold). To be sure, there are some few who really do hate humanity because, in their estimation, mankind is a parasite to be excised. We know this to be true because we have witnessed both their violence and vitriol. The average Green, however, merely contributes to causes that sound right to the uncritical ear, and defends all that is done in his/her name around the water-cooler; never realizing they, too, are in the crosshairs. These are the lemmings caught up in the excitement of participating in feel-good ‘save our planet’ convulsions. We can’t even claim, with certainty, this animus is uniformly true of the movement’s leadership, as some are clearly out more to exploit than to exterminate (just want us caged and repentant). Most Greens, like most socialists, are simply control-freaks who imagine they fight the good-fight when all they really are is a pain-in-the-butt and grow government at everyone’s expense. Thus, the ‘all inclusive’ accusation can be readily attacked as untrue and unfair if not suitably modified or (better yet) backed by better proof and so many examples piled on as will make the assertion unassailable. There is no question your assertion is technically accurate regarding a large part of the Green leadership (and it is they who dominate the movement), but painting with too broad a brush only undermines the point you made.
Next, what you say regarding Teddy Roosevelt and pre-1970s environmentalism gives both too much credit. Yes, there was more in need of fixing and the demands were less hyped, but the hype, hatred and even self-loathing were there. Remember, that was also the era of Rachel Carson’s bogus claims against DDT, microwave radiation hysteria, China-syndrome, species extinction, peak-oil (1953, 1965, & 1974) false reports, toxic food scares, Malthusian predictions, and holes in the ozone. As much as I would like to debunk the ‘myth’ that Teddy belongs to the environmentalists (i.e., was more than just a conservationist), there was enough of the environmentalist in him to make that difficult. I like to think he’d revise his policies downward knowing some of it endangered (in some cases destroyed) the very animals he meant to protect. But, this is something we can’t really know, and it is bogus pretending to what dead people would or would not say based on past performance – and just as indefensible when we do it as when leftist do it (e.g., what would Jesus drive?). It is one thing debunking Green contentions Teddy was one of theirs, another claiming he wasn’t.
Finally, you are on shaky ground arguing the IPCC “pursued an agenda devoid of scientific merit or justification”. There is merit in the science (if not the agenda) if only because it has advanced weather prediction, data extraction, and modeling capabilities somewhat. Of course, there is the counter-argument more has been spent on these things than the results warrant, money better spent on other things or not at all; but that was not the point you made. What the IPCC has been doing is advancing the science in one direction to the exclusion of other directions. Worse, they have waged a propaganda campaign to close off debate. This makes it bad science, but hardly devoid of merit or justification. Some of the science has been very good, even while myopically focused. The justification is a perceived threat. There is nothing wrong in investigating possible threats, so long as you follow and not force the evidence. The real problem is in not putting it and the paranoia it begets properly to rest. I agree with you the IPCC has been pursuing a policy detrimental to humans, but the agenda appears more one of cutting the U.S. down to size than cutting humanity down to size. Where it is actually harmful to humans is less by design than indifference.
Ask yourself why an organization like the IPCC and its supporters would favor bad science over good if either can be made to serve their objectives. Insisting on the former risks embarrassment not just of the science but also exposing your agenda. This suggests, at least initially, the IPCC steering committee was convinced of the theory. Sometime later, they perceived its potential (i.e., let no crisis should go to waste) for growing their power. Still later, when initiatives were proposed for curbing GHGs with penalties for non-compliance, they joined the chorus insisting America should bear the brunt of compliance. Putatively, they did so because America generates half of all man-made GHGs, but the real reason is a palpable hostility toward America (not quite as bad as the jihadist, but sympathetic enough to sometimes make common cause). Final, the science failed to produce the expected result so they began propping it up as too necessary to the agenda created along the way. We only assume these guys are so clever they thought all this up beforehand, but it is far more like the means have been derived through adaptation to changing circumstance, and it is likely they are as surprised by their success as anyone.
Closer to home, what happens is these phobias take on a life of their own; creating vested interests in them as we go. The scientist begins innocently enough investigating a just plausible idea and winds up with research grants such that he cannot, thereafter, let go of the idea without destroying his career and credibility. To the media it is grist for the mill, for the politician it is the conviction this something he/she can fix and once committed cannot admit to error without losing face, to the professional society there’s the need to stay authoritative, to the consultant to respond as expected, to the entrepreneur it is an opportunity to cash in, to the publicly humiliated corporation it is a question of being above reproach, &c. To some extent, many of these participants jumped on the bandwagon because interests dovetail (e.g., climate-research gets funded because of a policy shift, bureaucracy expands to service the research, opportunity to declare yourself an expert creates whole new ‘professions’, market opportunities create media attention, &c). Somewhere within this broad mix is the handful of radicals who take over the lead in these causes as a means to havoc. So it is not just a matter of ideologues and hostiles who do this to us, it is also us (aka, ordinary people without an agenda) doing it to ourselves by making course-reversal nigh impossible. Worse, most of these mutually reinforce by giving an appearance they are only responding to the others; at least, until the whole thing implodes from absurdity with each participant forever after disclaiming involvement, yet leaving the agenda, itself, fixed in policy because it now harms too many and cost too much to dismantle.
The Chinese have a saying: Beware what you wish for because you may get it. Well, enough wished and we got it.