Greens v. the poor: It’s a movement of the ‘haves’ duping the 'have nots'

New York Post ^ | 09/18/2014 | By Naomi Schaefer Riley

[SeekAndFind]

Looking for something to do this weekend that will help those less fortunate than you? Better steer clear of the People’s Climate Change March.

Set to start Sunday morning on the Upper West Side, the march includes everything from labor unions to synagogues, beekeepers to anarchists, anti-Zionists to anti-corporate groups.

The thousands of marchers will, the Web site tells us, “take to the streets to demand the world we know is within our reach: a world with an economy that works for people and the planet; a world safe from the ravages of climate change; a world with good jobs, clean air and water, and healthy communities.”

What could be wrong with that? Well, here’s the thing about environmentalists: They have a long history of screwing the poor.

The religion of environmentalism, you see, does everything it can to stop economic growth from happening. Preferring things to be more “natural” typically means restricting energy use, technological advancement and the progress of civilization itself.

Sure, the Sierra Club folks have traded in their Volvos for even-more-expensive Priuses.

But they’re still largely the “haves.” A Pew Poll in March found that the two big groups opposing the Keystone XL pipeline were 1) those who make more than $100,000 and 2) Democrats with college or advanced degrees.

[oldtech]

Sounds like I had them sized up just about right. When you realize this whole “man-caused” climate change thing is a ruse,then you start thinking about who might be behind it. Good trick if you can pull it off....getting the poor to help the rich.

[Organic Panic]

Those poor living in slums burning elephant dung for cooking don't need modern luxuries. Those are saved for our benevolent overlords.

I have intestinal parasites, live in a garbage dump, and will die from disentary before I'm 30. But I have a small carbon footprint and recycle for Al Gore.

[defconw]

"As for organic crops, the “natural” ones that wealthy suburban moms favor, they require 20 percent to 40 percent more land to produce the same yield. To go organic, Entine explains, “You have to clearcut more land to grow less food. You’ve used more tractors and consumed more carbon.”

Yep!

[tbw2]

And turn a lot of wilderness into marginally productive cropland.

[defconw]

Yes and lets not get started on how much food costs have gone up since the idiots thought it would be a good idea to make bio-fuel.

There are days when I wish the grid would go down! The at least I never would have to hear from these nitwits again. The sight of Algore or that nitiwt Kennedy cousin and my head expands.

[Dr. Thorne]