"Current
lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class -
involving high meat intake, the use of fossil fuels, electrical
appliances, home and work-place air-conditioning, and suburban
housing - are not sustainable.”
- Maurice
Strong, opening speech at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit
The
Green Economy – A Global Economic Suicide Pact
The global green
movement places very little value on the modern industrial society
that has produced huge improvements in economic prosperity, health
care, human rights, education and standards of living. In fact, the
green movement hates and fears western-style capitalism. To them, the
loss of industrial civilisation is of no great consequence. In fact,
it is one of the top priorities of the Global Green Agenda.
The green movement has been obsessed with capitalism,
especially evil multi-national corporations, since its birth in the
1960s. Long before the advent of ‘global warming’, the
primary objective of the movement was, and always has been, simply
the destruction of energy production. They know that the life blood
of the industrial society is energy, especially fossil fuels, and a
significant reduction in energy availability will deal a fatal blow
to Gaia’s greatest threat – modern human society.
Primitive societies are admired for being sustainable and living in
harmony with Gaia. Western capitalist nations are reviled as
“destroyers of the earth” which must be subdued. They
make no attempt to conceal this agenda:
"Isn't
the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations
collapse? Isn't it our responsiblity to bring that about?"
- Maurice Strong, founder of the UN Environment
Programme
"A
massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States.
De-development means bringing our economic system into line with the
realities of ecology and the world resource situation."
-
Paul Ehrlich, Professor of Population Studies
"The
only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United
States. We can't let other countries have the same number of cars,
the amount of industrialization, we have in the US. We have to stop
these Third World countries right where they are."
-
Michael Oppenheimer, Environmental Defense Fund
"Global
Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced
resource consumption and set levels of mortality control."
-
Professor Maurice King
"We
must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and
their projects. We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam
construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and
return to wilderness millions of acres of presently settled land."
-
David Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!
"Complex
technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be
little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean,
cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it."
-
Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
"The
prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen
to the planet."
- Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse
Crisis Foundation
One
of the first targets of green movement was the nuclear power
industry. Even though nuclear energy offers enormous energy potential
with no CO2 emissions they still revile it. They also fiercely oppose
any proposals to build new hydro-electric dams based on perceived
negative environmental effects. The same argument is used to oppose
any proposals to develop new oil fields. They intend to starve the
beast not feed it. The only sources of power that the environmental
movement is willing to allow are wind and sunlight. Humans will just
have to adapt to living with very low volumes of unreliable energy.
Of course the big prize has always
been to find some way to control, or even eliminate, the use of
fossil fuels. After all, it is fossil fuels that have allowed the
human population to blossom from a mere one billion in 1850 to more
than six billion today. A single barrel of oil contains
23,000 man-hours of energy. Hence the 20 million barrels that
the USA consumes each day is equivalent to 15 billion additional
human workers. Oil has empowered each American worker the equivalent
of 45 ‘virtual slaves’. Globally it provides us with the
equivalent daily energy of more than 70 billion human workers. Try
pushing your car for a few miles to see just how much work oil does
for us.
In 1850 more than 85% of people led lives of hard
drudgery growing food, today less than 2% of people in western
societies are employed in the agricultural sector. In 1850 most
people never traveled beyond the next village, whereas we are free to
roam the world and learn from other cultures. The average life
expectancy in England in 1850 was 34, and infant mortality was nearly
30%. Now the average life expectancy is in excess of 70, and infant
mortality is miniscule.
But the
green movement looks back with great fondness to a simpler and
gentler time. According to them without fossil fuels the world will
be transformed into an Ecotopia. We would all live in small
sustainable villages, surrounded by lush fields where happy peasants
sang love-songs to Gaia as they gently tilled her soil. Without the
unbridled power provided by fossil fuels we could no longer dominate
the earth, shaping it according to our own will. Humans would learn
to once again live humbly alongside all other living beings, and be
reconciled with Mother Nature.
The
fact that modern ‘industrial’ agriculture would collapse
without fossil fuels, and as a result hundreds of millions would
starve, seems to be of minor consequence. It’s just a bit of
short-term pain for long-term gain. Ted Turner, who donated over a
billion dollars to the United Nations specifically to fund the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) thinks that "A
total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from
present levels, would be ideal."
Hence
for the green movement Global Warming presents an opportunity to
finally and completely destroy the voracious beast of capitalism.
They are demanding the imposition of a massive
reduction in global emissions of carbon dioxide accompanied by a
freeze on such emissions at the sharply reduced level. This would
immediately result in the elimination or radical reduction in the
supply of all goods and services that depend on fossil fuel
consumption. As Al Gore says it would be a “wrenching
transformation of society.” Every aspect of daily
life would be dramatically altered.
The much vaunted Stern
Report called for a 25% reduction in global carbon dioxide emissions
by 2050. Given the fact that the world population is expected to
increase by third which means the 9 billion people would have to
generate 25% less then 6 billion, or a per capita reduction of 50%.
This would devastate the global economy and make the Great Depression
look like a picnic.
The two leading Democratic Presidential
Candidates, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, have both called for an
80% reduction by 2050. Factoring in population growth, this would
require a reduction of more than 90%. You really have to wonder if
they have thought deeply about the implications of this goal. It even
makes the climate doom stories seem pleasant:
"According
to the Department of Energy's most recent data on greenhouse gas
emissions, in 2006 the U.S. emitted 5.8 billion metric tons of carbon
dioxide, or just under 20 tons per capita. An 80% reduction in these
emissions from 1990 levels means that the U.S. cannot emit more than
about one billion metric tons of CO2 in 2050. Were man-made carbon
dioxide emissions in this country ever that low? The answer is
probably yes – from historical energy data it is possible to
estimate that the U.S. last emitted one billion metric tons around
1910. But in 1910, the U.S. had 92 million people, and per capita
income, in current dollars, was about $6,000.
By the year
2050, the Census Bureau projects that our population will be around
420 million. This means per capita emissions will have to fall to
about 2.5 tons in order to meet the goal of 80% reduction. It is
likely that U.S. per capita emissions were never that low - even
back in colonial days when the only fuel we burned was wood. The
only nations in the world today that emit at this low level are all
poor developing nations, such as Belize, Mauritius, Jordan, Haiti and
Somalia. If that comparison seems unfair, consider that even the
least-CO2 emitting industrialized nations do not come close to the
2050 target. France and Switzerland, compact nations that generate
almost all of their electricity from nonfossil fuel sources (nuclear
for France, hydro for Switzerland) emit about 6.5 metric tons of CO2
per capita." - Link
And
then we have dear old Al Gore. The Goracle has called for a reduction
in global carbon dioxide emissions of 90% within 20 years!
There is little chance that modern society could function with 25%
less oil, just imagine the consequences of a 90% reduction. Cities
would be deserted and slowly rot. Infrastructure could no longer be
maintained. It would surely result in a massive die-off in the human
population.
I’m quite certain Al isn’t serious
about his demands for a 90% reduction. That would be uncontrollable,
and the whole purpose behind the Global Green Agenda is to gain
control over, transform, and reduce human activity. A more likely
outcome will be less severe reductions, combined with the imposition
of a global system of carbon permits governed by the United Nations.
This would give the UN unprecedented power to regulate individuals,
businesses and governments, all in the name of ‘saving the
Earth’. Carbon markets have already been established in many
countries in anticipation of a mandatory system.
In the
United States the only operating carbon emissions trading market is
the
Chicago Climate Exchange
(CCX). Coincidentally, or not, Al Gore’s hedge fund, Generation
Investment Management, is the largest shareholder in CCX. Now that’s
what I call a conflict of interest! The most vocal Global Warming
alarmist is the largest shareholder in the USA’s only operating
‘carbon market.’ On the board of CCX we find our old
friend Maurice Strong.
In late 2007 the UN will host a
conference in Bali with the intention of formulating an
internationally binding Climate Change Treaty to replace the Kyoto
Protocol. It is widely expected that this treaty will mandate a
global carbon trading system, and possibly a global carbon tax. Many
green activists know that Global Warming is a vague and hollow
threat. However, it is proving to be a very effective tool in
implementing their Global Green Agenda which began more than a decade
ago with Sustainable Development and Agenda 21.
"Effective
execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all
human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced —
a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals
and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources.
This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental
consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and
collective decision-making at every level."
-
UN Agenda 21