To Radical Environmentalists, Rich Humans Are Always The Problem

Please Share This Story!
As CO2 loses its punch, radical environmentalists are turning to plastics and water, but the “enemy” always remains the same: rich nations, Capitalism and Free Enterprise. The solution always remains the same as well: Sustainable Development. The United Nations fronts these groups to destroy capitalism and replace it with Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy. ⁃ TN Editor

Plastics are the new target in the environmentalist’s socialist war on capitalism, development, and its most successful creator and promoter, the United States of America. The entire objective of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) deception was to prove CO2 the byproduct of development was destroying the planet. Elaine Dewar reported in her book Cloak of Green that she asked Maurice Strong, a senior member of The Club of Rome and founder of the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), what’s wrong with the planet and is there a solution. He, like so many socialists who push big agendas, created a form of plausible deniability by giving a speculative answer.

What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?…In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?

Dewar asked him why he didn’t run for politics to achieve his goal. He said you couldn’t do anything as a politician. As Dewar noted he knew at the UN…

He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.

Some of us knew that it was a deception from the start, that it was a left-wing plan to impose a world government necessary to combat world threats and redistribute ill-gotten wealth. After five days with Strong at the UN Dewar concluded.

Strong was using the U.N. as a platform to sell a global environment crisis and the Global Governance Agenda.

In 1998, evidence appeared that showed the science was wrong because their predictions were wrong. After that year, atmospheric levels of CO2 continued to increase, but temperatures began to decline. Initially, the response was it is a temporary delay. Then by 2004 many of the public noticed because of cold winters and heavy snow. The creators of the deception began to panic. Here are emails leaked from the University of East Anglia. Nick at the Minns/Tyndall Centre that handled publicity for the climate story said,

“In my experience, global warming freezing is already a bit of a public relations problem with the media.”

One example was in cartoons (Figure 1) because they spot inanities and inconsistencies quicker than most.

Figure 1


Swedish climate expert on the IPCC Bo Kjellen replied,

“I agree with Nick that climate change might be a better labelling than global warming.”

Instead of checking their science they moved the goal posts by calling the human-caused impact “climate change” instead of “global warming.”

The problem is the cooling trend continued and the denials continued. Again, a cartoonist captured the conflict.

Figure 2

If you create a hypothesis, such as that human CO2 is causing global warming, you must deal with all the evidence that appears. If it contradicts the hypothesis you reconsider your claim, that is how the scientific method is supposed to work. With the AGW hypothesis, MIT professor of Atmospheric Physics, Richard Lindzen said years ago that the consensus was reached before the research even began. Facts kept appearing, but proponents ignored, manipulated, created false information or misrepresented them. As John Maynard Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?”

The answer is they chose to defend the increasingly indefensible. Now they are realizing that the anthropogenic global warming issue is losing its power to threaten, intimidate and control people, so they are moving to new targets. There is always a common theme to the issues; they are caused by humans, especially those living in industrialized developed nations that use fossil fuels.

Long term, the replacement issue will be human threats to water. Signs of this are already evident with environmental alarmists like Peter Gleick using terms such as “peak water.” In the short term, the focus must remain on the fossil fuels so there is a campaign against plastics. A lot of people don’t realize that so many of the products, like plastics that have improved our world, come from fossil fuels through the petrochemical industries.

The target is the US and Trump’s energy policies, but what are the facts? The United States is responsible for less than 1% of the plastic in the oceans. Five countries, China, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, contribute at least 60% of the total.

It doesn’t matter what the facts are because the skill of the environmentalists to misrepresent the truth is without equal. In the week Al Gore’s brilliant piece of propaganda, “An Inconvenient Truth” received the Nobel Peace Prize a UK court ruled it was political propaganda with nine major scientific errors. The purveyors of untruths and deceptions know that once the headline is in the mainstream media, it is entrenched, and no counteractivity will get traction. As somebody said, a lie is twice around the world before the truth even has its boots on.

The point is Trump has nothing to lose and everything to gain. He can turn this plastic lemon into a sweet triumph. It is certain that the armchair environmentalists will do as always, point fingers, accuse, mislead, and misrepresent, but then do nothing. Trump is the personification of action.

He needs to form a committee to meet in the White House to outline a plan for cleaning up the oceans. A combined public/private flotilla can use mothballed navy equipment manned by employees paid for by all the industries in the energy and petrochemical sectors. Think how much plastic an aircraft carrier could hold. They can pay for this using their advertising budget because if promoted effectively, it will become a huge public relations win. It will also engender other opportunities like showing what is done with the rescued and recycled material. If further money is required, then manufacturers can add one cent per pound of plastic produced. Another source of revenue, especially to citizens of those small Asian countries, would involve paying for every pound of plastic delivered to the salvage ships.

The message is that socialist environmentalists create and distort problems. Capitalists see problems as prospects. Such is the case and opportunity with plastics, the latest target of eco-bullying.

About the Editor

Dr. Tim Ball
Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg. He has served on many local and national committees and as Chair of Provincial boards on water management, environmental issues and sustainable development. Dr. Ball's extensive science background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition, made him the perfect choice as the Chief Science Adviser with the International Climate Science Coalition.
Notify of

1 Comment
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments