Posted on 01/28/2004 7:17:43 AM PST by ZGuy
THE view most people have of colonialism and imperialism is largely negative. So any charge that a group, individual or government is guilty of them is bound to be resisted strongly by the recipient.
Recently, in New York City, a broad charge of eco-imperialism was laid at the feet of the environmental movement. The Congress of Racial Equality (Core ) blames government officials, aid agency bureaucrats as well as sandal-wearing greens for mass disease and death in the poorest countries of the world because they export their most vile regulatory policies.
According to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore: "The environmental movement has lost its objectivity, morality and humanity". Last week he said: "The pain and suffering it inflicts on families in developing countries can no longer be tolerated." So far the green movement has ignored the criticism, but it will soon have to respond, since "eco-imperialism" is becoming a more widely heard, if not yet fully appreciated, term.
The most obvious example of eco- imperialism has been the push to restrict the use of the insecticide DDT for controlling mosquito-borne diseases. Concern about damage to eggshells of birds of prey (probably caused by massive agricultural DDT use) has pushed the greens to demand DDT restrictions, costing tens of millions of lives over the past few decades.
Other attacks on pesticides cause malnutrition and death in poor countries. Unlike DDT, the pesticide Paraquat is extremely toxic. But because the pesticide is dangerous when used inappropriately, should it be banned for those who would use it responsibly? The greens say yes, those in favour of development say no.
First, "pesticides like Paraquat protect 40% of global food output", says Prasanna Srinivasan, an independent Indian economist. Without Paraquat, people are likely to starve . Second, Paraquat is benign to the environment: it biodegrades; it also reduces the amount of land required for farming by making food production more efficient and so gives higher yields per acre.
Last, its inherent properties and the way it is sold in more than 100 countries mean the chances of accidentally drinking it are very, very low. Regardless of such arguments, green groups like the International Pesticide Elimination Network demand its worldwide ban.
Core aims to make eco-imperialism a household word. Core's Niger Innes says he wants to stop the "callous ecomanslaughter". CS Prakash, professor of plant genetics at Tuskegee University, has explained how genetic modifications of plants could reduce the number of children blinded by vitamin A deficiency, but the greens oppose the technology.
Paul Driessen, author of Eco- Imperialism: Green Power Black Death, hopes, like Innes, that eco-imperialism becomes a household word. Driessen says: "It's time to hold these groups accountable and compel organisations, foundations, courts and policymakers to understand the consequences of the policies they are imposing on our Earth's poorest citizens."
It has to be hoped the efforts of Driessen and Innis bear fruit. The moral bankruptcy of the modern environmental movement must be exposed, and their work is a good start.
Bate is a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington DC and a director of South African health advocacy group Africa Fighting Malaria.
""DDT did a job on me. Now I am a real sickie..."
People of color instinctively recognize this vicious intent and you'll notice that these greenie groups are made up almost entirely of whites, especially upper middle class whites.
The slaughter of non-whites through starvation is a favorite dream of the Malthusians that dominate the Universities and the "intellectual" classes. It is even blatantly suggested as a means of population control. They call it "population control through the control of food supplies". A euphemism for mass murder.
They "love" minorities. They just don't want minorities moving in next door. And they don't want the "excess" population cluttering up the view.
Perhaps that depends on how one defines the "green movement." Those greenies who put Mother Earth above liberty are, indeed, morally bankrupt.
Yes and that is the wrong definition. Freepers tend to throw everyone into that category if they don't drive an SUV or if they don't mind recycling. It's a vast grey scale.
Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me. I didn't know there was an organized movement representing those of us who choose not to drive SUVs and/or don't mind recycling. Where can I sign up? ;O)
Freepers tend to throw everyone into that category if they don't drive an SUV or if they don't mind recycling. It's a vast grey scale.
In that case, it sounds like those FReepers are the ones with the wrong definition. If you don't let them redefine the term, I think you'll be okay with the headline.
The green movement, as properly defined by the article -- you did read the article, didn't you? -- is morally bankrupt.
They have to continually justify their salary by new the sky is falling threats
(fear, uncertainty and doubt)
What a tool to use on the disengaged.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.