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.