The enemies of the environment: the Greens

(UPDATED 25/1/20)

History is littered with examples of groups claiming to be acting for some ideal actually achieving the opposite; sometimes with intent, at other times with ideology. Double agents, traitors, seditionists, anarchists and the use of deceit and subterfuge. Shakespeare’s works are filled with deception – accidental as in Comedy of Errors; deliberate as in Othello.

We see this deception in the Greens, claiming to act purely in the interests of the environment. It is accidental by those naive advocates of policies that are more likely to damage the environment. It is deliberate by those whose ultimate objective is statism – the watermelons of the Greens epitomised by the Lee Rhiannons of the party.

But whether on purpose or by accident, the actions of the Greens and their supporters (and, let’s face it, the charlatans who peddle schemes designed to enrich themselves such as the clean development mechanism, carbon offsets, wind power and so forth – all of which require government to support for their very existence) have damaged the environment and the economy.

The principal responsibility for the magnitude of the bushfires in Australia lies with the Greens and their supporters, whether wittingly or not. A bold claim, yes. But look at the devastation of the bushfires, and the great biodiversity loss – a catastrophe the impact of which has been magnified by the many actions of Greens.

Let’s list some of them:

  • The inability to countenance compromise and the claimed aim of purity: voting down the Rudd Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.
  • Being unwilling to accept any biodiversity loss such as the opposition to controlled burning because it may have minor impacts on biodiversity. Instead we had a major biodiversity loss.
  •  Violent opposition to nuclear power which physics shows is the ultimate form of energy production as in the least amount of matter required to produce a given amount of energy – the energy density of nuclear is far greater than any other energy source and is therefore the ultimately efficient source especially as controlled fusion.
  • The opposition to increased use of gas because it has some carbon dioxide emissions, even though far less than coal.
  • The opposition to genetic  modification and thus imposing a greater impact on the environment for a given food output.
  • The advocacy of biofuels which are causing the deforestation of the Amazon
  • The advocacy of ‘natural’ and ‘organic’ products which are more environmentally harmful than alternatives as they require more extensive use of land for given output.
  • The opposition to coal-seam gas thus increasing the reliance on oil imports from the middle east and driving a greater use of coal.
  • The demonisation of coal (and even research into sequestration) even though it is remains critical to allow many people living in China, India and elsewhere to get out of poverty.
  • The absolutist nature of hard targets for emissions reductions even though that drives governments to seek inefficient and non dense energy production sources such as wind which will prove dead ends and which have high lifetime costs and high lifetime environmental harm.
  • The use of natural disasters for political campaigns to advocate draconian measures which will be futile and economically harmful.
  • The indoctrination of the young with a zealotry and abject fear of an apocalypse which is antithetical to sound policy and also wrong.
  • The turning of the science of climate into a religion- apocalypticism.
  • The diversion of resources from their most efficient use to trivial measures that achieve no environmental benefit but produce economic harm.
  • The promotion of easy virtue signalling devices such as carbon credits and offsets to make it appear that the draconian measures can be achieved with little suffering. And such measures which ultimately lead to higher emissions since it makes people think they can live a virtuous high consumption life without harming the environment – the same belief that allows people to go without doubt or without guilt in their private jets to Davos or to preach to poorer people from their chalets in Whistler. A crime has been committed here that allows the Al Gores of the world with their extravagant lives to claim and perhaps believe they are more environmentally virtuous than the poor of the world. This is exactly the purchase of indulgences that is offensive and should be condemned as Martin Luther did with his 95 theses.
  • The immorality of condemning the poor of the world to eternal poverty on the cross of climate change.  And, at the same time, conducting a massive deceit by promoting illegal immigration by supposed refuges to assuage their conscience. This is a deceit because it privileges a few people from impoverished countries who have mobility against the vast majority who are immobile.
  • And, above all, to put all of the environment’s eggs in the one basket of ‘climate change’ essentially based on some science but a lot of guesswork and computer modelling and to claim that anyone skeptical of the extent of a country’s response is a ‘denier’ who should be ignored or even better punished.
  • To consider that mitigation is more important than adaptation, even though science shows that adaptation to climate change over millions of years has been the default response by the species which inhabit the planet.
  • To claim that global warming can be controlled to a fraction of a degree while being incapable of controlling for any natural disaster. To blame natural disasters on humans.
  • To not prepare for impending asteroid strikes or another ice age.

These are my articles of impeachment against the Greens who I hold responsible for the magnitude of the bushfires by opposing sensible measures to reduce risk both directly (reducing the fuel load) and indirectly (by allowing and indeed encouraging people to live close to dangerous eucalyptus trees).

Should they be convicted of these articles of impeachment?

Some will blame the conservatives – they are implementing Green policies. True, but why? Is it not because the Greens have been so successful in persuading people to the crazy views that both Liberal and Labor governments have felt the need to engage and pay heed to Green ideology? Yes, Greens though not formally in power as government, have been remarkably successful in having their policies implemented.

 

About Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus

I'm a retired general who occasionally gets called back to save the republic before returning to my plough.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

39 Responses to The enemies of the environment: the Greens

  1. Leo G

    Should they be convicted of these articles of impeachment?

    Why would they be concerned now that the climate doomsday clock is past (400 ppm) midnight?

  2. BrettW

    A very good list which well highlights the Green agenda and its consequences.

  3. David Brewer

    The interesting thing is that they will never be convicted of anything. They are guilty all right, but somehow they have managed to deflect onto others the blame for what they have done.

    It is indeed a lot like impeachment, e.g.:

    – Biden blackmails Ukrainians = Democrats accuse Trump of trying to bribe Ukranians.
    – Democrats run House impeachment hearings denying Trump due process = Democrats accuse Senate Republicans of running impeachment hearings that deny them due process.
    – Democrat national security chiefs undermine election integrity with illegal spying on Carter Page, “insurance policy”, conspiracy to oust Trump under 25th Amendment, 2-year pointless Mueller inquiry etc. = Democrats accuse Trump of undermining election integrity.

    None of this would be possible without a corrupted and biased press. Only if you are bombarded with BS every time you turn on the TV can you fail to see what is really going on. It’s worse in Australia because the ABC is so dominant. Result: the “educated” population thinks the bushfires are due to global warming and Scott Morrison when neither could possibly have any role, but regards the Greens as heroes for locking up forests and banning land clearing until the whole of eastern Australia is a tinderbox.

  4. Lee

    The interesting thing is that they will never be convicted of anything. They are guilty all right, but somehow they have managed to deflect onto others the blame for what they have done.

    Blaming others for bushfires is a classic example.

  5. jupes

    The principal responsibility for the magnitude of the bushfires in Australia lies with the Greens

    No. The principal responsibility lies with the Liberal and Labor government that implement Green policies.

  6. RobK

    No. The principal responsibility lies with the Liberal and Labor government that implement Green policies.
    This is the problem. The bureaucracy remains irrespective of the pollies.

  7. Crossie

    But whether on purpose or by accident, the actions of the Greens and their supporters (and, let’s face it, the charlatans who peddle schemes designed to enrich themselves such as the clean development mechanism, carbon offsets, wind power and so forth – all of which require government to support for their very existence) have damaged the environment and the economy.

    Shall I name the charlatans? Turnbull – father and son, the Photios gang, AGL and so on.

    Nothing will change until one of Australian major parties ditches the green policies. The forests and everything around them will burn, the economy will suffer, the country will be poorer and all because our political class is made up of craven weasels.

  8. RobK

    The forests and everything around them will burn, the economy will suffer, the country will be poorer and all because our political class is made up of craven weasels.
    And property rights have continued to go down the toilet.

  9. struth

    Look up UN agenda 21 Luscious, and it’s implementation , started by Howard’s mob.

    Get back to us when you’ve done some homework.

  10. Nob

    Carbon credits and the like – RE certificates etc are indeed the Indulgences of the modern religion.

    Except they don’t buy any relief from green absolutist condemnation, so wasted money.

    And where – precisely where and to whom – does the money actually go?

    No tax or impost will ever be enough for these people.

  11. Nob

    A question on per capita emissions per year and immigration:

    Q: if an Indian (2.2mT) becomes an Australian (25mT) does his or her emissions multiply x10?

    Immigration increases emissions!

  12. JR

    “Should they be convicted of these articles of impeachment?“

    Yes they should. And they should also be given a jolly good flogging!

  13. Herodotus

    1. As Tim Blair has said, lefty schemes do not work. But it’s worse than that, they damage us all.
    2. All politicians are influenced by media messaging. This gets amplified when a party like the Libs has a wet left component.
    3. Respect the Science, they say. Unfortunately it’s not basics like physics and chemistry that are being respected, or even understood by these hystericals and their front men. Nor do they do geology. Their science is more like scientology.

  14. iggie

    You can also add pink bats and cladding to the list above.

  15. JC

    Establish Bane’s court and give Greens an option. Exile or death.

  16. Nob

    Environmentalism is an affectation of rich countries.

    You want greener, then support prosperity.

  17. Bruce of Newcastle

    Add the devastating carnage to wildlife from wind turbines, which Greens welcome.

    A consistent environmental policy would be only to push the least harmful options like solar panels (and nuclear). It’s interesting that Bob Brown has broken ranks on this issue and has now been opposing wind farms recently.

  18. Robber Baron

    The Greens are the Communist party; it’s been obvious for a very very very long time.

  19. Win

    We have had itinerants Koala fights at night in our back yard in Brisbane. In other areas they are/ were permanently residents sleeping in the trees. Why demonise eucalyptus and starve the remaining Koala population to extinction when every second native shrub and bush are just as inflamable. We have had fire protection ie underground water tank,above ground tanks and swimming pool just in case.
    Otherwise could not agree with you more. The Greens are enforcing poverty apon us.

  20. Dennis

    n 1992, Paul Keating signed Agenda 21 on behalf of Australia. 178 Nations around the world signed Agenda 21. What is Agenda 21 you may ask? In short, it’s about global land use, global education, and global population control and reduction.
    Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Earth Summit 1992 said, “Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”
    Imagine if the government was purposefully rationing the use of electricity, water, petrol and natural gas, and that the enactment of these policies came from your local government’s committee or department of sustainability?
    These local government (council) sustainability boards will decide how much energy, water, and other natural resources your home is allowed to use, limiting your ability to wash your dishes, take a shower or bath, flush the toilet, and drink a glass of water – regardless of the size of your household or how many children you have.
    Effective execution of Agenda 21 will require a profound reorientation of all human society, unlike anything the world has ever experienced – a major shift in the priorities of both governments and individuals and an unprecedented redeployment of human and financial resources. This shift will demand that a concern for the environmental consequences of every human action be integrated into individual and collective decision- making at every level.
    Agenda 21 leaves no stone unturned and no person outside of its reach. In order to accomplish its goals of sustainable development and to make you into a so-called “steward of the environment,” Agenda 21 seeks to control you and your life. Once implemented, Agenda 21 will affect you the following ways:

  21. Neil

    And perhaps in Sydney. Some Coalition MP’s wanted a dam built on the Shoalhaven River. But for some reason some lefties do not like dams. Land had been set aside for the dam. But Bob Carr then made the land a National Park and built the desalination plant. The desal water would be more expensive than water from the dam and I would think more environmentally unfriendly than a dam.

    Now the Coalition plans to increase the size of the desal plant but it was Labor who took us down this path. With the Welcome Reef dam we would not need a desal plant

    https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/sydney-should-reconsider-building-the-welcome-reef-dam-on-the-shoalhaven-river-near-braidwood/news-story/0d494d861bb48fb653c90d440f4c0973

  22. Fair Shake of the Sauce Bottle

    It’s interesting that the Greens / Reds are smug in their virtue toward others but their policies directly impact the poor and lower end of the community. Increased energy costs, increased regulation (to protect them/you/me) and increased taxation. Making it all the more harder to climb out of poverty.
    Oh but we give it back to the poor as subsidies and handouts. Entrenching poverty for generations.
    Greens / Reds are virtuous and smug. The same way a growth is smug in its malignancy.

  23. Dennis

    • Eliminating your right to private ownership (property rights)
    • Forbidding you from entering woodland and wetland areas
    • Punishing you with higher prices at the store
    • Restricting your civil liberties
    • Restricting the number of children you can have
    • Restricting the amount of trash or waste you can dispose of
    • Restricting the amount of water you can use
    • Telling you how much to harvest on your farm or land
    • Forcing you to participate in community projects
    Another arm of Agenda 21, is to privatise water. A farmer can only capture 10 % of the water in his dam, the rest must flow to the rivers and creeks, or be taxed. South Australia are just starting to feel the effects of Agenda 21, with the state government trialling low flow by-passes on dams, at an estimated cost of up to $30,000, this is to stop water running into dams. A water licence must be bought for irrigation from your own dam and also a right to take water levy, whether you use it or not, has been introduced by the government, and supported by the opposition.
    Let me draw Australian’s attention to Section 100 of the Australian Constitution. It reads…”The Commonwealth shall not, by any law or regulation of trade or commerce, abridge the right of a State or of the residents therein to the reasonable use of the waters of rivers for conservation or irrigation.”
    This has not been challenged in the high court but we believe that Australians, under section 100 of the Constitution have the right to water. John Howard and his Liberal government, separated land and water in 2004 to make it a saleable commodity. This was not done for any reason other than for profit and the grubby business of multinationals and big business to make money.

  24. I_am_not_a_robot

    Voting down Rudd’s craftily titled ‘Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme [sic]’ was the only useful thing they have ever done.

  25. TFX

    There is one policy option on reducing greenhouse gases on a world scale that Australia could offer. I know the Greens will be serious about the issue if they accept my proposed policy option – That Australia offer to become the nuclear waste repository for the world.

    This would help at the margin in moving from fossil fuels based generation to nuclear (carbon free) generation.

    I suspect I would be searching the skies for flying pigs before this logical option is accepted.

  26. Nob

    All the nuclear waste in the world could fit in the Burnley tunnel.

  27. W Hogg

    The inability to countenance compromise and the claimed aim of purity: voting down the Rudd Government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme.

    To link this to the magnification of fires is the most ridiculous and unscientific thing I’ve ever seen on the Cat. This is truly shameful.

  28. Anthony

    I would be curious to know what % of councillors in local government are Green aligned? How much power do they have to stop things like coal seam gas etc?

  29. Nob

    Anthony
    #3301653, posted on January 25, 2020 at 10:09 am
    I would be curious to know what % of councillors in local government are Green aligned? How much power do they have to stop things like coal seam gas etc?

    They are either against it or unaligned and will go along for an easy life.

    They give platforms to activists under the naive assumption that they are actual, unironic, do-gooders.

    The council bureaucracy is automatically aligned with green obstructionists.

    Some of these rural areas that I grew up in, and still have friends and family in, more people work for the council or the state, or have one or both as clients than work in any productive industry.

    Those people are natural activists since they have no interest in new industry and they are the friends and family of all those locals working for the council. They are your nice niece, your son’s girlfriend, your uncle, your dad’s mate.

    They are for the most part, decent people , fighting shadow enemies such as Right Wingers and Big Coal, causing terrible destruction, demanding the government “do more” for their region while fighting to block everything that could boost the economy except more taxpayer-funded facilities.

    They eat together in warm communal family farmhouse kitchens while ABC radio plays nonstop propaganda in the background.

    Criticising or even questioning them is felt like a hostile act.

    I suspect that is replicated across the country.

  30. I_am_not_a_robot

    This is truly shameful …

  31. bollux

    Greens also believe men can give birth and should be encouraged to do so from an early age. Tells you all you need to know about them really. They abandoned science a long time ago.

  32. Rafe Champion

    What TFX said at 9.15, we could make mega millions out of storing the nuclear waste of the world. Probably enough to pay off the national debt. We could probably take on all sorts of other waste as well since the Chinese have stopped collecting it.

  33. Rich

    The common thread between those dot points is that the environmentals dream of a world without humans. I would say to them that they are free to contribute first but, similar to communist agitators who see themselves as part of the politburo after revolution and not in a gulag, the environmentals similarly see themselves the exception to “other humans.”

  34. IainC

    And those are their good points!
    Another axiom for the list. “Given certain technology options, Greens will fixate on the most expensive, least effective option.”
    All the world’s nuclear waste can be returned back to the uranium mines once they are exhausted, since they are already radioactive….naturally.

  35. Roger

    Is it not because the Greens have been so successful in persuading people to the crazy views that both Liberal and Labor governments have felt the need to engage and pay heed to Green ideology?

    The likes of Howard and Kemp – who now portray themselves as the elder statesmen of Australian conservatism – could at least have sought to persuade the public of the nonsense and danger of Green claims and policies

    Instead – being the second raters they are – they put short term political advantage over the nation’s best interests.

  36. Neil

    The opposition to increased use of gas because it has some carbon dioxide emissions, even though far less than coal.

    That is true and false at the same time. Natural gas produces less CO2 when burnt than coal HOWEVER some natural gas always escapes when extracting it. And methane is a more potent global warming gas than CO2. So that is why some global warmers are against methane.

  37. Beachcomber

    Is it not because the Greens have been so successful in persuading people to the crazy views that both Liberal and Labor governments have felt the need to engage and pay heed to Green ideology?

    It is a cultural war in the schools, universities, media, political class, government bureaucracy, corporate business establishment etc. The Green Marxists are winning and winning big. The S.F.L.s don’t want to win; they are products of the same establishment and are fellow travellers. It is a desperate situation because they are the only ones who could de-fund the Universities and the ABC-SBS. That could at least slow the descent.

  38. Squirrel

    ” The turning of the science of climate into a religion- apocalypticism.”

    That’s the essence of it – and all the excesses and ratbaggery which have, in the past, been perpetrated by corrupt and deranged individuals in the name of (formal) religions are being revived and repeated in artful new forms.

  39. Sean

    “claim that anyone skeptical of the extent of a country’s response is a ‘denier’ who should be ignored or even better punished.”

    It is unfortunate that it comes from a source that will have people knee-jerking about how you are comparing them to Nazis, but a statement from Hermann Göring in an interview by Gustave Gilbert while Göring was imprisoned in Nuremberg awaiting trial is spot on to the tactics employed by the AGW community: “Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

Comments are closed.