Bye Bye Barry by Joel S. Hirschhorn (Centrist Liberal Libertarian)
Read
Topic: Global Warming
Church of Sierra Club. Environmental religionist club is 1.3 million strong now. Why Environmentalists should dump the orthodox church substitutes and end-times scenario frauds released by today's Sierra Club and other copy cat environment clubs.by Emma Goldman
(Libertarian)
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Fortunately, 75 to 85% of Americans today do not believe in a 'literal version' of the Christian bible (according to 'earth is not moving' profiteer Marshall Hall), but that hasn't stopped a new religion from growing during the past forty years in America. Today, people that do not subscribe to the centuries old (and profitable) myths of god vs. the devil for the fate of the earth, are subscribing to the 19th and 20th century myth of business as the devil that is harming the earth, and god through his son and christianity are the angels of environmentalism that must protect the earth -- not FOR man, but FROM man.
The Sierra Club is the foremost crusader in this thinly veiled religious inspired effort to get 'sinning man' to do the right thing, and give up his worldly pursuits of 'vile profits' that 'exploit' and 'rape' the earth.
It's easy however, for profiteers of the ruling class to take such positions against profits and economic pursuits such as energy production. The ruling class groupees -- such as those self-appointed environmental leaders running the Sierra Club -- don't have to work for a living -- they get their unearned money through environmental fear mongering, and federal grants for their pet projects, such as creating national parks and reservations of land in the name of the in-vogue environmental causes.
Like every other statist supporter, like every other supporter of Leviathan government, today's Sierra Club and other environmental groups fully approve of eminent domain takings and property rights violations, as long as it's for their righteous environmental causes.
The top 'noble cause' the Sierra Club champions is preventing 'man made global warming', while it ignores natural global warming gases emitted every year due to volcanic activity exceed the entire industrial output by man since the industrial revolution.
The Sierra Club website claims that deforestation accounts for 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Such propaganda does not reflect a concern for global climate change. This is a political agenda to control every countries' natural resources.
Sierra Club and other environmentalists want to stop other countries from using their natural resources, unless America and global organizations under the banner of environmentalism approve of them using it.
Do such Sierra Club elites really want to 'preserve and protect the environment', or are they simply double-speaking and really saying they want to 'confiscate all pristine property for our use'?
Perhaps the best evidence for the latter comes from the Sierra Club web site:
"The Sierra Club has been instrumental in preserving wilderness, wildlife and nature's most splendid wild places for over 100 years — Yosemite National Park, Grand Canyon National Park, the Florida Everglades and the Sequoia National Monument to name just a few — helping protect over 150 million acres of wilderness and wildlife habitat."
This is not protecting the environment FOR man, in the form of clean air and water. This is protecting the environment FROM man. For the ruling elite class and their future generations. In keeping it FROM common free market use, you are keeping it FOR private political-pull use. And today, the best political use for the environment is in vote getting for incumbants, not in keeping clean air and water for man.
Even if the 1.3 million Sierra Club donors suddenly withdrew their financial support (which I support), I'm sure Sierra Club leaders have enough political saavy to continue living off of federal grants for years to come.
According to its web site, 45% of all donor money to the Sierra Club goes into political lobbying efforts. That means donor money is largely supporting a political club for self-appointed elites to rub elbows with the political class at the Federal and State level.
What about endangered species? The Sierra Club does good things there, right? Wrong. Nature herself has eliminated more than 90% of the species that ever existed, through natural selection, but when a species is endangered today, it's attributed to man, not nature. And consider how much of a win it is for political-pull environmental elitists to get 'adorable' species on the EPA endangered list, because that means more federal grants are available to live off in the name of tagging, tracking, breeding, or housing said species. It's like a 'cat lady' hoarding federal money to house all her cats, but it's more exotic and fashionable and politically approved.
And now today's Sierra Club is trying to harness 'clean energy' and 'energy independence' as its new banner for the 21st century.
But considering that environmentalist efforts via the EPA and DOE over the past 30 years have prevented 1) new oil drilling, 2) new oil refineries, and 3) new nuclear power, can we assume the Sierra Club (and its copycats) are insincere in their belated support for creating new energy sources?
You can thank environmentalist clubs such as the Sierra Club for our energy dependence on foreign oil today. You can thank them for the unreliable electrical power and rolling blackouts we have today. They have restricted new American energy production (in the form of both oil and clean nuclear) at every turn over the past 30+ years, and today their fight is against new American coal energy production (witness environmentalists spending almost one-half million in lobbying the Kansas legislature to oppose the Sunflower electric coal plant project.)
You can thank environmentalist clubs who profit via fear mongering for the millions of malaria deaths that were caused by the unnecessary ban of DDT worldwide decades ago.
Is it time to end your Sierra Club (or any other environmental group) membership? Ask yourself : are they pro-man, or anti-man?
I say let's ban the federal Department of Energy, and let's ban the federal Environmental Protection Agency. They've failed to create an environment suitable for man to live in. We have cleaner air and water, but with fewer jobs and unreliable energy as the cost, I'd say that cost is too high to sustain a civilized American environment.
Cleaner air and water can be had through enforcement of property rights, not through bogus preventive laws suggested by the EPA and DOE, as penned by donor-paid Sierra Club lobbyists and their ilk.
"Environmentalism: The Coming Mass Destruction", p. 183- 196, Eric Savage, 'Global Wealth Power', Neo-Tech Worldwide
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 3 thumbs so far
2008 Emma Goldman, all rights reserved.
Published: Sunday, June 1, 2008
Last modified: Sunday, June 1, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of Emma Goldman only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Emma Goldman is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Thanks for that emotional comment Scott. We can see how reasoned it is.
If you look at the origin of today's orthodox environmental dogma, you'll find it started in the 19th century with religionists claiming that the industrialists were going to exhaust all natural resources and destroy 'gods creation'.
Doesn't make much sense for us to destroy the planet our survival depends on, does it? That's why American logging industry during the 20th century never ran out of trees, because it understood you had to plant more to harvest more.
It's easy however, for profiteers of the ruling class to take such positions against profits and economic pursuits such as energy production.
Using a Class Warfare Argument?
The Sierra Club website claims that deforestation accounts for 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions. Such propaganda does not reflect a concern for global climate change.
Wouldn't happen to have a citation or two that backs up your assertion that this is propaganda, would you?
This is not protecting the environment FOR man, in the form of clean air and water. This is protecting the environment FROM man. For the ruling elite class and their future generations. In keeping it FROM common free market use, you are keeping it FOR private political-pull use. And today, the best political use for the environment is in vote getting for incumbants, not in keeping clean air and water for man.
If these public parcels of land were to be auctioned off in a free market forum, and environmental groups made the highest bid for them, you'd still be railing against their anti-market methods, and/or the elitist rich folk that stole the property. Property rights are complex, and very few of them are Natural Rights. Most are the gifts of a robust state. No one has a Natural Right to own their thoughts, once they have shared them with another, yet this is exactly what intellectual property rights are. There is no Natural Right to possess property as an absentee landlord, nor is there a Natural Right to heritable property. These are rights conferred by the state.
Even privately held land can not be utilised wantonly. If logging the mountain causes mud slides that destroy structures on someone else's property, is not the landholder who logged responsible for the damage caused to others' private property? If a landholder's use of private property has befouled the water table, is s/he not responsible for the damage caused to others' water rights? Now carry that argument further: if your utilisation of your private property has impaired others' environments, have you not taken their property unjustly? If your vehicle pollutes my air, what recourse do I have for remedy? Property rights do not exist in a vacuum.
I understand and agree with most of what you have said here. Environmentalism is treated very much like a religion - to question it is to commit heresy which in itself is a sin, never reaching the underlying facts.
One factoid you may have wrong though, is that volcanos emit more CO2 than all of man's output. I believe this was an honest mistake made in the in the documentary "The Global Warming Swindle"; it has since been admitted to as an error and corrected by the authors theron. I believe volcanos emit something like 20% of the total CO2 of mankind.
However, from what I last researched, mankind is responsible for 6% of the total CO2 that is emitted into the atmosphere.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 Emma Goldman, all rights reserved.