There is a grave danger facing mankind. The danger is not from acid rain, global warming, smog, or the logging of rain forests, as environmentalists would have us believe. The danger to mankind is from environmentalism.
The fundamental goal of environmentalists is not clean air and clean water; rather it is the demolition of technological/industrial civilization. Their goal is not the advancement of human health, human happiness, and human life; rather it is a subhuman world where “nature” is worshipped like the totem of some primitive religion. So to me there is no challenge to India other than eradication of poverty, creation of employment and economic growth if unless people like R.K. Pachauri think otherwise.
I do not know whether there is “Global Warming” or not. There is definitely “Global propaganda.”
The media are not giving the facts about global warming. Consider just a few examples of what is left unreported: In the last twenty years, NASA satellites have actually detected a 0.19ºF drop in temperature in the earth’s atmosphere. From 1946 to 1975, while industrialization spread and carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increased, temperatures actually cooled. Seventeen thousand American scientists have signed the Oregon Petition declaring that “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
Why are the media not searching out and reporting these kinds of fact?
The key to the answer is that such facts challenge the environmentalist premise accepted blindly by most in the media that civilized man is destroying the natural world. This view of man as inherently destructive automatically leads reporters to distrust all that man creates. That is why most reporters unquestioningly report that factories, power plants and cars are causing a catastrophic warming of the earth. And that is why thirty years ago they unquestioningly reported that these same factories, power plants and cars were causing a catastrophic global cooling. In the United States of America, Green activists have been pushing for “renewable energy” for decades, even though it shows little promise after billions of dollars in government subsidies of ever being practical and inexpensive. Nevertheless, plans are springing up all over the country for large-scale solar, wind and geothermal projects. Such is the nature of the Global Warming Fraud.
But now, in addition to their enormous technical obstacles, these green power projects are facing fierce opposition from environmentalists. The Bureau of Land Management has reportedly received more than 130 proposals to build solar power plants on federal lands in the Southwest. New transmission lines to carry the power from the sun-baked deserts to places where electricity users actually live are also under consideration. However, the solar applications are mired in environmental impact studies, which one solar industry executive said “could completely stunt the growth of the industry.” And the plans for new transmission capacity are being ferociously protested by environmentalists decrying the “permanent destruction of hundreds of thousands of acres of pristine public lands.”
This just shows the true objective of green activism. Environmentalists don’t actually want us to find alternative ways of producing energy; they want us to stop using energy altogether. The basic premise of environmentalism is to leave nature alone. Capturing and utilizing any source of energy even ones that are supposedly green and renewable will necessarily have some impact on nature, and will therefore inevitably be subject to environmentalist attacks and condemnation.
Since the use of energy is an indispensable component of everything we do in our lives, the greens’ opposition to even such ridiculous, impractical sources of energy as solar and wind reveals their basic animus against human life.
An exasperated Arnold Schwarzenegger said ‘if we cannot put solar power plants in the Mojave Desert, I don’t know where the hell we can put it.’ But that is the whole point. On green philosophy, there is literally no place on earth for mankind.
Such is the condition of the Americans. Now, just imagine how difficult it is for the government to get land for industrial projects like Ratan Tata learned in Singur, West Bengal. Would the response for a solar power project be any different? Would a mass mob of uneducated or partially educated people understand? Would the venal and ill literate politician understand even basic concepts of energy physics and environment?
I being a student of Economics know of something called as creative destruction. Joseph Schumpeter said that growth occurs usually in spurts, because of competition and declining profits inspires entrepreneurs to innovate. This led to theory of trade cycle and into a notion of dynamic competition called creative destruction. When there is a tendency for firms to acquire a degree of monopoly power, competition no longer takes place through price mechanism but instead through innovation. Perhaps because monopolies often become lazy, successful innovation may come from new entrants to a market, who takes it away from the incumbent thus blowing “gales of creative destruction” through the economy. Eventually, the new entrants grow fat on their monopoly profits, until the next gale of creative destruction blows them away.
So demands for the new environment friendly goods caused by the paranoia of “the inevitable consequences of man’s sins against nature” are nothing but a consequence of this creative destruction and this entire media circus around them is an elaborate marketing/advertising strategy.
With organic food in every grocery store and hybrid cars on every stretch of the highway, “green consumerism” has become commonplace. But a backlash against such allegedly “earth friendly” shopping is arising; critics within the environmentalist movement are condemning the trend as superficial and contradictory. Says one environmental activist: “green consumerism is an oxymoronic phrase.”
This criticism is extremely revealing about the true nature of environmentalism. For decades, many environmentalists have insisted that protecting the environment is not incompatible with industrial civilization. To make their ideology more palatable, they regularly promise that living ‘sustainably’ doesn’t have to come at too great an economic cost or personal hardship. But when people finally begin to come on board and make allegedly ‘pro-environment’ choices, they are condemned as ‘light greens’ and ‘eco-narcissists’.
The truth is that environmentalism is not compatible with human flourishing. It does demand economic destruction and unbearable hardship. The claim that its goal is to protect the environment for the sake of mankind is a Big Lie. Its goal is to protect nature, not for man, but from man. To preserve an untouched environment as an end in itself, no matter what cost or hardship that imposes on human beings.
Anyone who thinks that ‘eco-chic’ is consistent with the principles of environmentalism had better think harder about the true nature of the ideology they are trying to support. What environmentalism truly demands is sacrifice to nature the rejection of our modern, industrial civilization in favor of the decidedly un-chic, unglamorous hardship of a primitive, pre-industrial and stone-age existence.
If the good of man were the aim of environmentalists, they would embrace the industry and technology that have eradicated the diseases, plagues, pestilence, and famines that brought wholesale death and destruction prior to the Industrial Revolution. They would embrace free enterprise and technology as the only solution to the relatively minor dangers that now exist, minor compared to the risks of living in a non-technological world. But by word and deed, they demonstrate their contempt for human life.
Housing, commerce, and jobs are sacrificed to spotted owls and snail darters. Medical research is sacrificed to the “rights” of mice. Logging is sacrificed to the “rights” of trees. No instance of the progress which brought man out of the cave is safe from the onslaught of those “protecting” the environment from man, whom they consider a rapist and despoiler by his very essence.
The Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) is more a political group rather than a scientific one. Many people are calling for drastic political action to cope with climate change. They feel that global warming can be effectively dealt with only by “an authoritarian form of government.”
David Shearman (one of them) praises China’s recent ban on plastic shopping bags, expressing special admiration for its authoritarian quality. “The importance of the decision,” he writes, “lies in the fact that China can do it by edict and close the factories.”
Views like this reveal an ugly and ominous aspect of the political frenzy surrounding global warming. Though easy to dismiss as overwrought and atypical, such views expose a very real authoritarianism underlying the calls for action on climate change.
While few global-warming activists are willing, as Shearman is, to come out in favor of openly dictatorial policies, the kinds of laws and regulations that activists do call for will hand a comparably frightening degree of control over our lives to politicians and environmentalist bureaucrats.
In one form or another, every minute of our every day involves the emission of carbon dioxide, the primary greenhouse gas claimed to be the cause of climate change. Every moment we spend running our computers, lighting our homes, powering countless labor-saving appliances, driving to work or school or anywhere else; we are using industrial-scale energy to make our lives better. But global-warming activists want our use of the fossil fuels that provide the major source of that energy to be strictly controlled by the government and severely curtailed, no matter the harm that causes.
Despite the constant assertion that global-warming science is “settled” it is far from certain that we face any sort of catastrophic global emergency. But in the name of ‘saving the world’ from unproven threats, such activists want to impose a draconian regimen of taxes, laws, regulations and controls that would affect the minutest details of our existence. Their solution to their projected ‘environmental disaster’ is to impose an actual economic disaster by restricting the energy that powers our civilization and subjecting its use to severe political control.
Let us not allow panic over the exaggerated claims of climate alarmists to deliver us into the hands of would-be carbon dictators. Environmentalists’ anti-industrial philosophy is the reason why they oppose every large-scale, practical source of energy (coal, oil, gas, nuclear) while offering as an alternative only fantasies of super-abundant ‘alternative energy’ or, in more honest moments, the asceticism of ‘conservation.’ Industrial energy is the lifeblood of civilization. Without fossil fuels and nuclear power, the normal person’s food, clothing, shelter, and medical care, let alone the posh, power-gulping mansions of celebrity environmentalist hypocrites would be impossible.
Environmentalists have been attacking energy production in and around the world for decades now, raising prices and creating shortages. These environmentalists need to be stopped rather than the industrialists.
Politicians and environmentalists are not calling on people just to change a few light bulbs; they are calling for a truly massive reduction in carbon emissions as much as 80 percent below 1990 levels. Because our energy is overwhelmingly carbon-based (in 2005, fossil fuels made up 86 percent of world energy production), this necessarily means a massive reduction in our energy consumption.
The ideal world of environmentalists is not 20th-century Western civilization; it is the Garden of Eden, a world with no human intervention in nature, a world without innovation, a world without effort, a world where survival is somehow guaranteed, a world where man has mystically merged with the “environment.” Had the environmentalist mentality prevailed in the 18th and 19th centuries, we would have had no Industrial Revolution, a situation environmentalists would cheer, at least those few who might have managed to survive without the life-saving benefits of modern science and technology.
The expressed goal of environmentalism is to prevent man from changing his environment, from intruding on nature. That is why environmentalism and this whole global warming fiasco are fundamentally anti-man. May truth, justice and industrialization prevail!