The Environmentalism Site

It's Stewardship, Not Environmentalism | (pro(vo)cation)

May 20th, 2012

Making the world around us a better place seems like a fairly universal, non-partisan goal.

But at least in Utah, the words “environmentalism” and “environmentalist” can have strong negative connotations. That connotation isn’t unjustified either; to me, the environmentalism of past generations seems grating, simplistic and occasionally condescending. Like the author of this Grist article, I’m concerned about the environment, but even I don’t really feel comfortable calling myself an “environmentalist.”

In response, I think that when we talk about the environment, especially in Utah, we need a better and less polarizing term that better captures our values. That term, I believe, is “stewardship.” Moreover, I think if we really want to push traditionally ”green” policies, we’ll only talk about “stewardship.” For the sake of effectiveness, let’s expunge “environmentalism” from our vocabulary.

One reason for using this word in Utah is obvious: stewardship is a canonical value of the LDS Church. “Environmentalism,” on the other hand, is vilified by the political right.

But stewardship is a broader term as well. Environmental writers from many locations and backgrounds use it frequently already. And in any case, it seems to capture a better sentiment: people are supposed to wisely take care of the earth. In that way, “stewardship” can help people see that widely held values align with concepts they might otherwise reject as “environmentalism.”

Stewardship is also an active value, rather than a prohibitive one. So, for example, stewardship might suggest that we should plant trees rather than not cutting them down, as environmentalism tended to emphasize. We should walk to get places, rather than not driving so much. We should conserve and recycle, rather than not dumping trash in landfills.

Where “environmentalism” has come to imply a whole slew of pain-in-the-neck rules and anti-behaviors, “stewardship” implies active engagement. The end result is similar — less pollution, more trees, etc. — but stewardship focuses on individual action and simply “deactivates” destructive behavior collaterally.

This isn’t a new or revolutionary argument. And of course it’s a semantic issue that needn’t change the actual policies currently being pursued by green-oriented Utah citizens. But it’s also an issue that if properly “packaged” with more accurate terminology, can help people see that they have more common ground than quarrels. In other words, Provo may never be a city of environmentalists, but it’s already filled with potential stewards.

A plaque on a foot bridge over the Provo River. It reads, “We do not inherit the world from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children.”

Posted in Information | No Comments »


Message of the Day » False Environmentalism – by the Health Ranger

May 20th, 2012

The Health Ranger exposes “false environmentalism” in this 10-minute mini-documentary, revealing five legitimate ways you can save the environment. Covered in this video are genetically modified organisms (GMOs), the pharmaceutical pollution of our world, synthetic chemicals that damage the environment, the hoax of carbon taxes and much more. Read more from the Health Ranger at www.NaturalNews.com or TV.naturalnews.com

This entry was posted on Sunday, May 20th, 2012 at 2:07 pm and is filed under Useful Stuff. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Posted in Information | No Comments »


Failed Metaphors and A New Environmentalism for the 21st Century

May 17th, 2012

Peter Kareiva, chief scientist for The Nature Conservancy, where he is responsible for developing and helping to implement science-based conservation throughout the organization and for forging new linkages with partners. Elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, he has also received a Guggenheim Fellowship and is a member of the Ecological Society of America and the Society for Conservation Biology. Peter also cofounded the Natural Capital Project, a pioneering partnership among The Nature Conservancy, Stanford University and WWF to develop credible tools that allow routine consideration of nature’s assets (or ecosystem services) in a way that informs the choices we make everyday at the scale of local communities and regions, all the way up to nations and global agreements.

Posted in Videos | No Comments »


Quadrant Online – Environmentalism and the Decline of the West

May 17th, 2012

“Today’s debate about global warming is essentially a debate about freedom. The environmentalists would like to mastermind each and every possible (and impossible) aspect of our lives.”

Vaclav Klaus

Blue Planet in Green Shackles

Environmentalism and the Decline of the West

by Walter Starck

May 17, 2012


Most of the leading Western Nations are now experiencing ageing populations, declining industries, chronic trade imbalances, bloated government, punitive taxation, high levels of personal debt, unsustainable government deficits and a rapidly metastasizing regulatory regime that is an increasing impediment to any productive activity.


All this has grown over time into a vast interrelated morass of problems which will require fundamental changes in governance to correct. Simply more tweaking of the existing structure will only add to the problems. Correcting them demands more radical treatment.

This probably can’t happen until the existing structure has collapsed; however, such time appears closer every day.  A wave of sovereign defaults followed by a severe global economic depression seems virtually assured by rapidly compounding debt which is now reaching levels which only an improbably miraculous recovery could overcome.

When the time does arrive that real reform becomes possible it will be important to understand how we got ourselves into such a mess in order to decide what to do to get out of it. Too much government is obviously a core problem. Imposing more clearly defined limits on what we expect of it plus more secure limits on what it may legitimately do is going to be important.

In addition to setting new limits on government it will also be important to more clearly recognise the social and behavioural forces which have driven government in the direction it has taken. Without such understanding there is a high risk of starting afresh at considerable pain only to repeat the same kind of mistakes and end up in a similar situation again.

A major contributor to our current societal malaise has been a tendency to moral crusades which have only exacerbated the problems they were intended to fix while generating an ongoing residue of collateral damage, unintended consequences, bureaucracy and repression. Over the past century major initiatives of this nature have included prohibition, the war on drugs, the war on terror and repeated efforts to impose or repress various political ideologies.

Although all these efforts have inflicted great suffering and socio-economic damage, probably none have resulted in such ongoing, widespread and ever increasing detriment as has environmentalism. While the benefits of cleaner air and water have been apparent and undeniable, the damage inflicted by misguided environmentalism has been largely unrecognised even though massively extensive and deleterious to human wellbeing.

This damage has included direct impacts and benefits prevented as well as the more indirect effects of repression and loss of freedom and opportunity:

Some Direct Damages of Misguided Environmentalism

  1. Tens of millions of deaths and debilitating infections by malaria which could have been prevented by indoor use of DDT with minimal environmental impact.

     
  2. Destruction of millions of Ha of rainforest to grow biofuels for an immeasurably trivial reduction in CO2 emissions.

     
  3. It has been estimated that as many as 20 million people have been robbed of their lands and forced into poverty as conservations refugees. After millennia of harmonious co-existence with their natural environment they have been driven out to “protect” it.

     
  4. Even in developed countries multitudes of honest, productive families of small farmers, stockmen and fishermen have also been stripped of a long standing sustainable livelihood to pander to the uninformed notions of green urbanites.

     
  5. In recent years significant increases in food prices have resulted from large areas of land being removed from food production in order to grow uneconomic subsidised biofuels. In addition food production has suffered from reductions in water rights, prohibition of native vegetation clearance, expansion of parks along with myriad environmental restrictions and demands that reduce productivity or increase cost with little or no actual environmental benefit. A further direct consequence has been an increase in malnutrition, especially in underdeveloped countries dependent on staple food imports. This affects tens of millions of people and the trend is getting worse not better.

     
  6. One of the more serious effects of misguided environmentalism has also been the corruption of science. This is resulting in a marked dulling of our most effective tool for informed decision making at a time when it is needed more than ever to deal with an increasingly complex world. In the environmental sciences repeated exposures of junk science and concerted scientific misconduct along with exaggerated predictions which fail their reality test have damaged public trust in all science. Lavish funding for agenda driven junk science has also resulted in a virtual abandonment of sound basic research in favour of research aimed at promoting the existence of purported threats. 

Benefits Denied through Environmentalism

  1. Ignorance and ill-founded fears about genetically modified crops has prevented their introduction in many places. While reasonable prudence is warranted in the adoption of this powerful technology, its blanket prohibition is unwarranted by extensive experience as well as our best scientific understanding. The benefits of increased production, disease resistance, and nutritional improvements as well as the reduced use of fertilisers, pesticides and herbicides are huge. They amount to hundreds of billions of dollars per year in addition to more and better food for billions of people.

     
  2. Unbelievably the GMO hysteria has extended even to the rejection of food aid in a famine in Africa because of concerns about it possibly containing GM material. Apparently the eco-logic is that it is better to starve than to risk an undefined possibility of some unhealthy effect from eating GM food which is consumed by hundreds of millions of people elsewhere with no adverse consequences known.

     
  3. The energy from fossil fuels is the very foundation of modern society   and its rising cost is now having a damaging economic impact on all developed economies. Despite its vital importance, however, increasing imposts, restrictions and liabilities have become a major impediment to production. It appears probable that we are headed for a severe energy crisis including some nations with large natural reserves such as the U.S. and Australia. Certainly the increasing cost of energy is already having a significant negative impact on the prosperity of millions of people even in the most prosperous nations.

  4. Although aquaculture has been highly successful in producing affordable high quality animal protein with minimal environmental detriment it has also become subject to increasing restrictions, prohibitions and costs imposed on the basis of ill-founded environmental concerns. At the same time recent large scale clinical and epidemiological studies have found strong correlation between increased seafood consumption and significant health benefits. These encompass a broad spectrum of major disorders including cardiovascular diseases, a variety of immune related disorders and neurological development and functioning. There is strong indication that increased seafood consumption in most Western nations could save billions of dollars annually in health care costs along with a greatly improved quality of life for tens of millions of people. Although globally there is limited potential for further increasing production in wild caught fisheries, there is great potential for expanded aquaculture. The only real impediment is misguided environmentalism. 

Repression and loss of freedom and opportunity imposed by environmentalism

  1. Hunting, fishing and camping for recreational and food supplementation purposes have long been healthy activities open to people of all ages and social classes. Over the past few decades, however, increasingly harsh, restrictive, complex and costly regulations enacted under the banner of environmental management have taken much of the fun as well as the affordability out of these activities.

     
  2. Strong property rights have been a core element of long standing in the development of Western democracies. A person’s home has been their castle and private property was indeed private. However, that is now history. The new eco-fascism is busy imposing myriad restrictions and demands regarding what one can, cannot and must do on one’s own land. Land ownership is becoming more a matter of onerous, ever increasing and arbitrary obligations than of any secure rights. Land holding is effectually in the process of being transformed into a new form of serfdom with the state as the true owner and the liege lord to whom all obligations must be paid and permissions sought.

     
  3. For millennia fishermen were among the freest of people, the industry was open to anyone and the price of entry was only time and effort. The ideal of fisheries management was to maximise the sustainable yield. Then came the development of academically trained office based eco-management conducted by experts in theoretical ideas about things they have never seen and about which little is actually known. Management claims have expanded to include the entire marine ecosystem with a focus on the maintenance of species diversity and community resiliency while protecting from an endless array of possible threats, all with an eye to erring on the side of precaution. The favourite tool has become the computer model which can be readily adjusted to provide any desired result, lends an aura of high tech certainty and is safely inaccessible to independent examination. The freedom to fish has been transformed into privatised, corporatized, tradable rights accompanied by blizzards of paperwork. The result has been a declining industry with ageing participants and no new generation coming on to replace them. The rights to the most valuable fisheries are all becoming the private property of corporations and investors to be fished by struggling share croppers who bear all the risk and effort but enjoy only a minority of the profit.

The inverse relation of environmentalism and productivity -

While concern for the environment has unquestionably resulted in valuable benefits from pollution reduction, preservation of nature and more sustainable utilisation of natural resources; it has also spawned the development of environmentalism as a malignant ideological offshoot with far less benign consequences. Environmentalism has become both a powerful political lever putting dangerous power in the hands of ignorance as well as a convenient cloak for sundry hidden agendas.  That it has cost tens of millions of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars and had significant impacts on health, prosperity, freedom and enjoyment of life over much of the world is all too real even if still largely unrecognised.

In most developed nations a large majority of the population now dwell in cities and only a minority toil to produce the goods and services which support us all. For many urbanites in particular the environment has acquired a romantic, somewhat sacred, status. Though themselves voracious consumers, they are removed from the production that supplies their demands. Those who provide their needs tend to be seen as greedy exploiters and defilers of nature. Even more ironically, their own lifestyle has virtually annihilated the natural world in a small portion of the environment and that is where they choose to live. 

Environmental delusions and deceptions -

The reality of a constant struggle for survival in a dynamic, ever changing, often harsh natural world has been replaced by a romantic notion of nature in a blissful state of harmony and balance, something pure and perfect where any detectable human influence is by definition a desecration. This sacred perspective of the environment manifests itself in language where fragile and delicate become almost mandatory adjectives in describing the natural world. 

An unholy coalition of politicians, activists, bureaucrats, academics, and the media have found it profitable to feed into and use the urban eco-delusions for sundry other agendas. For the politicians it affords a cheap shop at green votes. For activists it’s campaigns that attract public attention and donations. For bureaucrats it’s increased authority and budgets. For academics it’s grants and recognition. For the media it’s the attention grabbing drama of threats and conflicts. 

Like every effective propaganda machine environmentalism has created it’s own special terms of emotional index designed to trigger reflexive notions of good and evil. Terms such as sustainable, biodiversity, ecosystem-based management, ecologically sustainable development, modelled, precautionary, overexploited, threatened, endangered, deniers and even the very words environment and ecology have been co-opted and associated with desired connotations to serve as buzz words. 

A peculiar adjunct of all this has been the enshrinement of an imaginary precautionary principle concocted to mandate that any suggestion of a detrimental environmental effect must be addressed with full measures to prevent it. Its formulation makes no reference to probability, cost, or risks and it offers a ready cloak for sundry other agendas. Logically it would even preclude itself as everything we do or don’t do entails risk, including precautionary measures themselves. Amazingly, this vacuous and pernicious piece of nonsense has even been written into the enabling legislation of various government agencies charged with various facets of environmental management. 

To make matters worse, environmentalism has also become heavily infected with the intellectual malignancy of political correctness wherein certain attitudes, beliefs and perspectives are deemed to be so unarguably true and proper as to be beyond any questioning or critical examination. To attempt to do so is not simply to be mistaken. It is evidence of moral degeneration and wilful evil. 

This then brings us to the mother of all environmental threats, Anthropogenic Global Warming (a.k.a. Climate Change). AGW has been the eco-saviour’s ultimate wet dream. In the short term it has afforded healthy portions of fame, fortune, authority and great righteousness. Further along it promises to save the world, punish unbelievers and bring about a fair, harmonious, balanced, sustainable restoration of Eden. The fact that all such dreams of ideal societies have had a 100% track record of failure is not even a consideration. To the faithful every time, this time is always different and each time the believers are certain they “know” the truth and surely couldn’t be wrong because it is confirmed by all their fellow believers and politically correct as well. 

Ecology is above all holistic -

Every organism must have effects in order to exist. We are no exception. Aiming to maximise our beneficial effects and minimise our detrimental ones requires trade-offs and adjustments whereby we seek to spread our impacts across our whole resource base within the bounds of sustainability.

Every resource we lock up puts more pressure on others and makes genuine sustainability more difficult. An unnecessary restriction in one place becomes an increased impact somewhere else. 

The reality of natural ecosystems is that they are far less delicate, fragile and balanced than is popularly imagined. They are in fact much more robust, dynamic and fluctuating with every organism impacting on others. Like all species the effect of our own can be either harmful or beneficial depending upon whether the net result is to decrease or to enhance the diversity, abundance and condition of life. 

Environmentalism tends to view every accidental condition of nature as manifesting some beneficent balance but any evidence of a human influence as an unnatural impact. This perspective is baseless, irrational and is itself unnatural. Our species like all the others is a natural result of the evolution of life on this planet. Our rather sudden and amazing success after such a long, hard and often doubtful struggle is something to marvel about and be grateful for, not something to be disparaged. 

Approaching the end times -

Unfortunately mass delusions with moralistic overtones have a way of continuing well beyond the point where they have departed from any relation to reality. Deep commitment, pressure to conform and suppression of dissent may maintain them for some time even when their failure has become painfully obvious. If a powerful and respected leader finally dares to admit that serious problems exist, followers are then free to admit reality and the seemingly invulnerable bubble of delusion may abruptly collapse. The collapse of the communism is a prime example. However, if leaders have too much to lose to admit any error, a delusion may continue until mortality removes them or followers may simply fade away over time leaving only an empty shell of fossilised fanatics. 

The climate change delusion is now in its terminal battle with reality. The proclamations of the alarmists are growing more and more unhinged from the actual climate in which we exist. Increasingly costly and restricted energy supplies are having growing impact on people’s lives. Green energy has failed miserably to deliver cheap, adequate and reliable power or to result in any meaningful reduction in CO2 emissions. It exists only because of subsidies which render it an indulgence we can no longer afford. Then, to top everything off, the science on which all the claims have been based has been repeatedly exposed as corrupted by incompetence, inappropriate methods, unexplained adjustments to data, cherry picking of evidence, exaggeration, supressing or ignoring conflicting findings and even outright fraud. 

Where to from here-

The threat of catastrophic climate change has almost certainly been greatly exaggerated and the net effect of increased CO2 in the atmosphere is much more likely to be beneficial than harmful. A growing majority of the public now reject the alarmism. After it collapses, or just withers away to irrelevance, we will be left with a need to better understand how the science became so corrupted.

There are several aspects in this regard about which we should begin thinking:

  1. The current system of peer review is overrated and corrupt. The Internet makes possible a much more widely based, open and transparent approach.

     
  2. Scientific training and practice is lacking in a clear understanding and implementation of the philosophy and ethics of science.

     
  3. Government funding of research has become dominated by political agendas wherein support is awarded in accord with the production of desired findings.

     
  4. Researchers, managers and activists in the environmental area have learned to manufacture hypothetical threats to obtain funding. With the precautionary principle no demonstrable problem is required, only the suggestion of a possible one.

     
  5. A properly structured and resourced science court is needed to evaluate important scientific claims and disputes before public policies are based on them. 

Unfortunately the corruption is not restricted to science itself. Junk science is now being widely indoctrinated throughout the educational system. Instead of teaching students how to recognise and evaluate such malignant righteousness, they are being presented it as unquestionable truth. 

In developed nations Virtually all productive activity now faces a morass of environmental regulations imposed through a multitude of different government bodies. The difficulties, delays, costs and uncertainties are having a major impact. More and more businesses are giving up altogether or moving offshore. For many who do try to go ahead or who are already committed the eco-demands result in marginal profitability. This trend is getting worse, not better, and it is already having a significant impact on national prosperity. For multinational companies it just means squeezing out what profit they can from their investment and diverting future expansion elsewhere. For increasing numbers of domestic businesses already at the margin of profitability it simply means closing down. 

Moral crusades have a repeated history of imposing pain and ending in grief. There is nothing to indicate this one is any different. It’s time to recognise it for what it is, consign it to the rubbish bin of history and begin thinking about how to undo the damage.

 


Subscribe to Quadrant magazine here…


 

 

 

Posted in Information | No Comments »


The Four Corners of Environmentalism | Eco-Friendly Journal

May 17th, 2012


environmentalismI’ve been struggling with what I perceive as a common problem.  While everyone is being told to Go Green, no one tells us what Going Green is.  We are left to a non-descript and unregulated free market of ideas as to what Green is.  In the end, confusion reigns when it comes to the concept of Green, and everyone wants to hitch a ride on the Green popularity bandwagon.

So, I saw ads for Green cars that use energy better, and I wondered if energy savings is actually Green or was it actually an environmental or sustainable factor involved here.  Well first of all, we need to define these terms because part of the confusion comes from the free interchange of all these terms.  To help you with this concept, I propose the Four Corners of Environmentalism to give an enlightened perspective to the subject.

First of all, Environmentalism is the master topic.  This is well defined in Wikipedia as: “Environmentalism is a broad philosophy and social movement centered on a concern for the conservation and improvement of the natural environment, both for its own sake as well as its importance to civilization.”  Ecology, by the way, is the science of how all things in this world interact including climate, geology, and earth sciences.

Environmentalism, as I see it, breaks into four areas of human-related application, and these would be the four corners of the greater topic.  Though I am sure to take flack for daring to quantify and restrict the terms, I feel an urgent need to add clarity to a confusing subject.  Therefore, I suggest these four corners that make up the greater concept of environmentalism:

1- POLLUTION:  The most obvious issue in environmentalism is the process that harms the environment.  Whether air, water, land, or the destruction of habitat or rain forest; stopping pollution is the premier issue of environmentalism

2- SUSTAINABILITY:  Though the earth is very resilient, there is a growing concern for the depletion of our natural resources.  Sustainability deals with the “Life Cycle” for products used at every level.  This issue considers the harvesting, manufacture, use, and disposal of earth’s resources stressing the key issues of conserve, recycle, and reuse to lessen the environmental impact on mankind’s growing demands.

3- GREEN and GREEN CLEANING:  Green is distinctly about health of the living creatures in this earth.  It frankly moves the primary focus from the larger issues of the world to the more narrow issues of life, health, and well-being.  Conflicts between Green and Environmentalism exist in a complex world of diverse needs not always in harmony.

4- CONSERVATION:  This area is concerned for the preservation of wildlife and wildlands anywhere in the world.  Preserving the rain forest, saving the whales, or protecting natural habitat is a duty of each generation.

While there are various subtopics to each of these four divisions, it is helpful to realize how we participate in each major area of environmentalism.  So, as I see it, an energy-savings car is not Green, per se, as it is an asset in the Sustainable issues that we face.  A car does not make us healthier as a direct consequence though in the greatest extension, there are Green ramifications.  Saving the whales does not add years to my life, but it is very ecological.  Removing phosphates from soap is not Green though it helps the pollution issue under the smaller topic of eutrophication.

Therefore, I struggle with everything being called Green when it is better defined by other excellent categories of environmentalism.  And yes, I know that nearly everything in the grand topic of environmentalism has health benefits to the world and all in the world.  The stretching of the Green moniker to every aspect of environmentalism is hurtful to our intelligent efforts to make a difference.  What is wrong with addressing pollution as pollution instead of Green concept?  Shouldn’t sustainability stand in its own  strength when we plant more trees rather than calling is “Greenification”?  Every cause and endeavor needs to have clarity in their terms and definitions, and the immense environmental movement needs clarity if we are to make serious progress.

Written by R. Michael Richmond, Director of Green Clean Institute

Posted in Information | No Comments »


Paradigms and Demographics: More History of Environmentalism …

May 14th, 2012
Look how little the leopards have lost their spots!

Professor Gasman’s Haeckel’s Monism and the Birth of Fascist Ideology provides insights into the coherent fascist intellectual doctrine that, by 1920, was embraced by a wide swath of European academics and artists. Defining features of this cohort were:

They referred to themselves as: ecologists, naturalists and socio-biologists.
They were pseudo-scientists bent on subverting real science.

Their mantras were: natural, holistic, and organic.

Their Religion of Nature was basically a revival of Pantheism. They worshipped Earth as a divine living organism. Human achievements were disparaged as scant and fleeting compared to Nature’s glory.

They desired scientist-led governance. Scientists probed Nature’s divine realm, hence scientists alone understood the political implications of Nature’s laws.

They were pessimistic and denied the existence of progress.

They exhibited a longing for primitivism.

They were organizationally and ideologically linked to the organic foods movement.

They were organizationally and ideologically allied with the occultist/neo-pagan milieu.

They were divided between those who wanted to replace Christianity and those who wanted to modify Christianity.

They dreaded human overpopulation and were active in eugenics/population control strategizing.

They considered humanitarianism to be scientifically incorrect.

They described society as an organism that grew organically out of Nature.

They saw direct continuity between biological and sociological laws, and contended that bio-evolutionary laws should literally be the basis for human laws.

They believed human survival required abject conformity to the environmental totality. Human liberation would come not through dominion over Nature but through submission to Natural Law.

They opposed capitalist industrialization and sought to reinvigorate beleaguered countryside interests undermined by the rise of industrial cities. Hostility to industrial capitalism manifested in criticism of what was deemed lifeless scientific-mechanical thinking.

They stridently opposed democracy.

Gasman did not set out to expose similarities between environmentalism and fascism. His book makes no reference to environmentalism nor ventures off the topic of European academic trends circa 1870-1920.

Posted in Information | No Comments »


When environmentalism and science face off – Let's Talk Farm Animals

May 14th, 2012

By Lisa McLean, Agricultural writer

Destruction of GMO crops (also called genetically modified organisms) is a common form of protest, particularly in the EU where public acceptance of biotechnology is low. Activists dress in their best white garb and face masks to make the most of a photo opportunity while they wade into fields and haul out healthy plants by their roots.

This month, some activists in Europe are threatening to destroy another GMO field, but the owners of the field in question argue its plants have the potential to drastically alter the environmental impact of growing staple food crops worldwide. The situation raises important questions about what it will take for the environmental movement to find its way past common scare tactics and endorse new tools for environmental sustainability.

GMO crop vandalism

GMOs are a product of biotechnology, a difficult scientific process that creates a plant with new traits by moving a specific gene from one organism, and putting it into another. The Canadian Food Inspection Agency likens biotechnology to a complex “cut and paste” procedure.

In the case of the plants in question, the scientists have essentially pasted a synthetically-produced gene that offers natural insect resistance into a wheat plant. The plants are growing at UK-based Rothamsted Research, the world’s longest-running agricultural research station. If allowed to live, the plants could offer vital built-in resistance to two common crop-destroying insects, essentially eliminating the need for pesticides. And, since the research is funded by government money, results would be publicly available, not patented or owned by any one corporation.

A group of environmental activists operating collectively under the name “Take the Flour Back” is planning a day of action to destroy the crop. The threat has prompted the scientists involved to issue a video plea and an open letter to their opposition, urging them to reconsider their plans. They appeal to the protesters as environmentalists, and ask them to consider the potential environmental benefits if the research trials prove successful. They’re asking the protesters to come to the facility with an open mind on May 27, and be prepared to discuss and learn more about the potential value of the crop involved, rather than destroy it.

Too often, the environmental movement – which is comprised of some of the most progressive individuals in society – is guilty of a “back to basics” attitude that eschews scientific advancements including biotechnology. Such attitudes do a disservice to agricultural workers worldwide, and are a hindrance to efforts to feed the growing population with fewer resources.

If a shrinking number of farmers are expected to feed a growing number of people in the coming years, then we must equip them with the tools to make it happen. It’s time for the environmental movement to have real dialogue with the scientists who have dedicated their careers to developing such tools, and to find ways to build up, rather than destroy years of research and environmental commitment that are essential for safe and secure food supply.



Posted by FFC on May 14th, 2012 :: Filed under Activism,Crops,Environment,Innovation and technology,Research
Tags :: , , ,
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Posted in Information | No Comments »


The Atheist Conservative: » Environmentalism the supreme killer

May 11th, 2012

Environmentalists “refuse to look at or admit the existence of the carnage they have created and continue to perpetuate worldwide.”

So writes Robert Zubrin in an article at PJ Media.

He contends that more people have died as a result of the environmental movement than at the hands of the most extreme mass-murdering dictators. In fact, he argues, millions of those deaths in the dictatorships have been caused, indirectly, by the environmental movement.

How good is his case?

Let’s look at the record.

Some of the worst atrocities can be laid at the feet of the population control ideologues such as Paul Ehrlich and his co-thinkers who argued — in direct contradiction to historical fact — that human well-being is inversely proportional to human numbers. As a result of their agitation, since 1966 U.S. foreign aid and World Bank loans to Third World countries have been made contingent upon those nations implementing population control programs. In consequence, over the past four decades, in scores of countries spanning the globe from India to Peru, tens of millions of women have been … subjected to involuntary sterilizations or abortions, often under very unsafe conditions, with innumerable victims suffering severe health effects or dying afterwards.

We are against foreign aid. But we are even more against the forced reduction of populations by “population control programs” including compulsory abortion and  sterilization.

Ehrlich also called for the United States to create a Bureau of Population and Environment which would have the power to issue or deny permits to Americans to have children. While rejected here, this idea was adopted by the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party, who were convinced of the necessity of such measures by the writings of the Club of Rome* after these were plagiarized and republished in China under the name of one of its top officials. Thus was born China’s infamous “one-child policy,” which has involved not only hundreds of millions of involuntary abortions and forced sterilizations, but infanticide and the killing of “illegal children” on a mass scale.

There have been tens of millions of cases of murder-by-default: people being allowed to die by keeping from them a remedy for fatal disease:

The anti-technology wing of the antihuman movement also has its share of human extermination to account for. …

… by getting governments to ban the highly effective pesticide DDT – not always for scientific reasons, but precisely because it saves lives:

To only a few chemicals does man owe as great a debt as to DDT. It has contributed to the great increase of agricultural productivity, while sparing countless humanity from a host of diseases, most notably perhaps, scrub typhus and malaria. Indeed, it is estimated that in little more than two decades, DDT has prevented 500 million deaths due to malaria that would otherwise have been inevitable. But the role of DDT in saving half a billion lives did not positively impress everyone. On the contrary, as Alexander King, the co-founder of the Club of Rome put it in his 1990 biography, “my chief quarrel with DDT …  is that it has greatly added to the population problem.” …

Scientific arguments were also used, for instance that DDT endangered birds. To these lunatics (what else can one call them?), the preservation of bird life was more important than the preservation of human life.

Rachel Carson … in her 1962 book, Silent Spring, … made an eloquent case that DDT was endangering bird populations.

Which wasn’t even true:

This was false. In fact, by eliminating their insect parasites and infection agents, DDT was helping bird numbers to grow significantly. No matter. Using Carson’s book and even more wild writing by Ehrlich (who in a 1969 Ramparts article predicted that pesticides would cause all life in the Earth’s oceans to die by 1979), a massive propaganda campaign was launched [in the US] to ban DDT.

The EPA – not yet the storm-trooper arm of a dictatorial administration as it has now become – carried out an investigation into the effects of the pesticide:

In 1971, the newly formed Environmental Protection Agency responded by holding seven months of investigative hearings on the subject, gathering testimony from 125 witnesses. At the end of this process, Judge Edmund Sweeney issued his verdict: “The uses of DDT under the registration involved here do not have a deleterious effect on freshwater fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. … DDT is not a carcinogenic hazard to man.”

But dedicated environmentalists are never put off by facts:

No matter. EPA administrator William Ruckelshaus (who would later go on to be a board member of the Draper Fund, a leading population control group), chose to overrule Sweeney and ban the use of DDT in the United States.

Subsequently, the U.S. Agency for International Development adopted regulations preventing it from funding international projects that used DDT. Together with similar decisions enacted in Europe, this effectively banned the use of DDT in many Third World countries. By some estimates, the malaria death toll in Africa alone resulting from these restrictions has exceeded 100 million people, with 3 million additional deaths added to the toll every year.

The harm done by the EPA, itself a creation of the environmental movement, has not been limited to stopping DDT. It is no coincidence that U.S. oil production, which had been growing at a rate of 3 percent per year through the 1940s, 50s, and 60s, peaked in 1971, immediately after the EPA’s creation, and has been declining ever since. In 1971, the U.S. produced 9.6 million barrels of oil per day (mpd). Today we are down to 5.6 mpd. Had we continued without environmentalist interference with our previous 3 percent per year growth in the period since — as the rest of the non-OPEC world actually did — we would today be producing 35 mpd, and the world economy would not be groaning under the extremely regressive tax represented by $100 per barrel oil prices. The environmentalist campaign against nuclear power has made its promise for plentiful, cheap electricity impossible as well.

The genocidal effect of such support for energy price-rigging should not be underestimated. Increasing the price of energy increases the price of all other products. It is one thing to pay $100 per barrel for oil in a nation like the USA which has an average income of $45,000 per year. It is quite another to pay it in a Third World country with an average income of $1500 per year. An oil price stiff enough to cause recession in the advanced sector can cause mass starvation among the world’s poor.

While we think the phrase “genocidal effect” is not well chosen, we follow Dr. Zubrin’s argument.

Again, the evil that he accuses environmentalists of is choosing not to allow the saving of lives that could be saved: 

European greens also have much horror to account for, notably through their campaign against genetically modified crops. Hundreds of millions of people in the Third World today suffer from nutritional deficiencies resulting from their cereal-dominated diets. This can now readily be rectified by employing genetically enhanced plants, such as golden rice, which is rich in vitamin A. Other genetically modified crops offer protection against iron or other vitamin deficiency diseases, dramatically increased yields, self-fertilization, and drought or insect resistance. But as a result of political pressure from the green parties, the European Union has banned the import of crops from countries that employ such strains, thereby blackmailing many governments into forbidding their use. In consequence, millions of people are being unnecessarily blinded, crippled, starved, or killed every year.

Taken together, these campaigns to deny billions of people the means to a decent existence have racked up a death toll exceeding that achieved by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or any of the other tyrants whose crimes fill the sordid pages of human history.

*And here is a very important footnote that explains how and why environmentalists decided to exploit pollution, global warming, and famine in order to make a case for global unification [ie for world government] as long as the earth is peopled, but also against the human race, which they perceive as the planet’s enemy. What their ultimate aim is –  whether absolute power over the human species or its total annihilation – is not clear. Is preservation of the environment the pretext for, or the goal of world government? Perhaps they are not sure themselves.

From Wikipedia:

The Club of Rome raised considerable public attention with its report Limits to Growth … It predicted that economic growth could not continue indefinitely because of the limited availability of natural resources, particularly oil. …

Mankind at the Turning Point was accepted as the official Second Report to the Club of Rome in 1974. … [It claimed] that many of the factors [affecting the environment] were within human control and therefore that environmental and economic catastrophe were preventable or avoidable. …

In 1993, the Club published The First Global Revolution. According to this book, divided nations require common enemies to unite them, “either a real one or else one invented for the purpose.” Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, “new enemies must be identified. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. … All these dangers [to the planet] are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”

Posted in Information | No Comments »


Join Me at the Teva Seminar on Jewish Environmentalism :: Fresh …

May 11th, 2012

Do you serve on your synagogue’s Green Team? Do you wish you had the tools to educate your congregation about recycling, conserving energy and the benefits of eating locally grown foods? If you are interested or involved in Jewish environmental learning, mark your calendars for the Teva Seminar on Jewish Environmental Education and Shabbat Retreat, from June 12-17!

The Jewish environmental movement has experienced exciting growth in recent years. Issues such as hydraulic fracturing and food justice have been at the forefront of reinvigorating our Jewish tradition’s long history of promoting sustainable stewardship. The Teva Seminar is an amazing professional development opportunity in which students, scholars, scientists, advocates, leaders and educators of all kinds gather for a week of powerful learning, community and networking.

Need more convincing? At the seminar I will be teaching a class along with Sybil Sanchez, Director of the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life, called “Eco-Jewish Activism: Integrating Environmental Advocacy and Programming.” In this session we’ll explore what it means to be strong Jewish advocates for the environment and address how we can help shape our nation’s public policy to reflect our values in areas such as climate change, energy, and clean air and water. I would love to have you join me.

The seminar, hosted by the Teva Learning Alliance, one of the most successful and established Jewish environmental organizations in the country, will take place at Surprise Lake Camp in Cold Spring, NY.

There’s still time to register! Visit the Teva Seminar page or contact me for more information.

Image courtesy of Teva Learning Alliance.

Posted in Information | No Comments »


UCSC Review Highlights Greenwharf in Connection with Student …

May 8th, 2012

Check out the online version of the article here.

Posted in Information | No Comments »