The Problem With The Modern Environmental Movement
Over at the Moderate Voice, a liberal website where they masquerade as moderates, one of their writers took exception to Cassy Fiano’s comments about green loons in Britain wanting to reduce the population of Britain by 30 million people to protect the environment,
The “unfortunate” aspect of this is that as soon as you mention anything to do with the environment you invoke the ire of certain Right wing elements. For one example, Cassy Fiano at Right Wing News refers to supporters of such ideas as “environmental moonbats” but then goes on to actually ask one of the more pressing questions. How does a nation accomplish such a goal even if everyone agrees that it’s required?
How would they do such a thing? The first thing that comes to mind, obviously, is to kill off the excess. But maybe they aren’t that bloodthirsty, and so they do the next most despicable thing. They go for forcible relocation. Half of the residents of Britain would be forced to leave, all for the good of Mother Earth.
As a brief side note I’d like to ask one question. How did the GOP become the anti-environment party? I understand that there’s a lot of disagreement about the cause and effect of climate change, but these days it seems as if you can’t even mention things like not dumping your trash on the side of the road or ask if it might be good to reduce smokestack emissions without being classified as the enemy. That’s one battle of optics which the Democrats won without having to take the field.
Note that the writer equates the idea of forcibly relocating or even killing 30 million people in order to protect the environment with “not dumping your trash on the side of the road or ask if it might be good to reduce smokestack emissions.” This is a technique that crackpot environmentalists have mastered in order to stay relevant.
You see, the environmentalists have a big “problem:” they won. There was a time when smokestacks spewed filthy pollutants into the air with minimal regulations and when the Cuyahoga River got so polluted that it caught fire. The environmentalists stepped up, made a big stink, and changed people’s minds. Now, the water’s clean, the air’s clean, our food is safely prepared — and everybody on the left and right wants it that way. Put another way, they achieved their goals.
But then, the environmentalists became infected with the same disease that the “civil rights” industry in this country has: you have organizations, full of people who make a living by fighting for the environment, but all the serious environmental problems have been fixed.
So, what happened in the environmentalist movement? They became ever more radical and came up with ever more farcical causes to battle for. Pretty much every new nuclear plant, coal plant, or oil well in this country has to fight off years worth of frivolous lawsuits to go forward. Moreover, they’re championing spending trillions of dollars to fight global warming based on four incredibly dubious assumptions: that it’s manmade, that it’s occurring right now, that we can actually do something about it planet wide, and that it will do terrible damage to the globe in 50-100 years if we don’t. That’s aside from the fact that environmentalist nutjobs are responsible for the deaths of millions by blocking the use of DDT and are getting into scary territory on population control.
Yet, when you call environmentalists on how extreme they’ve become, they always pretend that they’re the only ones who care about clean water, picking up trash, and dirty air. Newsflash: both liberals and conservative, Republicans and Democrats, care about those issues. If the entire environmental movement disappeared tomorrow, it wouldn’t make one whit of difference in those areas. The real disputes come over the Cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs nonsense that the modern environmental movement spends all its time on and conservatives need to start hammering these points home.