Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 05/23/2008 3:57:46 AM PDT by mkleesma
I ADMIT IT: I'm no environmentalist. But I like to think I'm something of a conservationist.
No doubt for millions of Americans this is a distinction without a difference, as the two words are usually used interchangeably. But they're different things, and the country would be better off if we sharpened the distinctions between both word and concept.
At its core, environmentalism is a kind of nature worship. It's a holistic ideology, shot through with religious sentiment. "If you look carefully," author Michael Crichton observed, "you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths."
Environmentalism's most renewable resources are fear, guilt and moral bullying. Its worldview casts man as a sinful creature who, through the pursuit of forbidden knowledge, abandoned our Edenic past. John Muir, who laid the philosophical foundations of modern environmentalism, described humans as "selfish, conceited creatures." Salvation comes from shedding our sins, rejecting our addictions (to oil, consumerism, etc.) and demonstrating an all-encompassing love of Mother Earth. Quoth Al Gore: "The climate crisis is not a political issue; it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity."
I heard Gore on NPR recently. He was asked about evangelical pastor Joseph Hagee's absurd comment that Hurricane Katrina was God's wrath for New Orleans' sexual depravity. Naturally, Gore chuckled at such backwardness. But then the Nobel laureate went on to blame Katrina on man's energy sinfulness. It struck me that the two men are not so different. If only canoodling Big Easy residents had adhered to "The Greenpeace Guide to Environmentally Friendly Sex." Environmentalists insist that their movement is a secular one. But using the word "secular" no more makes you secular than using the word "Christian" automatically means you behave like a Christian. Pioneering green lawyer Joseph Sax describes environmentalists as "secular prophets, preaching a message of secular salvation." Gore, too, has been dubbed a "prophet." A green-themed California hotel provides Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" next to the Bible and a Buddhist tome.
Whether or not it's adopted the trappings of religion, my biggest beef with environmentalism is how comfortably irrational it is. It touts ritual over reality, symbolism over substance, while claiming to be so much more rational and scientific than those silly sky-God worshipers and deranged oil addicts.
It often seems that displaying faith in the green cause is more important than advancing the green cause. The U.S. government just put polar bears on the threatened species list because climate change is shrinking the Arctic ice where they live. Never mind that polar bears are in fact thriving -- their numbers have quadrupled in the last 50 years. Never mind that full implementation of the Kyoto protocols on greenhouse gases would save exactly one polar bear, according to Danish social scientist Bjorn Lomborg, author of the book "Cool It!" Yet 300 to 500 polar bears could be saved every year, Lomborg says, if there were a ban on hunting them. What's cheaper -- trillions to trim carbon emissions, or a push for a ban on polar bear hunting?
Plastic grocery bags are being banned, even though they require less energy to make and recycle than paper ones. The country is being forced to subscribe to a modern version of transubstantiation, whereby corn is miraculously transformed into sinless energy even as it does worse damage than oil.
Conservation, which shares roots and meaning with conservatism, stands athwart this mass hysteria. Yes, conservationism can have a religious element as well, but that stems from the biblical injunction to be a good steward of the Earth, rather than a worshiper of it. But stewardship involves economics, not mysticism.
Economics is the study of choosing between competing goods. Environmentalists view economics as the enemy because cost-benefit analysis is thoroughly unromantic. Lomborg is a heretic because he treats natural-world challenges like economic ones, seeking to spend money where it will maximize good, not just good feelings among environmentalists.
Many self-described environmentalists are in fact conservationists. But the environmental movement wins battles by blurring this distinction, arguing that all lovers of nature must follow their lead. At the same time, many people open to conservationist arguments, like hunters, are turned off by even reasonable efforts because they do not want to assist "wackos." In the broadest sense, the environmental movement has won. Americans are "green" in that they are willing to spend a lot to keep their country ecologically healthy, which it is. But now it's time to save the environment from the environmentalists.
Ironic and shameful that the "Don't Cut That Tree" philosophy of so-called environmentalist actually results in far greater environmental and property losses.
And they all laughed when I said we need a “Climate Protection Amendment” to the U.S. Constitution, whereby the government is specifically prohibited from making any law, regulation or executive order, or imposing taxes, for the purposes of changing or regulating the climate of the planet.
Also, as with mentions of certain conservative women, I hereby recommend a requirement for posting a certain image whenever Al Gore's name is mentioned in an article:
I like Jonah’s writing. His book, Liberal Fascism, was a good read.
It should be compared more to Islamic than Judeo-Christian tradition. Terrorism, envy, and destruction of Western culture are tactics. It motivated by the evil intent of competitor devastation, power and control.
Well, maybe not a PERFECT remapping of the traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths. For one thing, the enviro-whackos are a LOT more dogmatic. And like Muslims, there is no room for apostasy or heresy. Retribution is swift and merciless.
Environmentalists have caused more harm and cost society far more than all the polluters combined.
Why?
Because environmentalists actually do not understand nature.
Environmentalists create policies by holding meetings at posh resorts or within our cities. Those attending these meetings rarely step foot outside their urban setting. These are not people who have grown up on farms or had parents who were fishermen. These are not people who made a living through logging or papermills.
So, who are the environmentalists?
They are people who never stepped foot outside academia. They are people who joined a movement to feel good about themselves, but who have never subsisted on what nature has to offer. They are people who think they are smarter than those who interact with nature on a daily basis. They are people who have never saved a species---like hunters.
Through enviromentalists' arrogance we have sterilized beaches in Valdez, we have carcinogenic MTBE in drinking water, we have uncontrolled forest fires and we have a shortage of domestically produced oil.
Hmmm...an interesting take. Environmentalism is Islam for secularists.
Man-bear-pig. One of the truly great episodes of South Park.
“it’s time to save the environment from environmentalists.”
correction: “it’s time to save economic freedom from revolutionary socialists”
IMHO
Here! Here! As a recovering wrong headed enviro-wacko I totally agree. The instance that made me realize how stupid I was—having the responsibility of a farm of my own!
Fantastic post.... Thanks!
We owned 158 acres of gorgeous wilderness, teeming with wildlife. We intended to keep it in its natural, pristine condition--did not allow hunting or fishing on the premesis.
The "environmentalists" decided to "help".
After fighting them and their stupid regulations, ideas, and interference for five years--one harebrained and malicious scheme after another--I told them that if they didn't leave us alone, we would have to sell the property, and the only person likely to buy it would be a developer, who would destroy it.
They didn't leave us alone. In fact, they didn't care what happened to the wilderness. What they wanted to to was assert their authority and let us know what Bigshots they are.
A developer made us an offer. We accepted; I couldn't stand dealing with the "environmentalists" any more, and I could not afford to keep spending money to comply with their utterly stupid regulations and requirements.
It is now a desert. Where the animals went I do not know--quite possibly to a nearby hunting preserve where they were killed, but obviously somewhere else since their beautiful home had been destroyed.
We made lots of money in the transaction,
But we wept.
I still feel like weeping when I think of the beauty destroyed and the deer, foxes, raccoons, rabbits--all the animals whose habitats were destroyed by these people.
I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO RESPECT FOR THESE SO-CALLED "ENVIRONMENTALISTS" AND WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO!
The ones I have known are bullies who ought to be pushing a mop somewhere and what they are trying to do is push people around and let everybody know what Bigshots they are.
The ones I have known are shallow, stupid people, empowered far beyond their ability to handle power and authority--typical schoolyard bullies, empowered by do-gooders with good intentions but too stupid to comprehend what they are actually causing.
I have nothing good to say about these people!
Angry? You bet! I have seen what these people are like--and it is despisable.
Hows all that ethanol farming working out for the rain forest in Brazil?
I’m sorry to hear that.
I saw the same thing in prescott.
There is a bark beetle infestation in the forest and the envirowhackos would allow taking down diseased trees to stave the infestation. Even on private land. You would be fined heavily for trying to save your own property.
The result was a dead forest and declining property values.
would allow=wouldn’t allow
Great analysis.
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.