 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT
Not If But How
© 2004 - 2007 by G. Edward Griffin - Updated 2007 May 1
Most members of Freedom Force are lovers of nature and share a deep feeling of personal responsibility for preserving and enhancing our environmental heritage. Although we believe there has been a lot of junk science used to fan our fears about an ecological catastrophe of global proportions, that does not mean we take the matter lightly or think there is nothing to worry about.
The issue that separates us from mainstream environmentalists has to do with ways and means, not objectives. As is so often the case with issues of this kind, we may agree on the problem but often disagree on the solution. Collectivists offer one solution, which is based on coercion. Individualists offer another, which is based on freedom.
In addition to having a concern over the environment, individualists are also concerned over freedom. We are alarmed over the use of dire predictions about unsustainable development to stampede us into accepting expanded governmental controls at all levels. It is the typical collectivist proposal: You name a problem and they will enact a law to solve it. Of course, the world is full of problems; so, eventually, the world becomes full of laws. With the passage of time, most of the problems are still not solved but the laws remain – and freedom perishes in the name of problem solving.
Collectivists must have justification for expanding political power, so they frighten the population with the specter of crime, drug addiction, pornography, disease, and – yes – destruction of the environment. With every story of assault with a weapon, drug busts, child abuse, new virus, pollution, climate catastrophe, or endangered species, we find an embedded appeal for more government. The tracks of collectivist propaganda are everywhere. The reality is that the most endangered species is the free human being, and collectivists are using the concerns we all have for the environment to drive that species into extinction.
It is easy to become dissilusioned with private effort because it often falls short of the ideal, but politicized effort falls even shorter. There have been many environmental disasters perpetuated by politicians acting from ignorance or hidden agendas, all the while proclaiming a devotion to the environment. Consider the devastating forest fires that have been caused by government regulations prohibiting the burning and thinning of underbrush. One of the century’s greatest pollutions and destruction of resources occurred in Russia under the leadership of Mikhail Gorbechev who now offers himself as a world leader of the environmental movement. History has shown that governments are the least qualified candidates for undertaking almost any activity except war. They will mess up everything else in the long run - and many will argue that even war is not an exception to that rule.
Individualists are in agreement with Adam Smith. They believe that there is a hidden hand activated by self interest on the part of millions of people competing with each other that produces greater benefit for more people than comes from planning by committees or decrees by governments. Self-interest often creates destruction in the short run but, in the long run, that same instinct will produce genuine solutions, provided men remain free to act. Self-interest is, in many ways, like survival of the fittest. It is a fact of nature that may be abhorrent when examined on a short-term or micro scale where we view the on-going struggle for dominance, but on the long-term or grand scale, where we can measure the advance of the species, it can be recognized as a beneficial force. In any event, members of Freedom Force believe that freedom is the best environment within which to solve all problems, including sustainable development. We have faith in the ultimate triumph of enlightened self-interest, not coercive government.
Many environmentalists would like to agree with this position but, deep in their hearts, they do not have faith in freedom. They say: “OK, let’s give it a try but, if people don’t do what we think they should do – if they don’t cut back their wasteful consumption according to a reasonable standard – then we will have no choice but to use force. We do not want to deny them their freedom, but we will do it if we have to. It’s up to them. Either they act according to our program or else we will take their freedom from them, because they are not smart enough or responsible enough to have freedom in the first place.”
We cannot endorse this view for several reasons. First, if we offer freedom but retain the right to withdraw it if we do not approve of how it is used, we have not offered freedom at all. We have merely declared the type of activity that is being permitted. Second, it leaves open the question of what ARE reasonable standards. International politicians are free to set them at whatever they wish and already have declared that the present state in the more industrialized nations is already beyond those standards. Third, if one believes that government derives its power solely from the governed, there is no source for government to get this power in the first place. As individuals, we do not have the right to force our neighbor not to install an air conditioner or drive an automobile. Therefore, we cannot delegate that right to elected officials. We cannot give what we do not have. This is not a question of the majority being right merely because of the superiority of its numbers, it is a question of personal rights and the protection of the minority against the majority.
For a deeper analysis of this issue, see The Chasm, elsewhere on the Issues section of this site.
A READER RESPONDS WITH WRONG ASSUMPTIONS
I recently received a letter from a Reality Zone subscriber who assumed that, because I have been critical of the environmental movement, that means I have no concern for the environment – and, further, that I must also be pro-big-business. His reasoning was that one must choose between caring for nature or endorsing corporate greed. He wrote:
How can a conspiracy theorist who is anti-big business be anti-environmentalism? Relaxing environmental controls helps big business and hurts the common people, the ones who are being poisoned. One of the things the big business cartels are working toward is bribing the government to look the other way while they pollute like crazy. They are in favor of less government in the form of regulatory bureaus against them and their pollution problems. Companies like the oil industry and Monsanto are getting “their” people in the important positions in the EPA, Department of the Interior, USDA, etc. specifically to get them to relax pollution standards on things such as greenhouse gases. That and getting the budgets to cut funding so the EPA, etc... are too short-staffed to be effective.
|
This is a slightly expanded version of my reply:
Your question is certainly provocative: “How can a conspiracy theorist who is anti-big business be anti-environmentalism?” There are three active words here that need to be addressed separately.
First, although those who disagree with my analysis of history are quick to label me as a conspiracy theorist, I do not consider myself to be in that category. If you have followed my writing, you know that my views are based on and supported by provable facts, not theories, and I am careful to make sure that everything I publish about past and recent history is well documented.
Second, I am not anti-big business. The fact that I am often critical of the policies of large corporations has nothing to do with their size or that they are business ventures. It is based on the ethics and goals of their management. There are plenty of small businesses that are equally repulsive to me for the same reason, and non-profit, tax-exempt organizations often fit that mold also.
Third, I am not anti-environmentalism, assuming your definition of that word is a concern for nature and the health quality of our environment. I don't think you will find anyone who is more dedicated to these than I. So, on all three words, your question misses the mark in describing my point of view. Nevertheless, you touch upon several issues that I would like to address.
I regret that I do not have the time to devote to your question that it deserves, but the short answer is that there are two kinds of environmentalists. One is a person who loves nature, is concerned over the deterioration of the health quality of life on this planet, and who believes that the solution is the expansion of government and the suppression of personal liberty. The other is a person who loves nature, is concerned over the deterioration of the quality of life on this planet, who believes that those who dream of world power are using these legitimate concerns to stampede the public into accepting totalitarianism, and who believes that the most endangered species is the free human being. I am in the second category.
You already are on to one of the most revealing aspects of this study. The fact that corporate interests dominate the government agencies that regulate them is not new. This has been going on for decades, and it is an important clue as to what the agenda really is. Multinational corporations and their cartels always have been the largest source of funding for the environmental movement. Without corporate funding and grants from tax-exempt foundations, whose boards are populated by corporate leaders, the environmental movement as we know it wouldn't even exist. What they fund, they control. Their game plan is brilliant: Use environmental concerns as an excuse for expanding government power in all aspects of life; strengthen their already substantial control over every level of government; make sure they themselves are exempt from any unmanageable restrictions; use those same restrictions to destroy competition from business ventures outside the cartel; and create a global corporate state, based on the model of collectivism, which they fondly describe as The New World Order. Once you understand this game plan, the thrust for power under the banner of environmentalism becomes painfully clear.
It’s essentially the same tactic used on all fronts. Whether it is the war on pollution, terrorism, crime, drugs, pornography, or any other evil, those leading the war and banging the drums don’t give a hoot about any of them. Their primary concern is to generate public support for the expansion of their power and funding under the pretense of combating evil. Unfortunately, with the corporate mass media solidly in their camp, it is difficult for the average person to see through this ploy and escape the trap.
Thanks for writing, and special thanks for being sensitive to issues relating to the quality of life on this planet, including freedom.
GLOBAL WARMING ACCORDING TO TOM BROKAW
On July 16, 2006, The History Channel, in cooperation with the BBC, broadcast a spectacular two-hour documentary entitled "Global Warming; What You Need to Know." It was hosted by Tom Brokaw, a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. The mission of the CFR is to promote world government based on the model of collectivism, so it was no surprise that this program was a powerful propaganda statement for that goal. It advanced the standard collectivist argument: (1) We have a huge problem; and (2) The ultimate solution lies in laws and international treaties, such as the Kyoto Treaty, that will give government the power to dictate the smallest details of personal life, in the name of sustainable development, of course.
"Global Warming; What You Need to Know" is arguably the best science-fiction program ever produced. It is a brilliant combination of powerful images, compelling narration, and half truths. The greatest half-truth is the foundation fact upon which all others are based. It is the statement, repeated over and over again, that virtually all scientists agree that the small amount of global warming measured in the last century is caused by human presence on the planet and that it is a threat to our future survival. If this is true, then almost everything else makes sense. But that is a half-truth. The full truth is that virtually all scientists selected to be interviewed for this program hold that view. The full truth is that virtually all scientists whose livelihood depends on grants and tax-derived funding for creating global-warming disaster scenarios and government-mandated solutions hold that view. The full truth is that there are far more scientists who do not hold that view and who believe that global warming as we see it today is merely a tiny blip in a long-term Earth cycle and is not significantly effected by human activity - but you will not find their views presented in this documentary except by their detractors who are quick to dismiss them. The viewer is not allowed to know that many of these scientists have come to the conclusion that an increase in global temperatures and levels of carbon dioxide actually would be a blessing for mankind and may result in an increase of agricultural production and life expectancy.
AL GORE JOINS THE CHORUS
Toward the end of 2006, Paramount Classics and Participant Productions released a theatrical film entitled An Inconvenient Truth hosted by former Presidential candidate, Al Gore. The message was the same as delivered by Brokow a few months earlier: (1) Global Warming is a terrifying threat to the future of life on Earth; (2) Global Warming is caused by industrial development and human consumption of energy; (3) therefore, industrial development and consumption of energy must be controlled and curtailed by government.
The film's scientific fallacies were masterfully exposed in another documentary, entitled The Great Global Warming Swindle produced in rebuttal by Channel 24, a public-service TV station in Great Britain. Scores of world-class scientists, many of whom are credentialed professors in their fields, state flatly that Global Warming is caused by solar activity, and that warming cycles like the one we are now experiencing have occurred many times throughout history. They prove their case with hard data showing that, over long periods of time, as sun-spot activity went up, so did Earth temperatures; and, as sun-spot activity waned, temperatures dropped. They show also that temperatures on Earth actually went down in previous years when human industrialization was increasing at its greatest rate.
In An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore strode along a mammoth wall chart pointing to the close historical connection between Carbon Dioxide levels in the atmosphere and Earth temperature. The two have always risen and fallen together. The studio audience was deeply impressed. Who could deny that CO2 was linked to Global Warming? However, in The Great Global Warming Swindle, climate scientists and professors explain that, yes, there is a connection between global temperatures and CO2 levels, but the connection is just the opposite of what Mr. Gore said.
Gore said that, because the two trends were aligned, it was CO2 that was causing warming; when, in fact, it is the other way around. A rise in temperature heats up the oceans and causes them to release huge amounts of CO2, far more than any other source on the planet. Historical records show that a rise in temperature always came before a rise in CO2 and, conversely, a drop in temperature always preceded a drop in CO2. Yes, the two trends are locked together, as Gore dramatically illustrated, but CO2 levels are the result of the process, not the cause of it. Did Mr. Gore know this? If he didn’t, he is incompetent. If he did, he is corrupt. Either way, his audiences were terribly misled.
AN INCONVENIENT STATEMENT
What motivates people like Brokow and Gore to mislead the public in this fashion? The answer was provided by Gore himself in an unguarded statement he made in 2006 during an interview by David Roberts for an environmentalist periodical called Grist. Roberts asked: "There's a lot of debate right now over the best way to communicate about global warming and get people motivated. Do you scare people or give them hope? What's the right mix?" Gore replied:
Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
(http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts) |
When this statement found its way into the mainstream media via The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Gore's defenders were quick to explain that the phrase "over-representation" does not necessarily mean falsification or exaggeration, and that what he was saying is that extra time needs to be spent on frightening people with the real threat of global warming in order to get their attention. However, even that sanitized version is quite revealing, because it shows that there is a well-calculated strategy for opinion engineering, to emotionally manipulate people into a receptive state of mind to accept Mr. Gore's so-called "solutions."
The purpose of the global-warming myth is to scare the daylights out of us with visions of massive planetary catastrophe. The images of global winter, global dessert, global storms and floods, global migration, global starvation, and global extinction of species is on a par with the terrifying images conjured up by the threat of terrorist attacks and nuclear war. In both cases, the intended reaction is an emotional, uncritical acceptance of any solution that may be offered. Who cares about the political and social consequences? With such visions of destruction before our eyes, who could think about anything else? Why worry about national sovereignty or property or privacy or even freedom when mankind is on the verge of extinction?
Such is the power of propaganda.
Watch The Great Global Warming Swindle.
Back
|
 |
 |
|
|
