Now that the threat, horror, and shame of Ivy League law students having to fork out a crippling $9/month for their own birth control pills has passed, 0 has found a new fear to re-stoke into a raging inferno of fear: let’s get going on that whole global warming, erm, climate change thing. NOW, before we are all burned to a crisp–or possibly frozen into human popsicles–where we stand; after all, Hurricane/Tropical Storm Sandy is a clear indicator that this stuff (whatever it is) is real. Yep, back to the carbon tax drawing board for the Divider in Chief.
As it happens, I was only this week flipping through my viewing options on my (most fabulous) Roku, and I came across this 2010 documentary entitled “Cool It!“, and decided to settle in and watch it. What a great film by Bjorn Lomborg the author of the Skeptical Environmentalist. I haven’t–and probably won’t–read it, but I’ve read a few of his articles (here’s one, and here’s another). I do find the reactions to his book–and to his ideas more generally–to be of great interest because the knee-jerk enviro-freaks did everything they could to discredit and silence Lomborg . . . and have failed. Even after charges of “scientific dishonesty” were dismissed after thorough investigation by the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty, rabid leftists, horrified that their fear- and hysteria-driven AGW hoax will lose even more steam, still insist that Lomborg is a charlatan, at best (knowing leftists as you do, you can imagine the worst that they say and threaten).
As I’ve repeatedly stated, I do care about the planet, about nature, and think that we, as individuals, should take reasonable and logical steps to protect the environment. I’m not at all convinced that humans are responsible for enough of the natural cycles of the planet’s multi-million-millenia long heating and cooling to warrant economy-crippling responses from government, and was long ago turned off by the fear- and panic-mongering of hysterical enviro-weirdos. Lomborg hits the last two points–hard–in his documentary. One of the saddest things to me in the film was listening to British school children relate how they are so terrified of global warming/climate change that it literally keeps them awake at night. How can anyone justify terrorizing children in this manner? It’s horrifying.
Understanding the roots of the leftist thought and their motivations also makes the entire idea hollow and silly (spreading the world’s wealth around while simultaneously centering the majority of that wealth–and the power that great wealth affords–among a select few is always the goal of today’s Marxists, including enviro-Marxists like “crazed sex poodle” and enviro-multimillionaire Al Goracle). When I quit having interest in something, I’m pretty much done with it. However, this movie seemed interesting, even if Lomborg is a self-described “environmentalist”–another term that usually makes me shudder with disgust because of the tactics of the “mainstream” enviro-terrorists. As an aside, it never ceases to amaze me how leftists co-opt language: when a leftist tells you something is “mainstream,” you can be assured that it’s completely and fundamentally radical. There is nothing “mainstream” about terrifying little children in a quest to undo well over a century of industrialization.
Anyway, here’s Lomborg presenting his ideas and making far more sense than any environmentalist I’ve ever heard:
Lomborg seems genuinely to care about the planet and about “doing good in the world,” but he makes the mistake that so many (of the sadly few) who share his obvious sincerity makes: he believes that everyone else in the “environmental community” specifically and in the leftist political “community” more generally are equally sincere, care one whit about “doing good in the world,” and share his goal of improving the lives of all the world’s people.
They do not.
We can debate whether or not people in other countries are our responsibility, and this would provoke interesting discussions, no doubt. Leftists, after all, are horrified at the thought of our intervention in a nation’s affairs, in our intervention in genocide, civil wars, or in the stopping of a nation such as Iran obtaining nuclear weapon capability. Their rationale, they claim, is that it’s not our business, that sovereign nations should be able to do whatever they want, including oppress and mass murder their own people. That, they say, is not a threat to the world. One of my few remaining leftist friends argues that global warming affects all of humanity and that we are therefore in a position to bully them, bribe them, and otherwise insist that they do what we want. “All of humanity” matters, but hundreds of millions of actual people do not. Uh huh. More tossing one’s core principles out the window in the never-ending “ends justify the means” illogic of the self-appointed guardians of The Greater Good.
Lomborg’s correct that the enviro-loons would have a broader reach if they stopped using fear, panic, and hysteria to elicit wrong-headed reactions from the governments of developed nations (note that undeveloped nations are expected to carry on “poisoning” the planet . . . that’s okay. You know, somehow.). The trouble, of course, is that they–excluding Lomborg and a small number of like-minded environmentalists who actually deserve that label–are clearly not interested in the planet or in its people. Why else pursue such nutty and fruitless ideas as a “carbon tax,” electric cars (that rely here in America, of course, on coal for the electricity they need to run . . . that’s when they aren’t bursting into flames), solar panels that cost more to make than they sell for (hint: that’s a bad business model that can only result in bankruptcy–but hey, who cares!? It’s just tax payer money, it’s not like it’s real or anything), and toxic, squiggly light bulbs that are ineffective, dangerous, and costly, and etc.?
It doesn’t take a genius to see the inherent flaws in all of this, so why continue to push these taxes and products and, more importantly, who benefits financially (oddly, enough, all the president’s men . . .and women who contribute to his campaign and otherwise support his doomed-to-failure policies. Crony socialism, anyone?) and politically? Who acquires more and more power?
Who benefits? Not the planet, and not the world’s people, that’s for sure.