Articles

Sunday, June 19, 2011

How Environmentalists Cause War and Repression

No other group has done as much to keep America dependent on foreign oil as the environmentalists have. After leading successful campaigns against nuclear power and domestic drilling, the green movement may lecture on "oil wars", but it is responsible for most of them.

The math of it is very simple. Resource shortages are a major cause of conflict. And environmentalists have dedicated themselves to creating resource shortages in prosperous nations. Their campaigns against nuclear, domestic oil and coal production have been big on self-righteousness and short on consequences. And the consequences are that their scaremongering has not only cost millions of American jobs, it has forced us to keep sending money to Muslim oil states who use that money for domestic repression and international terrorism.

The environmentalists have done the same thing in Europe and Asia, turning formerly moribund Communist powers, Russia and China, into energy and manufacturing superpowers. By making it more expensive and in some cases impossible to conduct manufacturing and energy production at home, they exported Western industries to the East, and enabled the transformation of struggling tyrannies into international superpowers.

China's domestic repression is made possible by its economic boom. A boom created when American companies found it cheaper to do business in a country where they weren't under siege by college grads with a specialty in pretending to be Rachel Carson or Erin Brockovich, both frauds turned into legends thanks to the mythmaking abilities of the left-wing movement.

The legacy of Tiananmen Square would almost certainly have been reform or revolution, if not for a limited prosperity created through outsourced industries and cheap manufacturing. When the question arises, who killed the pro-democracy movement in China-- it wasn't the tanks, but their enablers, the liberals whose regulation and exploitation had made America into an uncomfortable place to do business. Those companies went elsewhere and the money they brought, propped up the Chinese Communist party. And the industries of the Chinese boom created such intense pollution that it is worse than the worst nightmares of the environmentalists. Pollution that they can and should take credit for, because they were the ones who made it happen.

Environmentalists who agitate against pollution caused by foreign companies in the Third World need to take a long hard look in the mirror. In many cases it was their own campaigns which drove American companies into countries where they wouldn't be so tightly regulated. Rather than apply reasonable regulations, they made it their goal to wipe out entire industries. They didn't get their wish. Rather those industries moved abroad to places where there were no regulations at all. And the resulting misery that caused lies at their doorstep.

In Germany, the Greens have succeeded in their campaign against the domestic nuclear industry. What is the net result of this? It further degrades Europe's energy capabilities and moves it into Putin's orbit. That empowers Russia to begin another campaign of conquest aimed at its former republics. That is what a "Green" victory really looks like. People freezing in their homes while a dictatorship sends its tanks and infantry on a new campaign of terror.

The environmental response is always something about solar and wind energy, two technologies that are still unready to meet a major country's energy needs. But that's exactly why the environmental movement champions them. Aside from the optics of "getting your energy from mother nature", the real goal has always been to drive up the cost of energy. The environmental movement is not interested in cheap energy. If solar power provided energy cheaply, the greens would be marching against it. Any technology that provides cheap power is their enemy.

The mandate of the environmental movement is artificial scarcity. But artificial scarcity doesn't exist in a global economy. If you raise the price of energy production, resource mining or manufacturing, it will move abroad to less regulated countries. The price will still go up and there will be other long term consequences, but people will still find a way to get what they need. Like the rest of the left, the green movement has never learned that people will act in their own interests, rather than in thrall to their dogma. That if they can't get it legally, they will get it illegally.

Americans are not about to freeze in their homes in winter or die of heatstroke in the summer. They are not about to drive midget cars to the lumber yard or let their families go hungry so that they can buy local. And that means more money flowing to Saudi Arabia and to China. It means more war and more repression. It means more families making do without and more firing squads and terrorist attacks. All for the greater glory of the environmental movement.

It will take a lot more work to push down the poverty level to the extent that Americans will bike to work or root through the garbage for food-- two behaviors popular in the environmentally pretentious left. Until then there will always be other options. No matter how bad they are.

Wal-Mart owes more to the left's war on small business and manufacturing than either would care to recognize. Its Made in China merchandise sold at the lowest possible price is the aftermath of an outsourced economy which has brought formerly prosperous towns to the poverty level, and compensated for it with cheap goods from the country that has taken their industries. The left has created the poverty that it mocks. And it has created the slave labor that makes the products which they deplore. It is responsible for all of it and it should take ownership of it.

And as China approaches a new war for Pacific dominance, the left may as well take credit for that too. If it wasn't for the shift in economic power, driven by their job killing regulations, and their spending sprees, there might be reforms happening in Bejing, instead of the clatter of factories and war machines. And if a war does come, if tens of thousands or millions die, then it too will be on their heads. Along with the clouds of pollution and the body parts of political prisoners being shipped to America for their edification and exhibition.

These are just some of the green chickens coming home to roost. And there will be lots more of them flocking on over if this goes on.

The environmental movement's manifest hypocrisy is that it causes the very things that it deplores. Its campaigns against the nuclear industry, has sent billions overseas to countries which are developing their own nuclear weapons and intend to use them. By shutting down nuclear plants in America, they have made it much more likely that nuclear bombs will be detonated in America.

It destroyed American industry in the name of worker protection and pollution, and sent the factories to countries where workers have no rights and the pollution looks like something out of a post-apocalyptic movie. And reduced those former workers to the point where they have no choice but to buy those same slave labor products at a non-union store with the profits going to China's war machine.

Domestic drilling? Allah preserve us. It's much better to send the money over to Saudi Arabia, which funnels it to terrorists, who kill Americans, and cause global wars. Wars that the left claims to deplore. Oil wars. Their own damn oil wars. Wars in which they are equal partners with the oil companies and the Gulf royal families who have fattened their pockets from the energy hunger of a country where there is plenty of oil, but no way to get at it.

These are all victories for the environmental movements and defeats for anyone with any sanity or sense. But the environmental movement refuses to acknowledge the consequences of its actions. Instead it champions further domestic and international repression. Like every tyrannical ideology it knows only one solution to every problem, more laws, more chains, more investigations and prison cells for anyone who disobeys.

Repression and propaganda is the environmental movement's solution to everything. Its imperative is to destroy, impoverish, oppress and intimidate. It spreads hopeless misery around the world, with a smile. The countless victims of Rachel Carson's malaria or the prisoners of the EPA go unnoticed as the latest children's propaganda cartoon is rolled out. Its implicit message is always that there is a war on between the environmentalists and the people who just want to live their own lives. And that it is the obligation of the youth to put on their uniforms and enlist on their side.

Generations of tyranny later, the environmental movement has little positive to show for it, besides a few cleanups. But its leaders have profited from a regulatory state that impoverishes the country and promotes war and oppression around the world. It is time for those who have chosen to align themselves with a movement that exists to enrich environmental consultants, Saudi Arabia, the People's Republic of China and Wall Street, while impoverishing Main Street to take a long hard look at what they have done. Before all the chickens really do come home to roost.

14 comments:

S. Richard said...

As alluded to in the essay, thanks to Carson's war against DDT millions of Africans died due to having to fight off malaria-carrying mosquitoes with netting instead of a safe and effective chemical.
What this piece reinforces is the historical truth that most leftist ideology leads to unnecessary death in the name of false superiority. That "superiority" is based on a distinctive lack of success, ideas with no logic, and willful ignorance (and rewriting) of history. God save us from the left.

Lemon said...

The Time cover is very disturbing.

We need that DDT for tics and mosquitoes. They bring awful diseases.

PatriotUSA said...

Excellent article and I worked with many of the now banned pesticides and herbicides for many years. The vast majority of those banned were very safe when used properly. DDT should have never been banned.

mindRider said...

I can only agree partially with your arguments having been myself in a business that shortsightedly undercut it's own viability by outsourcing it's knowledge, not to escape environmental regulations, but plainly by the pure capitalist motivation of making more profit by cutting labor cost. On the other side, without environmental laws or regulations chemical plants all over the Western world would have continued to pollute lakes and rivers with their waste. Like all issues it's the combination of excessive desire for more and more in both profit and regulatory power that causes the cracks in a system. The re-invention of everything in a phoenix like destruction and re-birth apparently is more than a myth: it's a necessity for survival.

DP111 said...

I had not seen the link between fanatic environmentalists and war. But come to think of it, there is a case that the resource environment is a prime cause of war, and environmentalists deal in it, by making it hard or expensive to get.

Under pressure from environmentalists, and others, Western government have artificially created a "Carbon" resource, which is in fact the naturally occurring gas that we breathe out. We are now going to be taxed for a "pollutant" that we breathe out. Industries are going to be taxed on "CARBON", who will then flee to countries such as China and India, that snigger at our stupidity.

The Western world has gone mad. Totally bonkers, hats on, with whistles and jingles.

Edgar Davidson said...

It is such a shame that a piece like this is not provided to schoolkids to balance the material they currently have forced on them (which of course is all written by the environmentalists, global warmists etc). In the UK the 'environmentalist' message is enforced in a whole range of subjects: science, geography, history, and even religious studies.

Incidentally there was a very good article by Brooker in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday about the latest IPCC scandal:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8584210/The-IPCC-declares-Greenpeace-in-our-time.html

Brooker has been consistently good on this theme but he has never made a cogent case for the link between environmentalist pressure and war as you have.

jlevyellow said...

The State of New York issues a pamphlet distributed at rest-stops that indicate the dangers of eating locally-caught fish. Animal experiments show the dangers of these fish, while frank autism and "autistic spectrum disorder" reach epidemic proportions. Its origins are still unexplained, but may lie in chemicals produced by capitalists and ignored by bloated socialist bureaucracies incapable of rational operations.

Unfortunately, neither regulation under green meanies or individual initiatives under republican capitalism can solve these issues and other similar ones. I am impressed with the complexity of interactions when man enters an environment - no matter what his political leanings.

Yet, there is realistic hope. "Greens" acting as capitalists seem to be the best bet. Capitalists acting as though conscience is part of their composition is a second source of salvation. Citizens acting in their own individual interests works - since they are willing to pay more for "local" and "organic." Communities preserving local jobs also helps.

We are not given to rational decision-making as a species because our timelines are too limited. The fittest survive, but frequently by accident. We are so mentally and morally "challenged!"

Anonymous said...

I don't believe for a second that the environmentalists care about the environment, people or nature. Just as the left has shown that they don't care about human rights when it comes to Islam.

They are all driven by an intense hatred for the capitalist West and the Greens are just another Marxist tactic to destroy it from within.

They're the melons - green on the outside, red on the inside, pious disciples of Marx and Engels. So blinded are they by their own hatred and vain self righteousness they cannot see the destructive and ultimately suicidal consequences of their actions.

Proud Brit.

MK Gross said...

What happens when Mr. Masry and Mrs. Brockovich blame an oil well for causing illness?

They send out these flyers to recruit local people touched by cancer. http://next-what.blogspot.com/2008/12/when-attorney-contacts-you-about.html One thousand people sign on to the lawsuit; fear plagues the community.

USC's Cancer Surveillance Program provides a statistical analysis in response to "concerns expressed by parents regarding an alleged excess of different types of cancers ..." http://keck.usc.edu/Education/Academic_Department_and_Divisions/Department_of_Preventive_Medicine/Divisions/Epidemiology/Research/~/media/6D207AAB7B114277A44270FF3D7E14F6.pdf

The city stops drilling for oil even though the court rules the law firm must pay $450,000 damages because their allegations lack supporting data.
http://beverlyhills.patch.com/articles/city-council-puts-a-cork-in-oil-and-gas-drilling

Published in Norma Zager's 2010book, Erin Brockovich and the Beverly Hills: Greenscam

Anonymous said...

the water and air may have been polluted, but at least everyone had jobs!

Now the air and water are cleaner, but everyone is out of work and once-great cities now lie in ruins!

Who really benefits?!?

Anonymous said...

the water and air may have been polluted, but at least everyone had jobs!

Now the air and water are cleaner, but everyone is out of work and once-great cities now lie in ruins!

Who really benefits?!?

Edward Cline said...

Daniel: Brilliant essay, as usual, and eloquently written. But I think you write from a false premise, that the environmentalists down deep really want to “save the planet” or make life “more meaningful” by reducing everyone’s standard of living to about the level of the Dark Ages. I think you’re about two syllogisms short of conceding that it isn’t life that the environmentalists pursue: It’s death. The death of everyone, even of Islamists and themselves. People who advocate suicide as an ideology, as the environmentalists do, actually mean that they themselves hate existence, hate the earth, hate everything. But they haven’t the resolve to remove themselves from existence and leave the rest of us alone. If they do that, they know that anyone who loves existence will be able to live without them, and enjoying life. They’ll be dead. So they want to take everyone with them. What they worship is non-existence: that is, a zero. If they can’t find value in existence, then their ideology commands them to destroy that value.

MichelleInSanDiego said...

UCSD Professor Emeritus Herbert Marcuse formulated ecology in political terms:
http://www.marcuse.org/herbert/pubs/posthumous/79MarcuseEcologyCritiqueModernSociety1992CapNatSoc.pdf

1979 essay "Ecology and the Critique of Modern Society"
reviewed in http://www.uta.edu/huma/illuminations/kell11.htm

I recall taking notes during his guest lecture to my wilderness class and stopping mid-sentence when he mentioned "re-structuring society" to remove the thanatos of pollution.

TequilaKid said...

I am not persuaded that Western industrial decline ensues from zealous environmental policing.- There are very many factors involved in Western industrial decline. To blame everything on environmentalists is absurd. I have seen no evidence that this charge is true. It sounds like a baseless rumour.

Furthermore the widespread belief that advanced countries are more environmentally concerned than poor countries is utterly false. Likewise the belief that environmentalism arose recently in response to political ideology. In the industrialized countrys there is a tradition of many decades of popular-based struggle against pollution that owes nothing to ideology and a lot to common sense.

I notice that none of the people who wrote these letters seems to have ever studied how environmental resistance developed. They instead speculate in a fact-free zone that allows their ideologies to fabricate the conclusions most appealing to them.

Read Wilensky, Rich Democracies, pages 206 and following .

All international agreements to restrict DDT have large loopholes that fully exempt from the ban the use of DDT to fight malaria. It is peculiar that nobody ever mentions this fact.

TequilaKid

Post a Comment