Today’s environmentalism – a sum of fears and fallacies

Published in Expansión

The birth of the original environmental movement was a welcomed event. Anthropocentric, conservationist and full of common sense, it aimed to put an end to excessive pollution caused by selfish, abusive and short-term behaviours, especially in fluids like the air and the water in rivers and oceans where property rights are not easily exercisable and where responsibility for harmful actions remains diffuse. Additionally, it focused on drawing attention towards the scarcity of natural resources (i.e. overfishing). Lastly, the original conservationists sought to preserve the wonderful beauty of nature in order to safeguard the interests of future generations yet to be born, but definitely not to protect the supposed rights of that old pagan goddess known as Mother Earth. Human superiority over animals, an obvious fact if I am even allowed to say it, was never in doubt.

This movement has sadly degenerated. Patrick Moore, cofounder and ex president of Greenpeace (organisation that he himself decided to abandon), has cleverly summarized the current state of affairs: environmentalism today is a sum of ‘pagan beliefs and junk science’ that has taken on a radical form opposed to truth, to logic and to science. Of course, within the microcosm of environmentalism there are still people and small organisations that are doing a wonderful and necessary conservationist work, faithful to its origins. However, the global leadership of today’s environmentalism has certainly fallen into the hands of a group of radical fanatics. Common-sense conservationists want to save the planet for man, while the environmentalist ideology aims to save the planet from man. For the first one, man is the subject; for the second one, the Earth is.

These sinister druids of the 21st century drink from different springs. They are Malthusians that believe that the world’s population should decrease by all means possible including forced abortion and sterilisation (particularly in Third World countries and amongst races other that their own, overwhelmingly white). They are also pagans who consider man a virus of the old goddess whom they worship, Mother Earth, a virus that has to be eradicated in order to protect her. Hence the need to understand that radical environmentalism is deeply anti-humankind. These guys make no secret of this and have put it in writing in different publications over the last 40 years: ‘as radical environmentalists, we can see AIDS not as a problem, but a necessary solution’ (Manes), ‘it is our species duty, relative to the whole, to eliminate 90 per cent of our numbers’ (Aiken), ‘until such time as homo sapiens should decide to return to nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along’ (Graber). This paganism antagonises and prioritises always Earth over man, who is placed in a lower class than the rest of creatures. Philip of Edinburgh stated it pretty clearly in 1984 while he was the President of WWF: ‘man is one of the living species of the planet but it is reaching plague proportions’ (that is: like rats or cockroaches). The last source from which this sort of environmentalism draws from is a profound anti-capitalism, having sheltered the followers of the ideologies that were left orphaned after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when the human, moral, social and economic disaster of the Socialist tyrannies of the 20th century emerged loud and clear.

Therefore, let us be clear about how today’s environmentalism has declared war against man and capitalism, and how it dreams of a planet inhabited by fewer and much poorer human beings. Ecologists themselves have clarified this in their well-known IPAT formula, which defines the environmental impact as the result of population, affluence and technology. Given the difficulty of finding volunteers to adhere to such reactionary, pessimist and genocidal proposal, today’s environmentalism displays a big act of hypocrisy pretending to be alarmed about the mortality their apocalyptic fantasies are supposed to provoke while trying by all means to reduce the world population in the first place.

Environmentalism massively relies on fear and deception. Fear, and particularly fear of death, has always been a powerful tool to manipulate the masses. Thus, ideologically and financially, environmentalism lives off fabricated threats that, as Michael Crichton wrote, leave us in a state of permanent fear that blocks reason and prudence. The tyranny of political correctness, with its merciless propaganda, is responsible for silencing under threat of ostracism or of media lynching those who may attempt to defend a reality based on scientific data and logic. Outright, repetitive, shameless and absurd lies turn into an indispensable tool: I have been studying this phenomenon for many years and I have never found such an extensive and blatant use of deception as in environmentalism, not even in the political sphere (and that is saying a lot). Peter Kareiva, Chief Scientific for the Nature Conservancy (one of the most important conservation organisations, founded in 1951), unveiled the imposture of this gimmicky scaremongering in an interesting essay written in 2012: ‘The environmental movement has simply loved the horror story, but I believe that it is a failed strategy, and actually it’s not supported by science […]. The data simply do not support the idea of a fragile nature at risk of collapse. A comprehensive review of scientific literature […] shows that nature is so resilient that it can recover rapidly from even the most powerful human disturbances.’ He concluded that: ‘Conservationists will have to form a more optimistic and friendlier opinion on man […]. If nature is resilient rather than fragile, and if people are actually part of nature and not the original sinners who caused our banishment from Eden, what should be the new vision for conservation? To embrace a priority that has been anathema to us for more than a hundred years: economic development for all’.

Lastly, dear reader, on a more worldly note environmentalism simply wants your money: rich environmental organisations are looking for well-intentioned donors to whom they have previously deceived with misleading publicity; the enormous and cleverly labelled “renewable” or “green” energy industry (actually intermittent, expensive and inefficient) is looking for subsidies under the umbrella of supposedly man-made climate change, and the voracious and desperate tax authorities from all around the world are happy to be provided a politically correct excuse to create new taxes.

In the following articles I will expose some of the best-known fallacies of current environmentalism through scientific data and logic: deforestation, the extinction of the polar bear, the melting of polar ice, the rising sea levels and, lastly, the so-called man-made climate change, formerly known as global warming and now opportunistically focused on the apparent (but completely fake) increase of extreme weather events.

Please do not be misled. The environmentalism of fear and deception wants to impose a sinister ideology enemy of the truth, of freedom and of man himself. Distrust those who pharisaically declare that they want to save the planet when their true aim is to dominate it.

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on google
Share on email
Share on print