View RSS Feed

Bob Loblaw

Environmentalism and geoengineering

Rate this Entry
The amazing contradiction of the environmentalist is that in one breath he'll tell us that we must all submit to the greater importance of Nature, and in the next will pretend that we are equipped to govern nature's course, as though we are gods.

The call for 'necessary' action (a political commitment, which shocks me) is awfully reminiscent of the call to implement income taxes. Similarly advanced as a 'bandage' solution, it was meant to be temporary and limited in scope. But in accordance with its nature, income tax expanded and grew, and had unpredictable effects. This made 'necessary' an ever-increasing array of new laws and new taxes. When you interfere with a complex system such as an economy, a man's mind, or a climate, your actions will have unforeseen consequences which will necessitate further controls in order to contain the effects of the original controls. These new controls then have effects and so on. This is why our 'free' country has laws to govern virtually every aspect of our lives, regardless of any reason for the government to be involved in them, and we are none the better off in terms of protection from economic mishaps - in fact, we are precariously balanced, and when we reach the point where the controls are no longer able to contain all of the unforeseeable consequences, our economy will collapse.

According to those who advocate "Geoengineering", the long-term effects of implementation are 'unknown, but preferable to the known negative effects of global warming'. In other words, a bad situation of which we are aware and for which we can plan is LESS desirable than an unknown situation for which we cannot plan and which may be more disastrous than doing nothing at all.

It's a desperation move, and like most unconsidered moves, is likely to be disastrous. Having failed to coerce the cooperation of men (through such pacts as the Kyoto Accord), the environmentalists now claim that the attempt to coerce the cooperation of the weather is a likely bet. This is sheer absurdity. Nature is FAR less predictable, and compliant, than mankind.

Like the laws for taxation, any effort to interfere in this complex system will doubtless have unforeseen consequences which will require further intervention ad infinitum in order to contain the effects. And like the economy, if we ever reach a point where these attempts at control are no longer able to contain the unpredictable effects, our climate could 'collapse'. We are far more likely to bring 'nature's wrath' upon ourselves by attempting to control it than by accommodating ourselves to it, as we have always done. Pre-technological man survived an ice age. We can survive the heat.

But the environmentalists would have it that radical action must be taken to prevent the warming. To maintain the status quo. To do the impossible.

Fascism has had a tough time getting a foothold in western civilization since the collapse of Naziism, because people have been reluctant to swallow ideologies unexamined since then. However, fascism has found a new vehicle in environmentalism, and it will milk it for all it's worth.

Every organization seeking power, throughout history, has provided the people with an ambiguous threat and an impossible goal. This has allowed them to continue to convince people of the 'necessity' for sacrifice to whatever sort of god that particular organization worships. For the Nazis, the threat was anti-social and non-Aryan elements, and the goal was the achievement of a 'pure', Aryan 'culture'. To this ideal culture, citizens were expected to sacrifice their personal interests and freedoms. Those who would not do so, or could not, or who acted in contravention to the designs of the government with its 'greater good' in mind, were punished, persecuted, sterilized, ostracized, or eliminated.

Now here comes environmentalism. The ambiguous threat of 'global warming' (i.e., change) hangs over the heads of a confused populace. The impossible goal of controlling the climate offers itself as an object. Only the government can implement the plan, naturally, and we must all sacrifice our personal interests and freedoms in the cause of the 'greater good'. It's perfect because the more their policies do not 'fix' nature, the more they are able to blame the populace for not sacrificing enough. Substituting "Gaia" for "Kultur", the Eco-fascists will happily take control. Like those who voted the Nazis to power, people will justify this to themselves by telling themselves it is 'necessary'. Already, people are punished for non-compliance in some ways (such as fines for failing to separate one's recycling). The persecution, the ostracism, perhaps even the imprisonment or murder, is yet to come. But what will stop it from coming?

Common sense? Who's common sense? My common sense tells me that environmentalism has already gone too far. But it is the 'common sense' of the politicians which will govern how far they choose to arbitrarily extend their own powers. And why should they limit themselves? In a land where the 'cause' is accepted, and the 'necessity' of sacrifice unquestioned, what is going to argue against extreme measures once they decide to implement them? Who is going to oppose them if everyone thinks the 'necessity' of the cause supersedes their own right to liberty? Only the rejection of the notion of sacrifice to ANY cause, and the rejection of environmentalism as such a cause, could possibly stop it.

What's particularly frightening about this is that we've truly come full circle. Primitive man worshiped earth spirits before developing real religion, before developing real philosophy, and politics. Now we're back to worshiping earth spirits, which we are meant to consider more worthy of our devotions than our own interests.

I reject all of it. I recognize no 'necessity' for government intervention in the climate. It is a self-correcting system, and always has been. I see no reason why some people insist on removing mankind from the equation, as though we were not a part of nature. The temperature is rising, yes. But it's not even as hot as it was in the 1600s, let alone anywhere near as hot as it has been millions of years past. Life, as ever, goes on.
Categories
Uncategorized

Comments

  1. Lone Star's Avatar
    >Standing Ovation<