Joe Cooper
2015-12-05 19:16:40 UTC
At the beginning of this week, the rich and powerful from around the
world, congregated in Paris, a city that was under terrorist attack just
a few weeks ago, to discuss a solution to an imaginary enemy who is
"worse" than terrorism--climate change. Other than emitting a lot of hot
air, no one expects any meaningful outcome from this conference that will
benefit the vast majority of people around the world. But to the
environmentalists, this gathering marks their triumph.
Deep down, environmentalism isn't about saving the planet, but is a
disguised anti-Capitalism movement and it's most vocal advocates won't
deny their true intention. I have travelled around the world and I
noticed that the freer the country, the better quality of the air one
breathes. Anyone who wants to save the planet should promote freedom,
private property rights and voluntary exchange. In a word, if you want
better environment, embrace capitalism.
Comparing environmentalism and socialism side by side, you can see many
similarities between these two ideologies:
Both were created by elitist intelligentsias who believed they have the
moral responsibility to save the masses who are too dumb for their own
good. For our own benefit, the benevolent elitists decide how to best
organize the economy and live our lives. Both ideologies rely heavily on
the power of the State to impose their visions on everyone else. For
instance, socialism organizes the means of production and distribution of
outcomes through central planning; while environmentalism demands
government regulations to enforce their ideal way of living upon everyone
else and punish anyone who doesn't obey.
Both treat Capitalism as their worst enemy. Both believe Capitalism to be
responsible for many problems in this world: depleting the earths
resources, damaging the environment, exacerbating poverty and class
struggle. The very reason of Socialism's existence is to abolish
Capitalism; while the environmentalists believe the future is a choice
between Capitalism or a habitable planet-you can't have both, even though
actual historical data shows otherwise: people are healthier, happier,
wealthier, and live longer today, compared to decades ago, thanks to the
spread of free markets and economic freedom. Capitalism is about choice,
while environmentalism is about control.
Both are bent on enforcing conformity with any means necessary. Socialism
enforces conformity through rationing necessities and thought-control via
reeducation camps. Environmentalists have declared the end of discussion
on the validity of climate change because "the science is settled."
Anyone who dares to question climate activists' data, logic and accuracy
is automatically denounced as a science denier. But the very nature of
science means it is never settled. It is constant inquiry, as the
greatest scientist of the 20th century Albert Einstein famously
exclaimed, "the important thing is never stop questioning."
Both are willing to sacrifice the most vulnerable people for the "greater
good. "The history of Socialism was written in the blood and tears of
millions. Environmentalism, from its infancy in early 20th century, saw
itself as having "the responsibility of saying what forms of life shall
be preserved." The arrogance of these elitist intelligentsia is on full
display at the Paris climate conference where the pledge is to limit
global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius above a preindustrial
level.
I'd be interested in knowing how many of these elitists would be willing
to have a standard of living at the preindustrial level. Do they realize
"preindustrial" life means giving up their private jets, their air-
conditioned rooms and their Apple watches because none of these existed
pre-industrial revolution?
Does any environmentalists realize that, even in 2015, there are still
people sustaining on a pre-industrial standard of living? According to
2012 data from the World Health Organizations website, Around 3 billion
people still cook and heat their homes using solid fuels (i.e. wood, crop
wastes, charcoal, coal and dung) in open fires and leaky stoves. Most are
poor, and live in low- and middle-income countries. 4.3 million people
per year die prematurely from illness attributable to the household air
pollution caused by the inefficient use of solid fuels." In India alone,
over 300 million people have no access to electricity. If these people
can have access to oil and gas now, it will fundamentally change their
lives for the better forever. To deny them their access to fossil fuels
is no different than condemning them to eternal poverty.
Even in developed countries like the U.S., wrong-headed environmental
policies have the most devastating impact on ordinary people. For
example, the EPA's regulation on carbon emissions forced many electric
utilities to shut down coal-fired power plants. The Wall Street Journal
reported that since 2009, "332 coal mines in West Virginia have been
closed and 9,733 jobs have been lost. Of West Virginians over the age of
16, only 53% have a job or are looking for work."Of course, the rich and
powerful are exempt from any of the rules they set for everyone else. At
the Paris climate conference, while Obama lectured the world on the
importance of cutting CO2 emissions, he neglected to mention that his
Paris trip will send more CO2 into the atmosphere than 31 American
homes' energy usage for an entire year.
As C.S. Lewis wrote in his essay "God in the Dock" that "of all
tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may
be the most oppressive... those who torment us for our own good will
torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own
conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time
likelier to make a Hell of earth."
Environmentalism is the "new age" socialism and the overzealous
environmentalists are the kind of tyranny we all should be very wary of.
Source: http://bit.ly/1YQyfHD
--
Obama Nine Hours Before Paris Terror Attack: "We've Contained ISIS"
"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who arent and to impose their will on those who
didnt ask for it." (Derek Hunter)
"Liberals never argue with one another over substance; their only dispute
is how to prevent the public from figuring out what they really
believe." (Ann Coulter)
world, congregated in Paris, a city that was under terrorist attack just
a few weeks ago, to discuss a solution to an imaginary enemy who is
"worse" than terrorism--climate change. Other than emitting a lot of hot
air, no one expects any meaningful outcome from this conference that will
benefit the vast majority of people around the world. But to the
environmentalists, this gathering marks their triumph.
Deep down, environmentalism isn't about saving the planet, but is a
disguised anti-Capitalism movement and it's most vocal advocates won't
deny their true intention. I have travelled around the world and I
noticed that the freer the country, the better quality of the air one
breathes. Anyone who wants to save the planet should promote freedom,
private property rights and voluntary exchange. In a word, if you want
better environment, embrace capitalism.
Comparing environmentalism and socialism side by side, you can see many
similarities between these two ideologies:
Both were created by elitist intelligentsias who believed they have the
moral responsibility to save the masses who are too dumb for their own
good. For our own benefit, the benevolent elitists decide how to best
organize the economy and live our lives. Both ideologies rely heavily on
the power of the State to impose their visions on everyone else. For
instance, socialism organizes the means of production and distribution of
outcomes through central planning; while environmentalism demands
government regulations to enforce their ideal way of living upon everyone
else and punish anyone who doesn't obey.
Both treat Capitalism as their worst enemy. Both believe Capitalism to be
responsible for many problems in this world: depleting the earths
resources, damaging the environment, exacerbating poverty and class
struggle. The very reason of Socialism's existence is to abolish
Capitalism; while the environmentalists believe the future is a choice
between Capitalism or a habitable planet-you can't have both, even though
actual historical data shows otherwise: people are healthier, happier,
wealthier, and live longer today, compared to decades ago, thanks to the
spread of free markets and economic freedom. Capitalism is about choice,
while environmentalism is about control.
Both are bent on enforcing conformity with any means necessary. Socialism
enforces conformity through rationing necessities and thought-control via
reeducation camps. Environmentalists have declared the end of discussion
on the validity of climate change because "the science is settled."
Anyone who dares to question climate activists' data, logic and accuracy
is automatically denounced as a science denier. But the very nature of
science means it is never settled. It is constant inquiry, as the
greatest scientist of the 20th century Albert Einstein famously
exclaimed, "the important thing is never stop questioning."
Both are willing to sacrifice the most vulnerable people for the "greater
good. "The history of Socialism was written in the blood and tears of
millions. Environmentalism, from its infancy in early 20th century, saw
itself as having "the responsibility of saying what forms of life shall
be preserved." The arrogance of these elitist intelligentsia is on full
display at the Paris climate conference where the pledge is to limit
global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius above a preindustrial
level.
I'd be interested in knowing how many of these elitists would be willing
to have a standard of living at the preindustrial level. Do they realize
"preindustrial" life means giving up their private jets, their air-
conditioned rooms and their Apple watches because none of these existed
pre-industrial revolution?
Does any environmentalists realize that, even in 2015, there are still
people sustaining on a pre-industrial standard of living? According to
2012 data from the World Health Organizations website, Around 3 billion
people still cook and heat their homes using solid fuels (i.e. wood, crop
wastes, charcoal, coal and dung) in open fires and leaky stoves. Most are
poor, and live in low- and middle-income countries. 4.3 million people
per year die prematurely from illness attributable to the household air
pollution caused by the inefficient use of solid fuels." In India alone,
over 300 million people have no access to electricity. If these people
can have access to oil and gas now, it will fundamentally change their
lives for the better forever. To deny them their access to fossil fuels
is no different than condemning them to eternal poverty.
Even in developed countries like the U.S., wrong-headed environmental
policies have the most devastating impact on ordinary people. For
example, the EPA's regulation on carbon emissions forced many electric
utilities to shut down coal-fired power plants. The Wall Street Journal
reported that since 2009, "332 coal mines in West Virginia have been
closed and 9,733 jobs have been lost. Of West Virginians over the age of
16, only 53% have a job or are looking for work."Of course, the rich and
powerful are exempt from any of the rules they set for everyone else. At
the Paris climate conference, while Obama lectured the world on the
importance of cutting CO2 emissions, he neglected to mention that his
Paris trip will send more CO2 into the atmosphere than 31 American
homes' energy usage for an entire year.
As C.S. Lewis wrote in his essay "God in the Dock" that "of all
tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may
be the most oppressive... those who torment us for our own good will
torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own
conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time
likelier to make a Hell of earth."
Environmentalism is the "new age" socialism and the overzealous
environmentalists are the kind of tyranny we all should be very wary of.
Source: http://bit.ly/1YQyfHD
--
Obama Nine Hours Before Paris Terror Attack: "We've Contained ISIS"
"Never underestimate the willingness of white progressives to be offended
on behalf of people who arent and to impose their will on those who
didnt ask for it." (Derek Hunter)
"Liberals never argue with one another over substance; their only dispute
is how to prevent the public from figuring out what they really
believe." (Ann Coulter)
