Readers of Contra Celsum will know that we do not have much respect for Greenism. One reason is its persistent anti-intellectual stance. A second is its admixture of reactionary luddite philosophy, mixed with idolatrous nature worship. A third is its serial ignorance of economics, trade, and markets. It's not just that Greens tend to despise these things, it's that they appear to have a profound ignorance of them and how they operate.
Finally, Greenism has a pathological hatred of wealth and economic prosperity, for in the Greenist world view, economic prosperity amounts to destruction of the environment. But it is always "other people's prosperity" that Greenism is fixated upon rejecting. Greenism appears satisfied with economic deprivation and poverty as a morally superior position to a modern, industrial economy.
Whilst it is true that Greens sometimes talk about "green jobs" they struggle to define precisely what a "green job" is, let alone how such "jobs" might actually come into being and be perpetuated. So, their reflex is always causation by government. It is the state which must promote, subsidise and protect these "green jobs" if they are to exist at all. But what this demonstrates is a persistent despite toward humanity and human endeavour, enterprise, creativity, and ingenuity. The Greenist version of economic development always proceeds by force and compulsion.
In a nutshell, Greenism shows every sign of hating the human race. It's environmental "activism" appears more driven by collective self-loathing of the human species, rather than genuine, meaningful ecological protection. As such, Greenism is anti-Christian.
Below is Rodney Hide's take on the NZ Greens. There is a lot of truth in his telling.
I have known Jeanette Fitzsimons for more than 30 years. Back then,
she was worrying we were running out of oil and gas. She's now popped up
as co-skipper of the protest vessel Vega trying to make it difficult
for Anadarko to find more.
Her worry used to be that we were running out. Now her worry is that we are finding too much. It's a total back-flip but her solution remains the same - we must give up the good life and de-industrialise.
At a seminar all those years ago, Jeanette explained that she was awoken to a world of worry by The Limits to Growth. The book had rocked me too. With Rachel Carson's Since Silent Spring and Paul Ehrlich's Population Bomb, it made me a hard-core Greenie and set me off studying environmental science to save the world.
But
by the time I got to attend Jeanette's seminar, I knew the studies were
deeply flawed. Wider study, plus the failure of their predictions, had
revealed that. I'd also had the benefit of working on North Sea oil rigs and
seeing first-hand the incredible ingenuity and engineering that had
opened up new and exciting oil fields never thought possible. All
industry is amazing, but the oil and gas industry is especially so.
It's the industry that powers all others and provides even the poorest
in the modern world a standard of living that kings 100 years ago could
not have dreamed of. It's also safer, cleaner and more-productive than
ever.
Oil and gas continues to power and to feed the world, and
to do so against all predictions. The Limits to Growth computer
printouts had solemnly predicted that the world would run out of oil in
1990 and gas in 1992.
We didn't. In 1972, global reserves of oil
were 455 billion barrels. Since then we have burned through a trillion
barrels. That's more than double the 1972 reserves. And today's
reserves? 1.2 trillion barrels. We burn more fossil fuels than ever before and have more reserves than ever before. We are not running out. Jeanette
Fitzsimons has not been cheered by the new discoveries. Far from it.
She is now actively working to prevent further exploration. She has
shifted the worry from the lack of oil and gas to a concern that the
world has too much.
The new worry is the effect of drilling on our beaches and the impact burning fossil fuels has on the world's climate. I
argued with Jeanette more than 30 years ago that her predictions were
wrong. I explained using reason and data. I made absolutely no headway. I
would have no more luck today.
There is nothing that would
convince Jeanette that discovering and exploiting fossil fuels is a good
idea. The problem she has with fossil fuels is not one of economics or
science. It's philosophical. Jeanette opposes industrialised
living. She wants the world to live more simply and more in harmony with
the natural world. It's not enough for her to live as she chooses. Her
mission is to force the rest of us to live as she says.
We have
green policy after green policy making fossil fuels ever more expensive.
We have continuous and hysterical protests in response to surveys and
exploration for oil and gas, let alone its continued exploitation. I
long ago parted company with the green movement. That was when I
realised it was a cult with always the same answer, no matter the
science and no matter the obvious failure of previous scary predictions.
I also thought it a failing that green sustainability meant billions of
people must die.
Back in the day, the greenies viewed the big
human die-off as part and parcel of getting back into harmony with
nature. Funny, they don't talk about that so much now.
No comments:
Post a Comment