Posts Tagged ‘environmentalism’

Deep Green Resistance

August 3, 2015

I had never heard of this extreme left-wing/environmentalist movement calling itself Deep Green Resistance until I saw this video that Tim Blair posted on his blog at the Telegraph.


All I can say is that I hope the FBI is monitoring this group and catches them before they manage to commit any violent acts aimed at destroying civilization. It does seem strange to me that a group dedicated to destroying technology and civilization should have a website and YouTube channel. Perhaps they have decided that they need to make some accommodation with modern technology at least long enough to get the message out about the necessity of destroying civilization and returning to the Stone Age.

So, who are the members of Deep Green Resistance and what do they really want? According to their website:

Deep Green Resistance is an analysis, a strategy, and the only organization of its kind. As an analysis, it reveals civilization as the institution that is destroying life on Earth. As a strategy, it offers a concrete plan for how to stop that destruction. As an organization, Deep Green Resistance is implementing that strategy.

The goal of DGR is to deprive the rich of their ability to steal from the poor and the powerful of their ability to destroy the planet. This is a vast undertaking but it needs to be said: it can be done. Industrial civilization can be stopped.

DGR is an aboveground organization that uses direct action in the fight to save our planet. We also argue for the necessity of an underground that can target the strategic infrastructure of industrialization. But these actions alone are never a sufficient strategy for achieving a just outcome. Any strategy aiming for a livable future must include a call to build direct democracies based on human rights and sustainable material cultures.

Which means that the different branches of a resistance movement must work in tandem:the aboveground and belowground, the militants and the nonviolent, the frontline activists and the cultural workers. We need it all.

And we need courage. The word “courage” comes from the same root as coeur, the French word for heart. We need all the courage of which the human heart is capable, forged into both weapon and shield to defend what is left of this planet. And the lifeblood of courage is, of course, love.

So while DGR is about fighting back, in the end this organization is about love. The songbirds and the salmon need your heart, no matter how weary, because even a broken heart is still made of love. They need your heart because they are disappearing, slipping into that longest night of extinction, and the resistance is nowhere in sight. We will have to build that resistance from whatever comes to hand: whispers and prayers, history and dreams, from our bravest words and braver actions. It will be hard, there will be a cost, and in too many implacable dawns it will seem impossible. But we will have to do it anyway. So gather your heart and join with every living being. With love as our First Cause, how can we fail?

Ignore the fact that modern technology and civilization has allowed millions of the poor to rise above a bare sustenance level of semi-starvation.  The next obvious question is, “wouldn’t the collapse of civilization kill millions of people?” Deep Green Resistance has that covered.

No matter what you do, your hands will be blood red. If you participate in the global economy, your hands are blood red because the global economy is murdering humans and non-humans the planet over. A half million children die every year as a direct result of so-called “debt repayment” from non-industrialized nations to industrialized nations. Sixty thousand people die every day from pollution. And what about all the people who are being forced off their land? There are a lot of people dying already. Failing to act in the face of atrocity is no answer.

The grim reality is that both energy descent and biotic collapse will be ever more severe the more the dominant culture continues to destroy the basis for life on this planet. And yet some people will say that those who propose dismantling civilization are, in fact, suggesting genocide on a mass scale.

Polar bears and coho salmon would disagree. Traditional indigenous peoples would disagree. The humans who inherit what is left of this world when the dominant culture finally comes down would disagree.

I disagree.

My definition of dismantling civilization is depriving the rich of their ability to steal from the poor and depriving the powerful of their ability to destroy the planet. Nobody but a capitalist or a sociopath (insofar as there is a difference) could disagree with that.

I think that no one but a lunatic could consider the prospect of destroying millions of lives with so little concern.

I wonder if any of these people have actually tried to live as though they lived in nature or if they have actually talked to any of these indigenous peoples who might possible want a better life for themselves and their children. I had though of contacting Deep Green Resistance and suggesting that they actually live the primitive lifestyle for perhaps a year before setting about destroying civilization. This would involve eating only what they could reasonably be expected to hunt or gather. No grains. No plants or animals indigenous to the local area and perhaps no meat from domesticated animals. Only wear leather and furs, even natural fibers are a product of civilization. Turn off all utilities including electricity, water, sewage, etc. No medicines including prescription medicines. If they are diabetic, do without insulin. No spectacles or hearing aids and no dentistry. That woman who apparently has some sort of dental work should have it removed. It would have done no good to make the suggestion. They wouldn’t have paid any attention to me, and anyway it is a lot easier to make videos and websites condemning our industrial civilization than to actually live a life in complete accord with nature.

It is easier to romanticize a defeated for than an enemy who can still fight. The Romans held the Carthaginians, and especially Hannibal, to be noble adversaries, after Carthage was burned down. They felt differently when he was marching up and down Italy. We tend to revere the Native Americans for their courage and simple, natural lifestyle, when they have been defeated and placed on reservations. Our pioneer ancestors who live in fear of Indian attacks had a different opinion. So it is with nature. We can rhapsodize about the wonders of living with nature precisely because we do not live in nature. The tendency to revere and romanticize nature is in inverse proportion to the actual experience living in nature. We in the modern world have just about completely conquered nature and we have little to fear from it. Primitive peoples do not romanticize nature. They respect the power that nature has to destroy them, but they are not as sentimental about it as moderns. If the members of Deep Green Resistance actually had to live in primitive conditions instead of being pampered children of the modern West, they might have a whole different idea of the value of technology and civilization.

There is much more I could say on this subject, but why bother? These are not really rational people living in what we might call the real world. They are ignorant fools who have no idea how life was nasty, brutish and short before the development of civilization. They profess to want to help the world’s downtrodden, yet oppose the very thing, advancing technology, that would actually help the downtrodden. They are worse than useless.

I sure do hope the FBI is keeping an eye on these loons though.


Climate Justice

June 16, 2014

The word justice is a noun that does not usually need to be modified. As Dennis Prager has stated, you either have justice or you do not and if someone adds an adjective to modify justice, it means they have a (left-wing) agenda. In other words, if someone feels the need to add a modifier to justice that generally means they are trying to justify some injustice. Thus, there is social justice, racial justice, food justice, and now climate justice.

What is climate justice? Apparently, it is a way to justify keeping Africans poor and denying the use of Africa’s natural resources to make their lives bearable. At least that is the impression I get from this article I read from the Institute for Policy Studies.

This week, the House will vote on the Electrify Africa Act. This bill directs the president to draw up a multi-year strategy to strengthen the ability of countries in sub-Saharan Africa to “develop an appropriate mix of power solutions” to provide electricity, fight poverty, and “drive economic growth.”

Who could be opposed to helping African countries develop a workable infrastructure in order to drive economic growth. The only possible consideration I would have would be to make sure the money actually goes to helping people and not straight into the pockets of corrupt officials. The climate justice crowd have another objection, it might work.

Because of strong pressure from climate justice advocates, some positives—such as integrated resource planning and decentralized renewable energy—are named as a part of that mix. But because it still leaves the door wide open to fossil fuels, the bill doesn’t go far enough to protect people or their environment.

And the debate over Electrify Africa continues as the Senate drafts a companion bill.

Behind both pieces of legislation is a White House initiative announced last summer called “Power Africa.” It frames President Barack Obama’s approach to energy investment on the continent, which has been condemned by environmental justice groups. It’s an “all of the above” energy strategy that favors the fossil fuel companies that are destroying the planet and corrupting Washington.

Proponents of Electrify and Power Africa have been most publicly enthusiastic about new discoveries of vast reserves of oil and gas on the continent, which has many African activists wary of a resource grab. Executives from companies like General Electric—which according to Forbes has recently pivoted its attention to the continent—have appeared on the podium with President Obama to applaud the policy.

At a March Senate hearing on Power Africa, Del Renigar, Senior Counsel for Global Government Affairs and Policy at GE, even noted that one of the company’s “most significant efforts to date has been focused on the privatization of the Nigerian power sector.” He lauded the potential of Power Africa to help “reduce the obstacles” to negotiating deals for power projects. And some backers of dirty energy are attempting to use the initiative to weaken the existing environmental safeguard policies of national development finance institutions such as the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC).

Well, God forbid we allow the Africans to develop the vast reserves of oil and gas on their continent. That might actually alleviate the endemic poverty of the region. To be sure, there is a danger that countries that rely on the export of energy will be plagued with corruption and will fail to develop a more diverse economy. One only needs to look at the example of a country like Nigeria or much of the Middle East to see what a curse large reserves of oil can be. But again, that is not what the climate justice advocates are worrying about. They don’t seem to want the African people to have “dirty” energy. If that means that the African people must make do without energy, well, too bad.

They do address this objection.

The backers of keeping dirty energy in Power Africa like to portray their opponents as privileged elites who want to keep Africans “in the dark” by denying them electricity and industrialization, while keeping their own lights on.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The real concern here is that U.S. taxpayers will wind up supporting African energy development that caters to corporate industrial zones and natural resource exporters, leaving the majority of Africans in rural and neglected urban areas still without access to power and exposed to dangerous pollution.

Yes, that is precisely what they want, to keep Africans in the dark. Of course energy development will cater to corporate industrial zones and natural resource exporters, at first. But, if corruption is kept to an acceptable minimum and the economies of the various African companies are opened up to the free market, the amount of wealth in Africa will increase. Over time, prosperity ought to spread from the industrial zones out to rural and urban Africa, unless people like the Climate Justice movement interfere with the process.

A climate justice movement with a clear vision for a clean, equitable energy future is making itself heard. The drivers of this movement are people living on the front line of dirty energy in poorer countries and in low-income neighborhoods in wealthier nations like the United States. They understand firsthand the effects of dirty energy pollution and climate chaos, and are champions of innovative forms of clean rural and urban electrification—not only in the Global South, but just as urgently in the heavily polluting Global North. In fact, an international campaign to demand climate justice, representing over 100 groups in developing and developed countries, has called for efforts to ensure “people’s access to clean, safe, and renewable energy sources.”

In Africa, climate justice activists are speaking eloquently about a new economy for Africans and everyone else that leapfrogs fossil fuels and delivers electricity to hundreds of millions of people through clean energy and energy efficiency.

There are reasons why fossil fuels still produce most of the energy in the world. Fossil fuels are cheap and efficient. Renewable energy sources only make up around 9% of the total energy consumed in the United States. Of this 9%, 30% is from hydroelectric sources. The trouble is that Africa does not have many navigable rivers, only the Nile and the Congo can be traveled any great distance from the ocean. African does, however, have a number of small, swift rivers that are ideal for the construction of hydroelectric dams and other facilities. Unfortunately, they are not often near the largest concentrations of populations. Still, hydroelectric power does have a future in Africa. I don’t think that is what these people have in mind, though. I have a feeling they would oppose the construction of dams as much as they oppose the construction of coal-fired power plants.

The bottom line is that if you insist that Africa only be powered by clean, renewable energy that has a minimal impact on the environment, that is the same as insisting that Africa have no power at all. If technologically advanced countries find renewable energy to be expensive and limited, why should African countries be any different. One of the biggest problems that I have with the environmentalists is their doctrine that their concept of environmental purity come before the good of human beings, particularly the poorer, darker skinned human beings. This is just another example of their callous disregard for the welfare of the world’s poor.

Earth Day

April 23, 2014

I meant to write this yesterday, during Earth Day and I did start it, but I was busy and didn’t finish it until the next day.

From celebrating the Risen Lord we come now to a day to celebrate His creation, Earth Day. I am not a big fan of either Earth Day or the environmentalist movement for a number of reasons but one reason in particular that comes to mind, perhaps because Easter was two days ago, is that it seems to me that environmentalism is a sort of neo-pagan religion that worships the creation to the detriment of the Creator. I think that the Apostle Paul described our modern Greens fairly well when he wrote of the pagans of his own day.

21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. (Romans 1:21-25)

You see the parallel? Just as the pagans of ancient times worshiped trees, stones, and idols so do the modern pagans reverence nature and the Earth. There were many creation myths among the ancients. As far as I know none of them had the world created ex nihilo by an omnipotent deity. The creation of the world generally seems to predate the gods, either accomplished by an older generation of gods or by the same process that created the gods. The creation of the human race is generally something of an afterthought on the part of the gods. Humans are not very important. In like manner, our modern pagans believed that the Earth created itself. The Earth evolved. There is no need for a Creator. Some of the most mystical New Age Greens may reverence Gaia, but Gaia is not a creator.  Please don’t make the mistake of thinking that because these beliefs seem to resemble modern scientific theories on how the Earth developed that these beliefs are actually scientific. The environmentalists seek to use the mantle of science to advance their agenda. Their beliefs may be close to some scientific ideas but their methods of reasoning are not very scientific at all.

In Genesis, the creation of man is presented as the climax of God’s creative efforts. Human beings are creatures made in God’s own image and are set to rule over the Earth.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so. (Gen 1:26-29)

Human beings are distinct from the other animals. Only the first human can name the animals.

15 The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”

19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals.

But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. (Gen 2:15-22)

Human beings are something special in God’s eyes.

Lord, our Lord,
    how majestic is your name in all the earth!

You have set your glory
    in the heavens.
Through the praise of children and infants
    you have established a stronghold against your enemies,
    to silence the foe and the avenger.
When I consider your heavens,
    the work of your fingers,
the moon and the stars,
    which you have set in place,
what is mankind that you are mindful of them,
    human beings that you care for them?

You have made them a little lower than the angels
    and crowned them with glory and honor.
You made them rulers over the works of your hands;
    you put everything under their feet:
all flocks and herds,
    and the animals of the wild,
the birds in the sky,
    and the fish in the sea,
    all that swim the paths of the seas. (Psalms 8:1-8)

Even many pagans understood that there was something special about humanity. The Athenian dramatist Sophocles wrote in his play Antigone;

Numberless are the world’s wonders, but none
More wonderful than man; the storm-gray sea
Yields to his prows, the huge crests bear him high;
Earth, holy and inexhaustible, is graven
With shining furrows where his plows have gone
Year after year, the timeless labor of stallions.
The light-boned birds and beasts that cling to cover,
The lithe fish lighting their reaches of dim water,
All are taken, tamed in the net of his mind;
The lion on the hill, the wild horse windy-maned,
Resign to him; and his blunt yoke has broken
The sultry shoulders of the mountain bull.
Words also, and thought as rapid as air,
He fashions to his good use; statecraft is his
And his the skill that deflects the arrows of snow,
The spears of winter rain: from every wind
He has made himself secure – from all but one:
In the late wind of death he cannot stand.

The modern pagans, by contrast, don’t think that man is anything special at all. At best, we are just another animal. As Ingrid Newkirk of PETA has said;

Animal liberationists do not separate out the human animal, so there is no rational basis for saying that a human being has special rights. A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy. They are all mammals

At worst, human beings are vermin. We pollute the Earth, change the climate, drive numerous species to extinction. We are a cancer and a plague on the Earth. The fewer of us there are, the better.

It seems to me, then, that there is a choice between serving the Earth, as a modern pagan, or serving the Creator of the Earth as a Christian. You cannot do both. This does not mean, of course, that a Christian should deliberately pollute or damage the environment. If God has placed the human race over the Earth, then we are commanded to be good stewards and use the resources that God has given us with care and foresight. Part of being a good steward over creation is preserving the natural world and not wantonly destroying it. We must not worship the Earth, however, or subordinate the needs of our fellow human beings to any other needs. As Joshua might have put it, Choose for yourself this day whom you will serve, but as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Gloomy Greens

April 17, 2011

Back from his trip to Brazil, Walter Russel Mead has some rather harsh words to say about the Greens and their stupidity.

I went to Rio in 1992 for the environmental summit, the disastrous meeting that focused the world’s attention on the first giant misstep of the climate change movement: the misbegotten Kyoto Protocol that consumed two decades of green political energy around the world, alienated the United States from its European allies and at great cost achieved absolutely nothing worthwhile.  Global warming was not slowed, greenhouse gas emissions were essentially unaffected, green credibility took the first in a series of crippling hits, and opposition in the US to the global green agenda hardened.

That’s what happens when green Malthusian panic meets the political system.  At Rio back in 1992 I first began to dimly suspect what now seems sadly clear: that green political activists are afflicted with a kind of reverse Midas curse.  Whatever they touch turns to — compost.

In the twenty years I’ve been tracking the global green movement since the Rio summit,  the scientific evidence for climate change, still controversial and incomplete, became more convincing — even as the evidence that the environmental movement is headless and clueless became overwhelming. There is far more evidence that environmentalists in general have no idea how to address climate change than there is that the climate is actually changing.  Between the greenhouse gasses emitted by green activists globetrotting to international conferences and the unexpected side effects of green policy fiascoes (like the ethanol from corn program in the US), the environmental movement as a whole may well be responsible for a modest net increase in greenhouse gas production over the last twenty years.  The planet, in other words, might be slightly cooler if the greens had all just shut up and stayed home.  Certainly the world’s taxpayers would be better off.

We would also likely be closer to some kind of reasonable policy mix if the green activists had spent more time perfecting their home composting techniques and less time pushing a hopelessly unworkable global agenda.  (It’s not the fault of the greens that environmental problems don’t have easy and simple solutions, by the way.  I don’t blame greens for giving us magically easy and popular solutions.  But green ideas tend to be the opposite: greens habitually propose clumsy, expensive and unwieldy programs that won’t work and will ultimately go down in flames.)

Mead is not a conservative and is broadly sympathetic to the environmentalists’ goals. He is not, however sympathetic to the kind of cluelessness and panic that leads the Greens to propose solutions that have no chance of being enacted. To put it bluntly, no sane politician is going to support policies that will lead to a drastic reduction in their constituents standard of living. Not even the Chinese are going to do that, at least not since they’ve abandoned the “let’s kill people by the millions” brand of Communism in favor of a more humane “let’s get everybody rich and hope they don’t notice they have no freedom” type of Neo-Fascism. The Greens should listen to people like Mead.

Of course the problem is that too many people in the environmentalist movement are either political activists, more interested in imposing Socialism, than in saving the earth, or adolescents, who would rather feel good than take effective action.

%d bloggers like this: