"The Unscrupulous Ideology of Environmentalism"

[amicus]

http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/cspan.csp?command=dprogram&record=564278798


National Press Club Speech
Global Climate Change and Politics
National Press Club, Luncheon Speech
Washington, District of Columbia (United States)
ID: 205649 - 05/27/2008 - 0:58 - $24.95

View in Video Library

Klaus, Vaclav President, Czech Republic

Czech President Vaclav Klaus tallked about his book Blue Planet in Green Shackles: What Is Endangered -- Climate or Freedom? In the book he writes, "The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy, and prosperity at the end of the 20th and at the beginning of the 21st century is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."

~~~

Personally, since the mid 1960's, I have been pointing out the underhanded nature of the ecology nuts, the tree huggers, the snail darter and spotted owl, anti, industrial, no damns, no expansion, no logging, no fishing, no mining, no drilling ideology of the left, intended to do just one thing.

They want total control of your life. They want to dictate what size automobile you drive, what mileage it gets; they want to determine the size of the refrigerator you buy, the house you live in, the efficiency of your appliances.

For those of you with the stomach for it, search the interconnected relationships of leftist, environmental activist groups from the Sierra Club to Green Peace and the thousands of like groups that all have the same thing in mind.

Cleaning up the environment, the so called, 'ravages of man', is the last thing they are interested in; what they want is control.

Are there environmental issues; of course there are, smog, acid rain, river and stream pollution, Love Canal, a whole host of ugly events, all permitted to occur because Government did not enforce property rights to protect the rights of all property owners.

Like always, I am a bit ahead of my time, but it is reassuring to see the pendulum swing back to reason and rationality for a change after so many years of leftist propaganda.

Amicus....

(As an aside, kudo's to 'Trysail', who more than most, publicizes a rational agenda and highlights the leftist agenda)

 

[Carnevil9]

"....is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."

This statement is a bit off the mark; environmentalism is socialism, masquerading as something less nefarious.

Since all of the socialist "Utopias" failed spectacularly during the last century, those whose real agenda is the downfall of Capitalism have had to go undercover, and are attempting to attack all of our Capitalistic and Technological wonders through the sleight-of-hand known as the "green" movement.

Think about it: their targets are the same, their "solutions" are the same. Only the names and the excuses have been changed.

Don't be fooled!.......Carney, the Dogma Whisperer

 

[amicus]

Point taken, Carney, but you are disappointing the aging flower children here who think they have lived a righteous life by choosing 'green' alternatives to modern life.

In five years on this forum, only one has up front claimed 'socialism' as an identity and personal ideology and even that one declines to specify the lifestyle such a system dictates.

I would extend the Czech Republic's President's assessment and assert that Environmentalism has become a 'faith', a belief system, that colors and influences a myriad of life decisions. Half the vegans and vegetarians are not so because of taste, but a political agenda.

How sad.

Amicus...

 

[Carnevil9]

Oh, I agree, Amicus. And I'll add that "global warming" is a religion as well, since it is a fervent belief in something that is both unknown and unknowable, and no amount of evidence or discussion can rock one's faith in it, once that faith has been accepted.

 

[S-Des]

Oh, I agree, Amicus. And I'll add that "global warming" is a religion as well, since it is a fervent belief in something that is both unknown and unknowable, and no amount of evidence or discussion can rock one's faith in it, once that faith has been accepted.

Ariana Huffington was being interviewed about her latest book when the host confronted her about her unshakable belief in Global Warming. She maintained that anyone who didn't accept it as fact (exactly the way she believed it, with no room for scientific disagreement on any portion) was either deluded or insane. The host hit her with a half-dozen points (all backed by different scientists) that disputed things she claimed as "fact" and she refused (was unable) to address any of them. She ended the discussion by saying her science was fact, and any other was pseudo-science.

Nope, doesn't sound like any religious zealot I've ever heard of.

 

[amicus]

The 'Huffington Report', or whatever it is called, is about as anti American, and far left as you can get, right down Obama's alley.

I find it amusing that the 'usual suspects', read but do not comment and fade away in the face of an irrefutable argument, such a deal...

amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

"The college idealists who fill the ranks of the environmental movement seem willing to do absolutely anything to save the biosphere, except take science courses and learn something about it."

~P. J. O'Rourke

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Klaus: "Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality. In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat - this time, in the name of the planet. It could be even true that we are now at a stage where mere facts, reason and truths are powerless in the face of the global warming propaganda."

 

[rengadeirishman]

Something i can agree with Amicus about, maybe i need to quit drinkin'

 

[DesertPirate]

This is so true it's not even funny anymore.

 

[Pure]

deadly socialist menace in republican party

http://www.grist.org/feature/2007/10/01/mccain/

[Interviewer] You've said that global warming would be one of three key issues for your presidency. Why do you think the issue is important?

John McCain: It's like Tony Blair said: Suppose we're wrong, and there's no such thing as greenhouse-gas emissions, and we adopt green technologies. All we've done is give our kids a better planet. But suppose we're right, and do nothing? Then what kind of a legacy are we handing on to future generations of Americans? I think we ought to frame the debate that way.

And I think most, if not all, of the ways that we can address this issue are through profit motive, free-enterprise-system-driven green technologies. General Electric dedicated itself to green technologies, and guess what? They're still making a lot of money.

 

[amicus]

Coupla ways to look at this...McCain is going the route to capture the 'Reagan Democrats' that led to a 49 state landslide. McCain is a practical politician, he knows how to work the 'aisles' of Congress and perhaps forge a majority for his legislation.

Secondly, a cleaner environment is good for left and right and mankind in general. Those on the right wish the cleaner environment to come about by the enforcement of property rights which are fully sufficient to guarantee success as opposed to the imposition of arbitrary standards created by politicians who serve interest groups.

I am a bit of a free market purist, not open to compromise of principles. McCain seems to be a bit more flexible in terms of his basic principles, if indeed he has them.

I preferred Fred Thompson.

Amicus...

 

[Guest]

Coupla ways to look at this...McCain is going the route to capture the 'Reagan Democrats' that led to a 49 state landslide. McCain is a practical politician, he knows how to work the 'aisles' of Congress and perhaps forge a majority for his legislation.

Secondly, a cleaner environment is good for left and right and mankind in general. Those on the right wish the cleaner environment to come about by the enforcement of property rights which are fully sufficient to guarantee success as opposed to the imposition of arbitrary standards created by politicians who serve interest groups.

I am a bit of a free market purist, not open to compromise of principles. McCain seems to be a bit more flexible in terms of his basic principles, if indeed he has them.

I preferred Fred Thompson.

Amicus...

He was a better actor than politician.

Just sayin'.

 

[amicus]

Can't argue that, at least not convincingly, however, a man that age with a pretty young wife, ahem, gotta have sumpin goin fer him.



ami

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Coupla ways to look at this...McCain is going the route to capture the 'Reagan Democrats' that led to a 49 state landslide. McCain is a practical politician, he knows how to work the 'aisles' of Congress and perhaps forge a majority for his legislation.

Secondly, a cleaner environment is good for left and right and mankind in general. Those on the right wish the cleaner environment to come about by the enforcement of property rights which are fully sufficient to guarantee success as opposed to the imposition of arbitrary standards created by politicians who serve interest groups.

I am a bit of a free market purist, not open to compromise of principles. McCain seems to be a bit more flexible in terms of his basic principles, if indeed he has them.

I preferred Fred Thompson.

Amicus...

What do property rights or lack of property rights have to do with the environment? There is no absolute right to use my property as I choose. I mean, if I own a piece of land in a residential area, I am not allowed to collect old tires and pile them up and burn them there.

 

[Guest]

Can't argue that, at least not convincingly, however, a man that age with a pretty young wife, ahem, gotta have sumpin goin fer him.



ami

There's something to be said for a man who can swing some serious wood.

 

[amicus]

What do property rights or lack of property rights have to do with the environment? There is no absolute right to use my property as I choose. I mean, if I own a piece of land in a residential area, I am not allowed to collect old tires and pile them up and burn them there.

~~~

Property rights is a huge field, one could spend a lifetime comprehending the vagaries of ownership, rights, privileges, obligations and responsibilities.

You will study it yourself if you have an interest, but suffice it to say, that if each and every parcel of land was privately owned, property laws, enforced by the courts, would have prevented most of the air and water pollution that has occurred.

Just as you can't burn tires in your yard, one cannot pollute a stream with mine debris or pump CO2 into the atmosphere. But since government licensed and approved those acts, the courts could not act.

All property in the US, save that needed for legitimate functions of government, was intended to be in the hands of private owners.

As an example, over half off all the land in the state of Oregon, is owned and managed by government. There should be no state parks, no federal parks, no federal lands at all, even Yellowstone should be privately owned.

I know you gag at the idea, but we are either free or not free. The land does not belong to a King or a Pope, or Washington D.C., rather to the people.

Amicus...

 

[S-Des]

Secondly, a cleaner environment is good for left and right and mankind in general.

McCain is a true believer on GW. He is convinced it's happening, that we are responsible (in some manner), and he wants to do something about it (but tries to put a Republican spin on it by pushing the Green technology angle). It's not my favorite position of his (I'd prefer a more pure Environmental approach and leave the scientists & GW believers to argue about what is the cause, solution, and cost of the problem). Republicans gave up the discussion on the environment a long time ago and it was a huge mistake. Most of the ones I know care strongly about it as well, but when your leaders don't talk about it (except to complain about the other side getting carried away), you come off like you just don't care. Like with immigration, McCain will force the Republicans to confront the issue and deal with it, which is good for all of us.

On Kyoto, he's for it, assuming India and China sign up as well. If they won't, he won't, which I think is a sensible position, as long as we keep trying to get everyone on the same page. It would be better for the world to get a softer agreement that everyone adheres to instead of a stricter one that the two biggest polluters ignore.

 

[scheherazade_79]

I'd say that dwindling oil reserves and prohibitive costs are more likely to dictate your driving habits than a wild-haired tree-hugger in a woolly jumper.

The easy, cheap to extract stuff ran out in 2005. By 2011 global demand for oil will hit a peak, and we'll be using it up at a greater rate than we're finding new reserves.

And it'll be expensive... You might not want to be driving that gas-guzzler at all in years to come. Same goes for the supersize fridge - apart from anything else it's going to bite a hole in your pocket just keeping it stocked up.

Apparently it'll be another 40 years before oil runs out completely, by which point it won't be our problem. But as supplies get smaller, prices are going to rocket and everything will be affected.

I wouldn't diss the environmentalists - by encouraging everyone to use less they're slowing the approach of the problem. But it'll come, and it won't take as long as 40 years before travel becomes a privilege of the super-rich and the range of food on the supermarket shelves is cut drastically.

 

[JagFarlane]

Its also going to be an interesting point to watch as the generations change over. As Amicus likes to point out the "flower children" and hippies of old, it should be noted that many are hitting the retiree age and passing on the torch to Gen X, with the Millenium Gen following behind them. And yet, a key point, will be the retiree vote.
How long till we run out of oil? Honestly not sure, there are lots of different estimates on that. Do we need an alternative energy source? Yes, we do. However, will we be able to implement it in a relatively quick time? Hell no. Take for example, cars, how many cars right now are on the road that are over 6 years old? Why that number? Thats when GM started to produce cars capable of running off of ethanol. But I digress, older cars are still very much in use out there. People from the teenagers first car, to grandpas older ride that gets only a few miles put on it so no reason to replace it. If you forced a quick change to ethanol only, you strap those two age groups, as well as the lower class whom cannot afford right now to purchase a new car.
But in the end, this really becomes a massive global problem. Look over in Europe, where the price of fuel has skyrocketed. Truckers and fishermen around the world are suffering the cost of diesel. I honestly am not sure about Europe, but as I've pointed out before, in the west [and slowly growing in the east] US, biodiesel is becoming an option that is growing and has proven viable as an alternative. Between Oct 1, 2006 and Sept 30, 2007 450 million gallons of biodiesel was produced. There is a current capacity to produce 2.24 billion gallons of this fuel, with additional building said to give an additional 1.23 billion gallons of capacity within the next 12 months. Biodiesel fact sheet

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

deleted.