--------------------------
Spot on DBCJR!
Gore Exposed
Posted on 04/18/2011 8:29:59 PM PDT by TheDingoAteMyBaby
When the proponents today of “green” energy call for massive reductions in carbon emissions, they lead us to believe that their goal is to protect human beings from the negative consequences of a warmer planet. But is it?
The Ayn Rand Institute has been saying for years that, while the environmentalist movement has led the public to believe its goal is human welfare, this is a ruse. As Peter Schwartz wrote in “Man vs. Nature” more than a decade ago:
The common view of environmentalism is that its goal is the betterment of mankind—that it wants to purify our air and clean up our parks so that we can live healthier and happier lives. But that is a very superficial interpretation. When environmentalists are faced with a conflict between the “interests” of nature and those of man, it is man who is invariably sacrificed. If there is a choice between electric power for human beings and swimming lanes for salmon, it is always the fish that are given priority. If there is a choice between cutting down trees for human use and leaving them untouched for the spotted owl, it is always the bird’s home that is saved and human habitation that goes unbuilt. Why?
Because the requirements of human life are not the standard by which environmentalists make their judgments. Their goal is to maintain nature in its virginal state—despite the demonstrable harm this inflicts upon people. They want to preserve wildernesses, to enshrine wetlands, to tear down dams and levees—i.e., to prevent the man-made “intrusions” upon nature.
What does it mean if wilderness, not human life, is the standard by which environmentalists operate? In Schwartz’s words, “[it] means that man must suffer so that nature remains pristine.”
ARC fellow Dr. Keith Lockitch expands on this point:
Everything we do to sustain our lives has an impact on nature. Every value we create to advance our well-being—every ounce of food we grow, every structure we build, every iPhone we manufacture—is produced by extracting raw materials and reshaping them to serve our needs. Every good thing in our lives comes from altering nature for our own benefit.
Human survival, by its nature, requires re-shaping the earth to meet our needs. So if the environmentalist goal is to preserve the earth as is, it is human survival and progress that must be sacrificed. One of the most concrete, gross examples of this is the environmentalist campaign against DDT in the 1960’s. Dr. Lockitch explains:
The environmental crusade against DDT began with Rachel Carson’s antipesticide diatribe “Silent Spring,” published in 1962 at the height of the worldwide antimalaria campaign. The widespread spraying of DDT had caused a spectacular drop in malaria incidence—Sri Lanka, for example, reported 2.8 million malaria victims in 1948, but by 1963 it had only 17. Yet Carson’s book made no mention of this. It said nothing of DDT’s crucial role in eradicating malaria in industrialized countries, or of the tens of millions of lives saved by its use.
Instead, Carson filled her book with misinformation—alleging, among other claims, that DDT causes cancer. Her unsubstantiated assertion that continued DDT-use would unleash a cancer epidemic generated a panicked fear of the pesticide that endures as public opinion to this day.
[…]
In the few minutes it has taken you to read this article, over a thousand people have contracted malaria and half a dozen have died. This is the life-or-death consequence of viewing pestilent insects as a “necessary” component of a “vibrant biosphere” and seeking a “reasonable accommodation” with them.
Similarly, today’s “green” energy proponents oppose every form of practical, cheap energy in order to minimize the human impact of industrialization on the earth. In his essay “Energy Privation: The Environmentalist Campaign Against Energy,” Dr. Lockitch notes:
Oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear power, hydroelectricity. Altogether, these sources provide essentially all of the world’s energy—more than 98% of it, to be exact. They collectively supply more than 96% of the world’s electricity, while petroleum alone accounts for more than 94% of the world’s transportation fuel. These energy sources are what currently power our modern world, and, given their indispensable role in agriculture, manufacturing, transportation, and all the other elements of industrial civilization, it’s no exaggeration to say that they are literally keeping us all alive.
Yet, mainstream environmental groups systematically reject each one as unacceptable forms of energy.
With “green” alternatives like solar and wind being fantasy energy solutions, could the motive of “green” energy proponents actually be to oppose human welfare in the name of erasing man’s “footprint” from the earth? That is the controversial proposition Ayn Rand argues for at length in her book Return of the Primitive.
If you have questions about the “green energy” campaign and its opposition to every practical form of energy, or about environmentalism more broadly, be sure to submit them here and watch the live Q&A on Earth Day (Friday, April 22) at 9 a.m. PST to hear your questions answered by Dr. Keith Lockitch and ARC fellow Alex Epstein.
Gore and his carbon credit exchange and Cap & Trade proved saving the planet was not his motivation. Making more money than Sadam Hussein on Oil For Food was.
Progress IS NOT pimping Marx, Stalin and Che’ to the “unwashed masses” and “useful idiots”. That’s just flatulence. Real Progress requires the production of carbon emissions.
--------------------------
Spot on DBCJR!
Gore Exposed
Bttt.
Love that cover! Amazing what they can do with airbrush, huh?
You don’t mean to say that this photograph was retouched, do you?
Christians used to call it good stewardship - using only what you need in a responsible manner, but understanding the materials of the earth were gifts from God.
Oh, BTW, in Wisconsin going green is a way of life - Go Packers!
While basically true, the article completely misses the reality of today’s environmental movement.
It has been usurped by the Marxists for their purposes. You crush energy production in this country and you crush the country. That is the real goal of the real Marxist lead environmental movement. All the rest is just for show.
The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule. - H. L. Mencken
...while the environmentalist movement has led the public to believe its goal is human welfare, this is a ruse.And, an apropos quote xcamel (now banned) used to use for a tagline:
The urge to save humanity is always a false front for the urge to rule it. - H. L. Mencken
Enviro guilt is virile among young women. They are totally brainwashed to believe their purpose in life is to make a difference. They do so by making adjustments to all their actions to appear Environmentally Correct. They make marginal adjustments the sum total of which are trivial in all but self esteem and critical analysis of others.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
