Categories
Archives
HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
target="_top">

Archive for the ‘Environmentalist Nonsense’ Category

House votes to weaken Obama’s climate rule

EPA Tells Lies about Climate Change, Again

by Bob Allen
If the head of the EPA tells lies about global warming, what else is she willing to do for her job?

At the EPA’s web log, Gina McCarthy writes, “We Must Act Now to Protect our Winters.”

2014 was the hottest year on record, and each of the last three decades has been hotter than the last.

In mountain towns that depend on winter tourism, the realities of climate change really hit home. Shorter, warmer winters mean a shorter season to enjoy the winter sports we love—and a financial hit for local economies that depend on winter sports.

Even if you hate winter, climate change affects you – because climate risks are economic risks. Skiing, snowboarding and other types of winter recreation add $67 billion to the economy every year, and they support 900,000 jobs.

This woman has no place running the EPA. Her blog piece starts with a massive lie—last year was NOT the hottest year on record (unless you are comfortable ignoring the devil in the details of how that claim was measured… yeah, I can make a thermometer read higher by placing it in the right environment to achieve a desired warmer reading)—and it continues on down a hill of Gruberisms from there.

Get ready for lie after bold-faced lie, designed to gain a desired outcome of increased government power, and wealth for bureaucratic cronies.

If we fail to act, Aspen’s climate could be a lot like that of Amarillo, TX, by 2100. Amarillo is a great town, but it’s a lousy place to ski.

With all due respect, that’s a load of hysterical crap—none of the real science says Aspen will be like Amarillo in just over 80 years—even using the most wild and unsupported projections of Climate Change devotees.

Using the X-Games as a context for this putrid nonsense is brilliant propaganda targeted at young people that would make Joseph Goebbels smile from the grave.

Thus, Climate Change Depot:

“There are dueling global datasets — surface temperature records and satellite records — and they disagree. The satellites show an 18 year plus global warming standstill and the satellite was set up to be ‘more accurate’ than the surface records,” writes Marc Morano, former staff member of the U.S. Senate’s Environment and Public Works Committee.

“Any temperature claim of ‘hottest year’ based on surface data is based on hundredths of a degree hotter than previous ‘hottest years.’ This immeasurable difference is not even within the margin of error of temperature gauges. The claim of the ‘hottest year’ is simply a political statement not based on temperature facts. ‘Hottest year’ claims are based on minute fractions of a degree while ignoring satellite data showing Earth is continuing the 18 plus year ‘pause’ or ‘standstill’.” The most reliable statistics—and those most difficult to manipulate into Climate Change lies—show that the alleged warming trend clearly is not occurring as Gina McCarthy wants the gullible and ignorant to believe. Even if it were, there is no proof man has any significant impact on such things, nor that this isn’t just a natural shift in our climate brought on by much bigger factors.”

Remember Jonathan Gruber! People of this ilk know you won’t support their pet projects unless they lie, and lie big. Don’t fall for the Climate lies.

Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2015/01/epa-tells-lies-climate-change/#kWSL4kCeC4O7I4S7.99

THE HYPOCRITES ABOUND - 1,700 private jets fly to Davos to discuss perils of ‘climate change’

private-jet-AP-640x480
A squadron of 1,700 private jets are rumbling into Davos, Switzerland, this week to discuss global warming and other issues as the annual World Economic Forum gets underway.

The influx of private jets is so great, the Swiss Armed Forces has been forced to open up a military air base for the first time ever to absorb all the super rich flying their private jets into the event, reports Newsweek.

“Decision-makers meeting in Davos must focus on ways to reduce climate risk while building more efficient, cleaner, and lower-carbon economies,” former Mexican president Felipe Calderon told USA Today.

Davos, which has become a playground of sorts for the global elite, is expected to feature at least 40 heads of state and 2,500 top business executives. Former Vice President-turned-carbon billionaire Al Gore and rapper Pharrell Williams will be there as well; each plans to discuss global warming and recycling respectively.

Another big theme of the mega-rich confab will be combating “income inequality” and how the world’s rich can pay their fair share to reduce the gap between top earners and the lower class. Admission price for Davos: roughly $40,000 a ticket.

The World Economic Forum will also feature discussions on gender equality and opportunities for women. According to the World Economic Forum’s own statistics, just 17% of all 2015 participants are women.

The 45th World Economic Forum meeting begins on Wednesday and runs through Saturday.

B77wjurIgAATB0h.jpg-large

Now why would certain billionaires be aligned with the Communists?

anticarbon29cf800a26109928c04376a779838d81_XL
Beyond belief, yet this alliance hopes that many will continue to be manipulated by the Global Warming, er, make that Climate Change narrative.
Now why would certain billionaires be aligned with the Communists? At first blush, this seems to be an oxymoron, but it most definitely is not. Oppression by any other name is still oppression, and what better alliance than this could be so effective, as well as mutually beneficial to both parties?
Truth be damned. They are desperate to enact their agenda, and will do whatever it takes.
From The New American With United Nations bosses gathering dictators and government representatives in New York next week for a “climate” summit amid the ongoing implosion of their man-made “global warming” theories, a coalition ranging from billionaire front groups to the Communist Party is planning what it calls “the People’s Climate March.” What critics refer to as the “global rent-a-mob,” organized in part by theRockefeller-funded alarmist organization 350.org, claims the worldwide demonstrations demanding a UN global-warming regime will be “the largest climate rally in history.” They may well be, but that hardly changes the fact that most Americans reject failed anthropogenic global-warming (AGW) theories and that virtually every falsifiable “climate” prediction has been dead wrong.
The “People’s” Climate March, not to be confused with the open-air gulag UN member-state known as the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea, is set to take place on September 21, the day before UN “climate dignitaries” converge in New York to plot a new anti-carbon regime for humanity. As with many other pseudo-popular movements, the establishment-backed march is there to provide some semblance of public support for deeply unpopular policy machinations. In this case, the goals include carbon taxes, energy rationing, mass wealth redistribution from Western taxpayers to Third World dictators, further empowering the UN, and imposing adraconian planetary regime supposedly aimed at curbing “global warming” that will devastate the poor.
It would be easy to assume that nobody bothered informing the organizers and their dupes that there has been no warming for 18 years and counting even as polar ice continues to hit new record-highs — defying every prediction and climate model advanced by the UN and its fellow warming alarmists over the last few decades. More likely, though, is that the establishment figures behind the “climate” coalition have ambitions that go far beyond stopping warming that, based on the undisputed temperature record, stopped almost two decades ago. “This is an invitation to change everything,” the People’s Climate March says on its website promoting the rallies. Everything? Well, almost. “With our future on the line and the whole world watching, we’ll take a stand to bend the course of history,” the promo for the march continues. “We’ll take to the streets to demand the world we know is within our reach: a world with an economy that works for people and the planet; a world safe from the ravages of climate change; a world with good jobs, clean air and water, and healthy communities.” Beyond New York City, the coalition is also planning “climate” demonstrations to “change everything” in London, Berlin, and other major cities. It remains unclear how many actual “people” will be turning out, but organizers claim it will be huge.

Among the groups partnering with the march are the Communist Party USA, the Socialist Party USA, numerous self-described socialist groups, Big Labor, the billionaire George “New World Order” Soros-funded MoveOn.org, myriad Islamic groups, crony capitalists, pseudo-environmentalist establishment front groups, and many more. As U.S. Communist Party boss John Bachtell wrote in the CPUSA mouthpiece People’s World in a recent propaganda piece promoting its “People’s Climate March”: “Solutions to the climate crisis inevitably collide with the capitalist system.” In other words, to solve the fake “crisis,” prepare to lose your prosperity and your God-given rights.

Another one of the outfits partnering with the march, Socialist Alternative, also recently outlined the real agenda being advanced by socialists purporting to be concerned about non-existent warming: “solving climate change” with global socialism. According to the outfit’s Pete Ikeler, capitalism combined with fossil fuels now threatens “all advances” made by humanity over its history. The problems are allegedly so bad that perhaps “industrialization” was not such a good idea after all, he suggested. “The solution, therefore, … is the replacement of capitalism with a rational, planned, and democratic economy — otherwise known as socialism,” it says. “Humanity is indeed at a crossroads — and capitalism is in the way. We urge all members of the 99% to join in the struggle for system change to stop climate change.”

Amplified by Russian state-owned propaganda outlets and Western propagandists styling themselves “journalists,” People’s March organizers, echoing UN talking points, claim to be creating the necessary momentum to provide enough cover for globalists to foist their climate regime on humanity. “The People’s Climate March can be — and in many ways already is — creating a tipping point moment for the world,” reads a statement from event organizers quoted by Russia’s RIA Novosti. “There’s real power in this kind of human energy.”

The Rockefeller oil dynasty-funded 350.org outfit, which seeks to impose a draconian UN-run regime to reduce concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million, has previously organized major global-warming protests around the world. Unsurprisingly, the “green” AstroTurf (phony grassroots) machinations, which a recent Senate report once again confirmed are being bankrolled and used by what it called “the Billionaires’ Club,” always get plenty of establishment-media attention, too. However, the increasingly discredited “mainstream” press has consistently failed to tell the whole story.

For instance, take the basic premise behind the whole AGW edifice supposedly requiring global socialism: The notion that carbon dioxide — exhaled by humans and essential for plant life — is “pollution” that will supposedly lead to catastrophic warming. With no temperature increases for 18 years and counting even as CO2 levels grew, countless scientists who rely on the scientific method and observable evidence to reach conclusions concede that the theory must be incorrect. Dozens of excuses have been concocted to explain what alarmists refer to as the “pause” in global warming, including Obama’s favorite, the “Theory of the Ocean Ate My Global Warming.” The simplest explanation — the theory is wrong — remains off the table for the UN and most of its member regimes.

Beyond the obvious problems with AGW theories, the notion that CO2 is harmful is considered ludicrous by respected scientists who study the issue. “CO2 is ‘the gas of life,’” explained Dr. Tom Segalstad, associate professor of resource and environmental geology and geochemistry at the University of Oslo. “The more CO2, the more life. More CO2 means we can feed more people on Earth. CO2 is contributing very little to the ‘greenhouse effect’. Clouds have much more influence on temperature.”

Dr. Segalstad is a contributing author with the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, or NIPCC, which produced a landmark survey of climate science and came to very different conclusions than the UN’s discredited “climate” fear-mongering reports. NIPCC lead author and meteorologist Dr. Madhav Khandekar, who also worked with the UN climate body until becoming outraged by its lack of interest in proper scientific review, also pointed out that human-added CO2 is not destabilizing the climate.

Even if CO2 were harmful “pollution,” rather than a beneficial and natural gas that is crucial to life on this planet, efforts to limit human emissions of the gas to control “climate” would still be beyond laughable. Water vapor, of course, is the primary “greenhouse gas” in the atmosphere, accounting for around 95 percent of the crucial-to-life so-called “greenhouse effect.” That gas is entirely beyond human control, and there is no dispute on any of those facts — even among the most devoted alarmists, whom critics ridicule as a “cult” for refusing to change their beliefs despite the undeniable evidence.

Carbon dioxide, meanwhile, accounts for about 0.04 percent of the gases present in Earth’s atmosphere. Of that, according to scientific estimates, less than 3.3 percent comes from human emissions such as the burning of fossil fuels. The vast majority comes from the oceans at around 42 percent, or the biosphere at about 55 percent — volcanoes, wild fires, decomposition, and more. In other words, around three percent of the “greenhouse gases” can be attributed to human activities. Of that tiny sliver attributed to humans, Americans are responsible for less than 20 percent.

None of that matters to the establishment forces whipping up “climate” hysteria to advance their own sinister objectives. Indeed, the “People’s Climate March” will hardly be the only global-warming alarmism event in New York City next week demanding UN “action.” Among other happenings, a pseudo-religious “climate” festival dubbed the “Religions For The Earth Conference” will be asking the gods to forgive humanity for its carbon sins. Separately, a coalition that includes top international mega-corporations, dubbed “The Climate Group,” will be organizing global-warming “awareness activities” all week as part of “Climate Week NYC.”

As what top establishment figures refer to as “useful idiots” converge on New York to demand their own enslavement under the guise of stopping a demonstrably manufactured crisis, the Obama administration has already indicated that it plans to foist the UN climate regime on America by decree. Instead of obtaining Senate approval as required under the U.S. Constitution, the White House intends to use “executive action” to further devastate the U.S. economy and what remains of the market amid its absurd war on “the gas of life.” Americans, a solid majority of whom consistently reject discredited AGW theories, must ensure that their elected representatives take action to protect the public, the economy, and the Constitution from the lawless machinations.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, education, politics, and more. He can be reached at anewman@thenewamerican.com. Follow him on Twitter @ALEXNEWMAN_JOU.

School District Quits Michelle Obama Lunch Program

This is not the first time a school district has quit what has been promoted as the Michelle Obama lunch program, but the fact that an Illinois school district is opting out of the system tells you it is truly an intolerable food arrangement. School lunches

The state’s second largest school district has started the school year with a new look for its lunch menu, after opting out of the National School Lunch Program and forfeiting nearly $1 million in federal funding, to gain more freedom in the food it serves students.

In May, the board for Township High School District 214 voted to drop out of the federal program, after deciding its guidelines were too restrictive. For instance, kids would not have been able to buy hard-boiled eggs or certain types of yogurt. School officials also have noted new guidelines consider hummus to be too high in fat, and pretzels to be too high in salt; non-fat milk containers larger than 12 ounces could not be sold either.

I know it is slightly off topic but I have to wonder: is current nutritional science really this hateful and hurtful? Is it really impossible to eat good food that is healthy for you and that satisfies you? Reading about these guidelines gives one the impression they are designed to produce malnourished teens that are constantly distracted by hunger. (But what do I know? I drink my coffee with butter and coconut oil.)

In any case, the school district is “rebelling.” That is how I have described other schools doing the same thing, as have many other conservatives. But some of the details in this story make me realize it is not so much about them rebelling as that they are financially forced to opt out of the Federal program. While the story claims that the school district “forfeit[ed] nearly $1 million in federal funding to gain more freedom,” it later becomes clear that they did not forfeit anything. The program effectively ended the reimbursement program.

Here’s how it worked.

Schools that serve the lunches can get a certain amount reimbursed. But in order to get reimbursed, the students must actually purchase the food. But the students stopped buying the food. So rather than get money the school district was losing money. It was spending money to acquire and prepare food that no one would buy. So the school was stuck with food and no way to cover their costs.

Johnson said, the concern was, in addition to the federal guidelines being too restrictive on menu choices, sales of the food they could offer wouldn’t be high enough to receive federal aid.

“What would happen is the sales simply wouldn’t be there, and the offerings that we would currently have wouldn’t be available,” Johnson said.

The bottom line, according to Johnson, is if schools can’t sell the healthy meals allowed under the federal program, they also wouldn’t receive any federal funding, so District 214 opted for healthy options kids would eat.

So the real story here is not heroic schools (though I am happy with their decision). The real story is that the best and brightest who came up with this plan and got Michelle Obama to push it seemed to have assumed that the students would compliantly put into their mouths whatever the Federal government dictated to them. What does it tell us about the regime that they have so completely misunderstood how the public would respond?

Read more at http://politicaloutcast.com/2014/09/school-district-quits-michelle-obama-lunch-program/#DqIyXmm6MBljUMiv.99

Pork-barrel politics at the EPA

By Jonathan R. Nash

power plant

In its proposed new regulations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that many of the benefits of its mandate will arise not from the direct benefits of lower levels of carbon emissions, but from so-called health “co-benefits” — benefits of reductions in the emission of other pollutants (particulate matter and ozone) that come about as a byproduct of carbon emission reductions. It is certainly the case that the EPA — and government in general — should consider ancillary benefits that result from regulation. However, when the lion’s share of a regulation’s benefits arises from co-benefits, it looks as though the tail is wagging the dog. This lack of regulatory transparency is problematic for two reasons. First, by eschewing direct regulation of the co-pollutants under the Clean Air Act, the EPA leaves itself open to the charge that it is playing politics rather than engaging in reasoned decision-making. Indeed, opponents have assailed the EPA for waging war on coal with the proposed rule. Second, by promulgating a rule that generates more co-benefits than direct benefits — and by emphasizing that fact in promoting the rule — the EPA effectively marginalizes the problem of climate change.

Congress generally designed the Clean Air Act so that the EPA would regulate pollutants on an individual basis; at least one reason for this choice was to foster transparent debate over whether, and how best, to regulate particular pollutants. With its proposed rule, the EPA seems to be more concerned with addressing pollution from coal but under the rubric of climate change regulation. To be sure, there are strong arguments in favor of more stringent environmental regulation of coal: Coal combustion does impose substantial health costs, and many heavily polluting coal-fired power plants today remain in service far beyond the predicted end of their lives. That there is merit in the idea, however, does not mean that the idea should be floated openly.
The EPA’s attempt to garner political support for its proposed carbon regulation actually casts climate change as a less-important problem than the administration has repeatedly asserted that it is. The absence of adequate regulation over co-pollutants makes carbon regulation appear more necessary. In some of the EPA’s models, the co-benefits of carbon regulation dwarf the direct climate change benefits. Indeed, the difference in magnitude could be said to be even larger than it appears, insofar as the EPA models (1) consider the global direct benefits of carbon reduction but only the domestic co-benefits, and (2) generally discount the co-benefits more heavily than the direct benefits. The EPA thus is justifying — or at least selling — carbon regulation through indirect benefits. This strategy may bring on board as supporters people who doubt the reality of anthropogenic climate change, but it begs the question: If climate change is truly insurmountable and raises the possibility of truly catastrophic harm, why are the direct benefits of climate change regulation much smaller than the co-benefits? In an effort to gain political support, the EPA and the administration risk undermining the perception that climate change is the pressing environmental challenge that demands our immediate action and attention.

Nash is a professor at Emory University School of Law. He specializes in the study of environmental law, legislation and regulation, and the federal courts and judiciary. Follow him @JonathanRNash.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/209431-pork-barrel-politics-at-the-epa#ixzz35BVMJRa1
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Misdirected Evil Tom Steyer targets Rubio, 2016 hopefuls on climate

Trying all the tricks.
Check it out:

Billionaire Tom Steyer’s environmental group is using its social media prowess to hit Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on his recent climate change comments.

NextGen Climate, which Steyer founded in 2013, released a Web video on Wednesday chiding Rubio for getting caught “on the wrong side of the numbers.”

“If you’re thinking about running for president, you don’t want to be caught on the wrong side of the numbers,” the video’s narrator states.
By Laura Barron Lopez
Billionaire Tom Steyer’s environmental group is using its social media prowess to hit Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) on his recent climate change comments.

NextGen Climate, which Steyer founded in 2013, released a Web video on Wednesday chiding Rubio for getting caught “on the wrong side of the numbers.”
“If you’re thinking about running for president, you don’t want to be caught on the wrong side of the numbers,” the video’s narrator states.

During a Sunday interview on ABC’s “This Week,” Rubio, a Republican presidential hopeful, said that while he believes in climate change, he doesn’t believe human activity is causing it.

On Tuesday, Rubio sought to clarify his comments on climate change during an appearance at the National Press Club, focusing on the legislative policy proposals put forward by the administration and a number of Democrats in Congress. He didn’t repeat his statement on human activity not contributing to climate change from the earlier interview.

That did it for NextGen Climate.

The video challenges all potential 2016 presidential hopefuls, including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.), Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), Gov. Bobby Jindal (R-La.) and others to answer where they stand on climate change.

“If you are thinking about running for president, answer this: Do you stand with the facts, or do you stand with Sen. Rubio? The pressure’s on,” the video states, ending with footage of Rubio’s infamous GOP rebuttal to President Obama’s 2013 State of the Union address where he awkwardly reaches for a drink of water.

On top of the Web video, NextGen created a Tumblr, dubbed #PlanetRubio, dedicated to mocking Rubio for his climate change comments, and a Twitter account, @PlanetRubio.

The Tumblr and Twitter account consist of memes and tweets of outlandish comments that would be true on a planet run by Rubio.

“On #Planet Rubio Miami’s $3.5 trillion in assets aren’t in any way threatened by climate change,” the Tumblir states.

“On #PlanetRubio climate change is not man-made. Kanye West also lets Taylor Swift finish,” a tweet posted on the account states.

This isn’t the first time Rubio has been the sole target of Steyer’s action group. Last month, NextGen Climate launched an ad buy in Florida that targeted Rubio for backing the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

Steyer’s rise to the forefront of politics in the last year has drawn much scrutiny from GOP lawmakers, who have accused Democrats of pushing drastic climate policies for the sole purpose of attracting donations from Steyer.

Read more: http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/206141-billionaire-steyer-targets-rubio-2016-hopefuls-on-climate##ixzz32Hsu8ARJ
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

Another Study Proves Fracking Doesn't Hurt Ground Water

One more study has proved what all the others have shown, fracking doesn’t pollute the ground water.
The Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources published a 265-page document on the ecological and environmental impacts of hydraulic fracturing in the state.

Part of the lucrative Marcellus shale natural gas reserve basin lies under Pennsylvania. The basin is one of the top natural gas producers in the country.

The DCNR’s report said water quality is often cited as the area were most people have expressed concern about hydraulic fracturing, a drilling practice known also as fracking.

“Although incidents have occurred, the monitoring data show that water quality has not been affected due to this activity,” the report said.

Some of the chemicals used in the practice are seen by fracking opponents as a threat to groundwater supplies.

The DCNR said invasive plant species and pests have been able to take advantage of the ecological and environmental disturbances caused by drilling. This “clearly shows” energy companies need to carefully manage their activity to control the spread of invasive species.

The report added more than 1,400 acres of forest were exploited for natural gas development through 2012, though that number is lower than it could’ve been because of management decisions.
It is estimated that Marcellus holds 1,300 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, enough gas to supply the US for 65 years.

gas
One of the states that could most benefit from Marcellus is NY, however the state government keeps on avoiding the issue with new health studies.

Another issue slowing down the development of energy production are the environmentalists. Energy, especially fracking is a double-devil. There are the local environmentalists who ignore the science and claim fracking causes everything from earthquakes to contaminated ground water. Then there are the national environmentalist who fight any carbon-based energy product, ignoring the 1,350+ peer-reviewed studies that refute the global warming theory.

The US has been mired in a weak economy for six years, it’s time for the United States federal and state governments to jump with both feet into the energy production pool, it will not only help those in the energy related industries but their jobs and salaries will act as free-market, easy-on-the-federal budget stimulus to the economy (are you listening Governor Cuomo?).

Green Politics Made Europe Vulnerable to Putin

Germany’s dependence on renewable energy is a bonanza for Gazprom.Green Goth
By RUPERT DARWALL

Alaska’s Sen. Lisa Murkowski called on President Obama this month to lift the ban on exports of U.S. natural gas to Europe. For the sake of European independence, we can only hope the administration listens.

Enlarge Image

A Greenpeace activist trusses herself to a gasoline pump at a Gazprom gas station in Berlin on October 2, 2013 Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Until the crisis over Ukraine, there was an inbuilt tendency in Germany to embrace closer ties with Russia. Former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder is close to Vladimir Putin (he has compared Russia’s intervention in Ukraine to NATO’s action against Serbia in the 1990s) and is chairman of the board of Gazprom OGZPY -0.15% joint-venture pipeline company Nord Stream. In 2012, Russia piped 30 billion cubic meters of natural gas to Germany, accounting for 28% of the 105.5 billion cubic meters of gas delivered to the European Union.

Friendships aside, the most significant driver of German energy-related foreign policy has been its powerful Green Party. Other countries considering letting domestic or foreign policy be determined by environmentalists would do well to consider where Germany’s embrace of environmentalism has led.

Germany’s Greens first emerged as a political force at the end of the 1970s at a time of acute East-West tension. In response to deployment of Soviet midrange SS-20 missiles, NATO decided to station Pershing missiles in Germany. Massive, sometimes violent, demonstrations against nuclear power and nuclear missiles swept Germany. Whether consciously or not, the protesters were doing the Kremlin’s work in trying to split the Atlantic alliance.

Related Video
Author Rupert Darwall on why many European countries are dependent on Moscow for oil and gas. Photo credit: Getty Images.

The protests turned the German left into the voice of radical environmentalism—a historical shift. Old Nazis and neo-Nazis had been the bearers of Germany’s culture of ecological politics, which had been marginalized with Hitler’s defeat. German environmentalism was antidemocratic and anticapitalist. The Nazis were Europe’s greenest party, passing laws to extend protected forests and banning animal vivisection while performing hideous experiments on human beings.

In October 1980, Germany’s Green Party was formed to stand in parliamentary and state elections. Eighteen years later it entered government in a Red-Green coalition with the left-of-center SPD and in 2000 successfully pushed for the gradual phaseout of nuclear power.

The Greens’ biggest triumph came with Germany’s adoption of its Energiewende, the transition to renewable energy. The policy is a long-term bonanza for Gazprom. It means that Germany will buy more and more Russian gas because it cannot depend on electricity from unreliable wind and solar to power its industries and keep the lights on.

The emergence of the Greens has had a huge impact on German and European politics. But not all of Europe is so enthusiastic or willfully naive about dependence on Russian gas. Some countries are looking to America for alternatives.

Russia supplies around one third of the EU’s gas, but the proportion rises the farther east you go. The Baltic states and Bulgaria buy all their gas from Russia. In the middle are Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary, dependent for 50% of their gas on Russia. Those countries, acting as the Visegrad Four, have opposed German attempts (which are supported by Britain and France) to institutionalize aggressive decarbonization policies across the EU.

Earlier this month, the prime ministers of the Visegrad Four condemned Russia’s action in Ukraine, saying it created “a dangerous new reality in Europe.” Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk warned that Europe risks paralysis as “exorbitant” climate policies could well make the EU more dependent on Russian energy. The four nations’ ambassadors in Washington have asked congressional leaders for help lifting barriers on U.S. natural gas exports.

There are now more than a dozen pipelines supplying Europe with Russian gas, and as gas prices are mostly indexed to the world price of crude oil, the price of that gas has risen sharply. Yet President Obama dithers over approving the Keystone XL pipeline and is passive in response to European appeals for American gas.

Opening up European markets to American gas would help shake Gazprom’s hold on those countries most dependent on Russian supplies. Mr. Obama needs to face down the greens in his own party and open up North America’s abundant oil and gas reserves to the world.

Mr. Darwall is the author of “The Age of Global Warming: A History” (Quartet, 2013).

The Environmentalist Eugenics of the Left

Obama_Interior_Secretary_0f4be_image_1024w-450x346</aPick up a copy of Obama’s $3.9 trillion budget and there among the TSA fee hikes, Medicare payment cuts and the $400 million for the Department of Homeland Security to fight global warming is a curious little item.

On Page 930 of the budget that never ends is $575 million for “family planning/reproductive health” worldwide especially in “areas where population growth threatens biodiversity or endangered species.”

The idea that the way to protect insects, fish and animals is by preventing human beings from having children is part of an approach known as Population, Health and Environment (PHE) which integrates population control into environmentalist initiatives.

PHE dates back to the 1980s and is practiced by mainstream organizations such as the World Wildlife Fund. The Smithsonian’s Woodrow Wilson Center, which is funded partly by the US government, aggressively champions PHE eugenics and USAID funds PHE programs and distributes PHE training manuals derived in part from Wilson Center materials.

PHE had been baked into congressional bills such as the Global Sexual and Reproductive Health Act of 2013 co-sponsored by Debbie Wasserman-Shultz and Sheila Jackson-Lee which urged meeting United Nations Millennium Development Goals by using birth control as, among other things, a means of “ensuring environmental sustainability.”

Obama’s budget is more open about its PHE eugenics agenda. While PHE backers usually claim that they want to reduce population to prevent famine and promote gender equality, the budget explicitly states that its goal is to reduce human population growth for the sake of the animals, without any of the usual misleading language about feminism and clean water.

The budget is a blunt assertion of post-human values by an administration that has become notorious for its fanatical environmentalism, sacrificing people on the altar of Green ideology.

When Obama’s Interior Secretary Sally Jewell visited Alaska, she told the residents of an Eskimo village where nineteen people had died due to the difficulty of evacuating patients during medical emergencies that, “I’ve listened to your stories, now I have to listen to the animals.”

Jewell rejected the road that they needed to save lives because it would inconvenience the local waterfowl. When it came to choosing between the people and the ducks, Jewell chose the ducks.

Ducks don’t talk, but environmentalists do, and they had vocally opposed helping the people of King Cove. Jewell had received the Rachel Carson Award, named after an environmentalist hero whose fearmongering killed millions. Compared to the Carson malaria graveyards of Africa, nineteen dead Eskimos slide off the post-human conscience of a fanatical environmentalist like water off a duck’s back.

USAID, which played a key role in the war on DDT, has openly embraced PHE. The arguments against DDT often focused not on saving lives, but on taking them. PHE prevents children from being born, but environmentalists don’t stop with the unborn. Malaria was an even more effective tool for reducing populations.

Environmentalist population reduction activists originally cloaked their real agenda in claims about worldwide famine. Paul Erlich, author of “The Population Bomb,” had predicted mass starvation by the 1970s and the end of England by 2000. Today Global Warming activists set empty dates for the destruction of mankind that they themselves don’t believe in.

The post-human left seeks to maintain a state of perpetual crisis so that governments and corporations will be more inclined to accept even the most horrifying solutions to avoid the end of mankind. What it does not tell them is that its goal is the end of mankind.

In February, Population Action International and the Sierra Club sponsored a congressional briefing on PHE post-2015. Population Action International was originally founded as the Population Crisis Committee in the sixties. Its preceding organizations included the Hugh Moore Fund for International Peace which claimed that population control was necessary to defeat Communism.

Like the Communists, the post-human activists were adept at disguising their agenda in the concerns of the moment, shifting from national security, feminism, the coming Ice Age, mass starvation and now Global Warming.

Environmentalists are even attempting to shoehorn the War on Terror into their agenda as the Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program attempts to tie every terrorist conflict zone to global warming.

Environmentalist fearmongering has never been about saving people. Its activists, like Sally Jewell, are too busy playing duck whisperer to care about people.

Green programs have yet to save lives, but they do cost lives. The elderly in the United Kingdom are dying of electric poverty after facing cold winters and shocking price increases due to sustainability mandates, asthma sufferers are dying because the affordable albuterol inhalers they used were banned by the EPA, and people die in fires and floods, in natural disasters that could have been prevented, but are instead blamed on their victims by the environmentalists, who helped make them so lethal.

Not only do environmentalists kill, but they also profit from the deaths of their victims.

Elliot Morley, UK Labour’s Chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, had directed that flooding in Somerset should be promoted because “wildlife will benefit from increased water levels.” Baroness Young, an environmental activist, who had become the chief executive of the UK’s Environment Agency, took steps to increase the possibility of flooding.

As she said, the formula was “for ‘instant wildlife, just add water.’”

When the flooding came, children were trapped on buses, 7,000 homes were flooded and many residents lost everything. Environmental activists blamed global warming and “careless farming” for the floods that they themselves had engineered.

Survivors of the Black Saturday bushfires in Australia which killed 173 people blamed environmental regulations for worsening the fires by preventing residents from clearing trees. The environmentalists blamed global warming and sent around an editorial suggesting that people “who don’t like to end up in flames” should read the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change report.

California’s drought was likewise engineered by environmental activists who then blamed their own handiwork on global warming.

Environmentalists wield unprecedented power over the lives of millions and yet they claim that each engineered disaster could have been averted if they had only been given even more power.

The left is not only becoming post-American or post-Western, but post-human, applying the same tactics that they used to target majorities in Western countries to the human race as a whole. Class war and race war are giving way to species warfare. And since the ducks cannot talk, ultimate power rests with the duck whisperers, those who speak for the animals, the fish and the trees.

The post-human left takes social justice to its natural conclusion, going beyond all the human categories to level mankind with the polar bear, the duck and the microbe. Total equality for the post-human left is not the equality of the rich and the poor, of men and women, of blacks and whites, or even of the First World and the Third World, but the equality of man and microbe, of a pregnant woman in a small Alaskan fishing village with a duck and a hungry California child with the Kangaroo rat.

The post-Human left seeks to put the species in its place. That is the final endgame of the environmentalist movement. It isn’t out to save mankind; it’s out to destroy it.

HELP US KEEP YOU BETTER INFORMED ABOUT THE TRICKS OF THE RADICAL PROGRESSIVE REVOLUTION PLEASE DONATE ANY AMOUNT YOU CAN
SEO Powered By SEOPressor