Power plan dooms world's poor

Toronto Sun via Sun Media ^ | 2007-05-10 | Lorrie Goldstein

[Clive]

Environmentalists keep telling us they love humanity.

So apparently it's just people a lot of them have trouble with.

This tendency is being noted with alarm even by former environmental crusaders, as the hysteria over global warming escalates.

In the British documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, describes many in the environmental movement today as "anti-human", adding they tend to see people as "scum."

Moore says that's why they think "it's OK to have hundreds of millions of them go blind or die" and in particular why "the environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries."

Paul Driessen, a former environmental campaigner and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death notes in the same film: "My big concern with global warming is that the policies being pushed to supposedly prevent global warming are having a disastrous effect on the world's poorest people."

He means that if environmentalists succeed in their campaign to have developing countries abandon fossil fuels to produce electricity, and to substitute unreliable and expensive wind and solar power, it will doom the world's poorest to permanent poverty.

Without affordable, reliable electricity, human society is condemned to low productivity and to disease, famine and early death. Driessen complains global warming crusaders always talk about the speculative risks of using fossil fuels in terms of climate change, never about the known risks of not using them.

African economist James Shikwati, also featured in the film, describes First World environmentalists descending on Africa urging it not to use its coal and oil resources, as effectively counselling Africans to commit "suicide."

James Lovelock, a founder of the global green movement, criticizes selfish, ill-informed, affluent environmental radicals in his book, The Revenge of Gaia, for condemning millions of people living in the developing world to death from malaria because of their overly hysterical campaign against the pesticide DDT.

Richard Tren, director of Africa Fighting Malaria, makes the same point in "The Human Cost of the Anti-pesticide Movement" in the April edition of the Fraser Forum.

In his bestseller The Weather Makers, scientist/conservationist Tim Flannery discusses in a chapter titled "2084: The Carbon Dictatorship?" the possibility of an Earth Commission for Thermostatic Control (ECTC) one day zeroing in on the major cause of man-made global warming -- "the total number of people on the planet."

With that, he writes, the ECTC "will have transformed itself into an Orwellian-style world government with its own currency, army and control over every person and every inch of our planet." To be clear, Flannery is not advocating such a body, merely speculating on what could happen if we don't take action against man-made global warming in time.

But this idea that the major problem with the Earth's environment is that there are too many people is common in the environmental movement.

Of course, the more people you have, the more pollution there is. But that's not the issue. The issue is what do you do about it, and, as Moore, Driessen and others warn us, that's where the thinking of many environmentalists gets scary. Not because they set out to kill people, but because their low regard for humanity causes them to overlook, or to never see, the unintended consequences of their actions

[Clive]

-

[TalBlack]

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, describes many in the environmental movement today as “anti-human”, adding they tend to see people as “scum.”

Moore says that’s why they think “it’s OK to have hundreds of millions of them go blind or die”

This is all news to you, Paddy?

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

Well, the world would be a paradise with oly 1.5 billion people.

Why shouldn’t the illuminati of the left decide who lives and who dies? Afterall, they are superior beings. In fact, I think the all knowlegable grant-makers at the East-Coast foundations should be nominated Global Rulers. It is how they act anyway.

[WesternCulture]

Environmentalism is like Marxism without the promise of eradicating poverty and the yearn for equal distribution of wealth.

Environmentalism suffers from an inclination for totalitarianism while it simultaneously calls for ‘grass root action’. It is opposed to Capitalism and it is founded on a lot of quasi-academic, semi-scientific theories that followers are not allowed to question.

Hardly surprising, a lot of Marxists became Environmentalists after the wall came down in Berlin and the fiasco of Communism proved a ‘fait accompli’.

The Environmentalists couldn’t care less about the poor.

Take the CFC scare.

Greenpeace and other non-democratic, human hating environmentalist organizations called for a global ban on CFC’s at the height of this propaganda campaign. Among other things, it was said all refrigerators and freezers worldwide had to be replaced by (costly) non-CFC ones, no matter the impact on third world health care and food handling.

The world doesn’t need more anti-humanism, Marxism or Environmentalism, It already suffers from an overdose.

The world needs economic development.

[Jack Hammer]

“Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, describes many in the environmental movement today as ‘anti-human’, adding they tend to see people as ‘scum.’”

As long as I can enjoy large-format picture books depicting scenes of nature in its pristine forms on the coffee table of my suburban mansion, then the proles... well... ‘let ‘em eat cake.’

[mylife]

Bttt

[metesky]

Paul Johnson, the great British historian, agrees that depriving developing nations of reliable low cost electricity is one of the great sins of the enviros.

[fanfan]

Canada ping.

Please send me a FReepmail to get on or off this Canada ping list.

[Robert A Cook PE]

But they don’t “see” the misery and death they (the enviro’s) are actually causing - because they FELL BETTER about the environment. We are all equal (with the animals, and the scenery, and the grass, and the mosquitoes....) and so killing Nature IS EVIL.

Killing people is “good” - or, at best, can be ignored. Because “people” intruded into nature and disturbed “nature”. Which is “bad” ...

[.cnI redruM]

There was an idiot in charge of some outfit called The Sea Sheppard Conservatory that called for a reduction of the Earth's population to 1 bil. That's 83% of the current total! The environmentalists make Hitler look like a guy with just one nut!

[TopQuark]

The world needs economic development.

That is a truism on which everyone agrees, even Marxists (yes, both of them).

The question is, what does foster economic development?

The answer I have is property rights. The reason Africa is poor is because the property rights are not enforced --- even the aid sent there is stolen. Th reason there is hardly any capitalism in Russia is also the absence of (enforceable and enforced) properly rights.

By comparison, it is the strict enforcement of such rights in England and U.S. that made those countries prosperous.

[redhead]

"Not because they set out to kill people, but because their low regard for humanity causes them to overlook, or to never see, the unintended consequences of their actions."

He left out a few words: "Not because they set out to kill people, but because their low regard for humanity causes them to overlook, or to never see, the unintended consequences of their SELFISH, CONDESCENDING, ELITIST actions..."

There...all fixed.