Environmentalism and Communism: Green Is Indeed The New Red

The Daily Caller reports that 130 environmental groups have called for "the end of capitalism" in order to save the world (for squirrels, humans won't be able to survive).

People on the right have been saying for some time that the environmental movement is largely a scam to promote bigger government and control of the means of production.

The Daily Caller quotes Michael Brune, director of the Sierra Club:

Climate disruption is the greatest challenge facing our generation. Until now, power plants have been allowed to dump unlimited amounts of carbon pollution into our air, driving dangerous climate disruption, and fueling severe drought, wildfires, heat waves and superstorms.

What a load of garbage.  Brune makes bald statements without any way to prove his absurd claim.  Whether "environmentalists" like Brune want to replace capitalism with communism, or are merely Luddite fanatics, yearning for the simpler times of, say, the 16th century, doesn't matter.  They are anti-human, and quite willing to starve millions of people with their Gaia obsession.

Read the whole thing at the link above.

The Environmental Extremism of Democrats

Living the Environmentally Friendly Life

Moonbattery has a profile of an environmental extremist named Bill McKibben.  McKibben is credited with stopping the Keystone Pipeline that would have brought oil from Canada to the United States, but which will now be going to China instead.

McKibben is doing everything he can to stop the use of fossil fuels for energy and is typical of the extremists who comprise the Democratic Party.  This is why gasoline prices are through the roof, and why they will go higher.  It is not an exaggeration to say that the Democratic Party wants you to suffer.  The reason is that they have an extreme view on the environment and want to force Americans to use far less energy.  In  order to do this we must car pool more, ride trains or buses or use bicycles for transportation (or walk).  We must live in smaller houses.  We must consume less, i.e. to live at a lower standard of living than we do now.  We must produce fewer children and dramatically shrink the population (hence the fanatical support of any and all abortion).

The Democrats' anti-energy policies are designed to force you into a simpler lifestyle that they have selected for you, and even high unemployment helps to achieve their goals.  Economic activity consumes energy, enriches and empowers people to have families and to consume more, all of which runs counter to the goals of the environmental extremists in the Democratic Party.

The biggest problem with this agenda is that it is largely hidden.  The Democrats don't openly espouse these goals, lest the populace wake up and throw them out en mass.  This is unfortunate, since we cannot know what Dems are thinking and why, what data (if any) that they rely on, what future they envision, or what their arguments are.  Without debate on these extreme policies, we cannot refute them.

Welcome to the grim future, fellow peasants.

Paul Gilding is Full (of It): When Enviro Whack Jobs Attack

The enviro whack jobs are at it again.  Leading the charge this time is Paul Gilding, Australian Enviro-Alarmist who insists that "the earth is full," that over-population has reached a crisis point, and that we are all doomed by global warming, higher food prices, depleted resources, yada yada yada.  Gilding's ideas are described in the New York Times by Thomas L. Friedman in an article called "The Earth is Full."

The answer:  more draconian governmental controls over people and businesses, less economic activity, more poverty, less individual freedom, a reduced lifestyle.  Green is the new Red.  If you disagree, you are just in denial.  Gilding cites the work of the Global Footprint Network, which claims that humans are using the earth's resources at unsustainable rates.  How the GFN came up with this calculation is anyone's guess, but they are not the first environmental doom-sayers to come along in recent years.  Paul Ehrlich's book "The Population Bomb" came out in 1968 to announce that mass starvation would occur in the 1970's and 1980's due to overpopulation of the planet.  Ehrlich was wrong -- the disaster didn't happen.  As for overpopulation, demographic studies show that populations in the Europe, Russia, Japan and elsewhere are in decline -- their populations are shrinking and in some cases, being displaced by massive immigration from the Muslim world.

There is a pattern among the environmental alarmists:  they describe dooms-day scenarios for humankind, insist that we have already passed some critical point, making disaster unavoidable, and that mankind must immediately submit to a kind of fascism to curtail or at least lessen the unavoidable and looming catastrophe.  Needless to say, the solution seems to lie in a one-world government, presided over by a committee of environmentalists.  They will tell us, no doubt, who can produce what, when and where, and who may consume it.

Sounds like Marxism to me.

Update:  A related article shows the economic destruction wreaked by the Green Freaks:  California's Green Jihad.

Celebrate Earth Day: Kill Yourself

Brian Sussman, a conservative pundit on KSFO radio (560 AM) here in the San Francisco Bay Area, has a column in Human Events today.  It covers the history and teachings of Earth Day (April 22), and how it is really a leftist propaganda day.  Earth Day is a day for assaulting capitalism, free markets and mankind.

Sussman tells how Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich was one of the three founders of Earth Day.  Sussman writes:

Rounding out the troika was Prof. Paul Ehrlich of Stanford. In 1968, Ehrlich authored the Malthusian missive, The Population Bomb, in which he infamously spouted wild allegations that included equating the Earth’s supposed surplus of people with a cancer that needs to be eradicated: “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. ... We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions,” he wrote.

Ehrlich's hatred of humans seems to be the unspoken premise of all environmentalist thought:  human beings are evil and must be tightly controlled, their numbers reduced to a bare minimum through poverty.  No doubt the "brutal and heartless" decisions Airhead Ehrlich spoke of were to be similar to those of Chairman Mao:  mass starvation of millions.  If you want to make an omelet you have to break some eggs.  Fellow eggs, take heed.

The Green movement is roughly thousands of Ted Kaczynskis, radical Luddites who want human beings to just die, so Gaia the Earth Goddess can reign supreme, making the skies, the waterways and the forests pristine and safe for squirrels, snakes and slugs.  The enemy of environmental purity is economic prosperity and the answer is widespread human poverty.  Now you know why the Dems won't let us drill in Anwar.

Read Sussman's take here. 

Obama's Plans to Impoverish Americans

I heard a discussion on KSFO radio today coming back from work.  It seems that Obama wants to cede our sovereignty to an international government that will oversee mass transfers of wealth from the producing nations to impoverished third world countries.  The alleged reason for this is to "fight global warming."  The theory goes that since the producing nations (the ones that create wealth through work and investment) have a much higher carbon footprint than the Third World, so owe the Third World big time for ruining the planet.  When this happens, of course, western jobs will disappear by the millions, investment will slow if not cease, and we will become a Third World country ourselves.  We are going to "share the poverty," all in the name of mythical climate change, world government and socialism for all.

Take onto that cap and trade, higher energy costs, higher income taxes and a federal VAT (value added tax, a kind of sales tax), we will soon enjoy a lifestyle similar to the citizens of Cuba, Haiti or Angola.

The KSFO speakers say this is by design, and they quote Obama as saying that great poverty opens the door for sweeping changes in a society.  Obama has plans to make those changes in our society, making us into a far left, impoverished and socialist tyranny.  Well that sounds like some sort of conspiracy theory to me, but even if he doesn't have such plans, what would he be doing different if he did?  Not much, I'd say.

A couple of months back I read the anti-Global Warming book, "Green Hell," which tells what the radical environmentalists want to do to us.  Basically, the same thing:  impoverish us by design.  You see, poor people don't make much carbon.  Many of their plans seek to save the environment by suppressing population growth.  They advocate closing dams and cutting off water supplies (to places like the Fresno area) so less food will be produced.  Less food, fewer jobs, less water equals less people.  And people are the curse of the Goddess Gaia (aka Earth), who would be so much better off without them.  Hey, if you want to make an omelet you have to break some eggs.

Someone call me when the revolution starts.  I'll be ready.

Finally, a Carbon-Free Environment!

An old saying goes "Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it."

No Pasaran ran this cartoon to illustrate the stupidity of liberal meddling in the private sector; this one illustrates the move to ban smoking from bars and other establishments.

The same principle applies to "low carbon footprint" schemes to combat non-existent global warming. The thousands of business buildings now sitting dark and vacant, no doubt, have a very low carbon footprint.

I'm reading a book called "Green Hell" (by Steven Milloy -- see link at bottom of page) that describes the aims, goals and schemes of the luddite environmentalists ("the Greens"). Indeed, the Greens are almost as crazy and damaging to humanity as were "the Reds" whose shoes they seek to fill.

Milloy shows how the Greens not only oppose oil and gas energy, they also oppose natural gas, nuclear energy and even solar and windmill energy. They oppose energy, period. Their true goals are to reduce the population and roll back modernity. He writes:

...greens don't really want to increase our energy supply--whether with fossil fuels or renewable energy--because that would undermine virtually all of the greens' ultimate goals: zero population growth, limiting the development of physical infrastructure, impeding economic growth, and redistributing wealth.

The Greens are just another crazy totalitarian ideology that is ultimately anti-human; they should be fought vigorously. Milloy indicates that the so-called Sierra Club is one of the major enemies of low cost energy. It is they who most frequently file lawsuits to stop the building of new oil refineries, coal plants, offshore drilling, and nuclear power plants. The next time you fill up at $4 a gallon, thank the Sierra Club.

On the other hand, if you are a believer in manmade global warming and the benefits of living green, you may feel ecstatic when you find yourself sitting in the dark because you can no longer pay your electric bill. At least you can say, loudly and with enthusiasm: "It's working!"

Get the book: