While radical environmentalists have long imposed themselves on society, trying to restrict our freedoms in the name of protecting nature, they really shifted into high gear when they came up with the idea of using climate as their primary weapon.
It all started with the misguided idea that we were significantly warming the planet through our use of fossil fuels. Extra warmth was a bad thing, they claimed. Who would have thought they could sell such snake oil to anyone? After all, everything prospers with a little extra warmth. We go south for vacations; we hug when we are worried; we add blankets when we are ill.
Part 1: How Environmentalism Has Kept Communism Alive
Part 2: The Crossroads of Communism and the Radical Environmental Movement
Part 3: Human Puppeteers Calling the Shots for Mother Nature
But somehow, they sold the idea that warming was not a good thing. Eventually, the deep state establishment that really runs the United States of America even convinced the Supreme Court (April 2007 Massachusetts vs. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Supreme Court decision) that the carbon dioxide (CO2) we exhale was potentially a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. Who would have thought?
In particular, the Court held that EPA must determine whether or not emissions of CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases cause or contribute to air pollution “which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision.” Not surprisingly, in its “Endangerment Finding,” the EPA Administrator found that CO2 and other greenhouse gases “threaten both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations.” This is the foundation on which the Obama administration created the erroneously-named ‘Clean Power Plan’ that President Donald Trump later canceled.
Climate alarmism really was kicked off in 1992 when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change stated that its goal was to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous human-induced interference with the Earth’s climate. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had been established 4 years earlier and now they had their real mandate. They were asked to offer an assessment of man’s impact every four years. Initially, it was thought they would investigate why climate was changing in general. But soon after their first report, the curtain was pulled away from their efforts and their real objective was clarified to only finding humanity’s impact on climate.
The public and most of the press assume that the IPCC panel is made up of thousands of qualified climate scientists. In reality, it’s the executive committee, which finalizes their reports, is composed only of politicians. The impact of this became apparent when, just before the IPCC second assessment report was released in 1995, Dr. Frederic Seitz, former President of the National Academy of Science, obtained a draft of the report written by the scientist Panel members and a copy of the final report. They were very different. The initial draft indicated broad uncertainty about man’s role in the causes of climate change. The final report stated with confidence that man was affecting the climate as the main driver with our emissions of CO2.
On June 12, 1996, Seitz wrote a letter to the Wall Street Journal in which he said,
“In more than 60 years as a member of the scientific community, including serving as President of both the National Academy of Science and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that lead to this IPCC report.”
This corruption has continued to today, building on a statement in the IPCC fifth report in 2014 which stated unequivocally that man was the primary cause of climate change for the past 50 years. This immense fraud played directly into the hands of national leaders wishing to take control of their countries by withdrawing freedoms in an effort to establish communist-type control.
“The Australia-based Carbon Sense Coalition compiled a list of proposals that had been aimed at using the country’s laws to force people to modify their behavior in the name of solving global warming:
- Ban open fires and pot-bellied stoves
- Ban incandescent light bulbs
- Ban bottled water
- Ban private cars from some areas
- Ban plasma TVs
- Ban new airports
- Ban extensions to existing airports
- Ban standby mode on appliances
- Ban coal-fired power generation
- Ban electric hot water systems
- Ban vacationing by car
- Ban three-day weekends
- Tax babies
- Tax big cars
- Tax supermarket parking areas
- Tax garbage
- Tax second homes
- Tax second cars
- Tax holiday plane flights
- Tax electricity to subsidize solar power
- Tax showrooms for big cars
- Eco-tax cars entering cities
- Require permits to drive your car beyond your city limits
- Limit choices in appliances
- Issue carbon credits to every person
- Dictate fuel efficiency standards
- Investigate how to reduce the production of methane by Norway’s moose
- Remove white lines on roads to make motorists drive more carefully.”
Dozens of countries are effectively now following this scary and insane (at least in the minds of freedom lovers) list. We will probably not see this level of absurdity in a Biden administration but will definitely see reductions of freedom in preparation for more to come until the Democratic establishment is defeated, hopefully in 2024.
Throughout most of the western world, governments have promoted the expansion of their environmental protection agencies which are gaining power every year. The U.S. was actually a leader in this movement and, try as he indeed did, even Trump was unable to reign it in.
As governments take over the power from the radical environmental movement, it has become more of a religious movement amidst the public, a movement that has become totally intolerant of diverse views. Indeed, Dr. Vaclav Klaus, past President of the Czech Republic, referred to environmentalism as a new religion in his 2008 book, “Blue Planet in Green Shackles”. He describes the new environmental religion to be very much like the communism that ruled his nation for over 40 years. It promotes a wonderful picture of utopia futures which then become little more than slavery to the state. Indeed, institutionalized environmentalism has become vehemently anti-human in actual practice.
The Epoch Times, whose founders also grew up under communism, summed up the threat today’s environmentalism poses in How the Spector of Communism is Ruling Our World:
“One need only look at the disasters of communism rule over the past century to predict the end result should radical environmentalism succeed in its aims.”
Let’s hope Democrats finally wake up to the magnitude of this threat.
In Part Three of this series, we will further explain the similarities between radical environmentalism and communism.
Read Part One: How Environmentalism Has Kept Communism Alive