Stuff reports that Federated Farmer’s President Charlie Pedersen has been laying into ecologists saying:
.
“I say shame on the people who elevate environmentalism to a religious status, shame on you for your arrogance, shame on all of us for allowing the environmentalists' war against the human race to begin, and take hold,"
.
Quite right. It is a war against the human race. What human beings create and consume is bad, whereas what nature creates and destroys is good. Most environmentalists think they are at tune with humanity, but the “it’s compulsory or banned” ethos of many of the Greens reveals this attitude that the Green’s interest in democracy and peace draws the line when the majority choose to buy what the Greens don’t like (e.g. cars), or grow what they don’t like (in which case peace is the last thing on the mind of ecologists).
.
Unfortunately Charlie Pedersen hasn’t heard of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) otherwise he wouldn’t have said "I am yet to hear any environmentalist admit that rolling back agriculture's intensification would have to be matched by worldwide starvation or a matching reduction in population”. Because VHEMT believes that world population should reduce, not to 5 billion or 1 billion or even 1 million, but zero. These perverts think that which was created spontaneously by nature is beautiful, but the only creature on the planet that understands how it was made, how it works and can harness it to do things that defy nature (e.g. travel beyond the speed of sound, communicate vast distances showing images and sound) are bad. This is the natural endpoint to radical environmentalism - killing off humanity.
.
The key difference between many ecologists and the likes of Pedersen (and myself) is that we don’t believe that preserving nature is, by itself, of inherently greater value than any other activity. After all, New Zealand would be a third world nature park if much of its land hadn’t been cleared for agricultural use. This is not a “pave the world” argument, it is moving from the extremism that says that (to borrow from Monty Python):
.
every tree is sacred,
every bird is great,
if a dune is built on,
Greens get quite irate.
.
every bush is wanted,
.
“I say shame on the people who elevate environmentalism to a religious status, shame on you for your arrogance, shame on all of us for allowing the environmentalists' war against the human race to begin, and take hold,"
.
Quite right. It is a war against the human race. What human beings create and consume is bad, whereas what nature creates and destroys is good. Most environmentalists think they are at tune with humanity, but the “it’s compulsory or banned” ethos of many of the Greens reveals this attitude that the Green’s interest in democracy and peace draws the line when the majority choose to buy what the Greens don’t like (e.g. cars), or grow what they don’t like (in which case peace is the last thing on the mind of ecologists).
.
Unfortunately Charlie Pedersen hasn’t heard of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) otherwise he wouldn’t have said "I am yet to hear any environmentalist admit that rolling back agriculture's intensification would have to be matched by worldwide starvation or a matching reduction in population”. Because VHEMT believes that world population should reduce, not to 5 billion or 1 billion or even 1 million, but zero. These perverts think that which was created spontaneously by nature is beautiful, but the only creature on the planet that understands how it was made, how it works and can harness it to do things that defy nature (e.g. travel beyond the speed of sound, communicate vast distances showing images and sound) are bad. This is the natural endpoint to radical environmentalism - killing off humanity.
.
The key difference between many ecologists and the likes of Pedersen (and myself) is that we don’t believe that preserving nature is, by itself, of inherently greater value than any other activity. After all, New Zealand would be a third world nature park if much of its land hadn’t been cleared for agricultural use. This is not a “pave the world” argument, it is moving from the extremism that says that (to borrow from Monty Python):
.
every tree is sacred,
every bird is great,
if a dune is built on,
Greens get quite irate.
.
every bush is wanted,
every swamp is good,
every bug is needed,
in your neighbourhood.
.
To recognition that sometimes people value nature, millions like tramping, sightseeing, have their own gardens, visit parks in cities and national parks. Those are activities that (assuming those that value it pay for it) demonstrate that many people in the capitalist developed world value nature, enormously.
.
Pedersen continued “Many ordinary citizens had bought into the environmental teachings that the world was on the road to ruin, and with it, mankind. They were adopting these teachings without proper scrutiny because of the "green" movement's momentum.” This is all true, the Greens have an Armageddon mentality. It is one that the media loves to use, because it sells papers and gets attention on broadcasts - in addition, most reporters aren't very bright. They take what lobby groups tell them and don't do any investigations themselves - this is why the word nuclear is a synonym for hysteria in New Zealand, but not France or Japan.
.
To recognition that sometimes people value nature, millions like tramping, sightseeing, have their own gardens, visit parks in cities and national parks. Those are activities that (assuming those that value it pay for it) demonstrate that many people in the capitalist developed world value nature, enormously.
.
Pedersen continued “Many ordinary citizens had bought into the environmental teachings that the world was on the road to ruin, and with it, mankind. They were adopting these teachings without proper scrutiny because of the "green" movement's momentum.” This is all true, the Greens have an Armageddon mentality. It is one that the media loves to use, because it sells papers and gets attention on broadcasts - in addition, most reporters aren't very bright. They take what lobby groups tell them and don't do any investigations themselves - this is why the word nuclear is a synonym for hysteria in New Zealand, but not France or Japan.
.
The current fads for the "end of the planet" are peak oil and global warming, past ones being overpopulation, water “running out” and a new ice age. Now if human induced global warming is happening, it is NOT the end of the world, humanity wont die out – it doesn’t mean that roads will be empty because nobody will have a car, it doesn’t mean mass flooding and bad weather everywhere. It may be cheaper to do nothing about global warming that to undertake interventionist measures that reduce net welfare (e.g. focusing on expensive local production of goods rather than cheaper more efficient imports, which may exacerbate poverty in poorer countries). Technology already means that new cars today burn less fuel and burn it cleaner than ever before, and that power generation is equally more efficient and cleaner - in other words, economic efficiency can be parallel to environmental efficiency. However you can hardly plan it, like the Green obsession with trains.
.
A key problem is the shrill loud voice of the irrational emotive environmental lobby. One of those is Cath Wallace, who is reported as describing Mr Pedersen's comments as "hysterical" and said he had missed the point of debate about sustainable development. Cath Wallace would know about hysterical – she waged a hysterical campaign against National’s relatively minor proposed tinkering of the RMA in the late 90s. Check out this quote from an article written by her:
.
A key problem is the shrill loud voice of the irrational emotive environmental lobby. One of those is Cath Wallace, who is reported as describing Mr Pedersen's comments as "hysterical" and said he had missed the point of debate about sustainable development. Cath Wallace would know about hysterical – she waged a hysterical campaign against National’s relatively minor proposed tinkering of the RMA in the late 90s. Check out this quote from an article written by her:
.
“We could aim to maintain and protect natural, cultural and social capital – and to be as vigilant about these as we are with public and private financial capital. This means that we would maintain the environment intact, with limits to protect natural processes, systems, places and ecosystems. Decision rules such as the precautionary principle that suggest that we avoid actions with significant irreversible adverse consequences or consequences which we cannot predict.”
“We could aim to maintain and protect natural, cultural and social capital – and to be as vigilant about these as we are with public and private financial capital. This means that we would maintain the environment intact, with limits to protect natural processes, systems, places and ecosystems. Decision rules such as the precautionary principle that suggest that we avoid actions with significant irreversible adverse consequences or consequences which we cannot predict.”
.
So you see she knows the value of natural capital or even cultural and social capital. Meaningless concepts being thrown about. Her advocacy of the precautionary principle would have seen aviation banned from the start because planes could fall out of the air and set some bushes on fire, or the electric light (who knows what damage that could do to plants photosynthesising at night) or antiseptic in hospitals (the disposal of antiseptic could damage all sorts of precious ecosystems). Avoiding actions with consequences which we cannot predict would stop almost everyone doing almost anything interesting - don't set up a business, don't meet new people, don't invent something new, don't develop a new drug - just be a sticky beak taxpayer tit sucking econazi telling people what not to do because of the "intrinsic" value you place on anything not produced by human being. Absolutely absurd.
So you see she knows the value of natural capital or even cultural and social capital. Meaningless concepts being thrown about. Her advocacy of the precautionary principle would have seen aviation banned from the start because planes could fall out of the air and set some bushes on fire, or the electric light (who knows what damage that could do to plants photosynthesising at night) or antiseptic in hospitals (the disposal of antiseptic could damage all sorts of precious ecosystems). Avoiding actions with consequences which we cannot predict would stop almost everyone doing almost anything interesting - don't set up a business, don't meet new people, don't invent something new, don't develop a new drug - just be a sticky beak taxpayer tit sucking econazi telling people what not to do because of the "intrinsic" value you place on anything not produced by human being. Absolutely absurd.
.
A more recent press release from her and one of her supporters commenting on the 2006 Budget says:
A more recent press release from her and one of her supporters commenting on the 2006 Budget says:
.
“In stark contrast there is no major increase in public transport funding, yet this is urgently required. This does double harm. We will have more greenhouse gases, more lethal air pollution, higher future health costs from vehicle pollution and from the spread of infectious diseases as our climate becomes more mosquito friendly to spread diseases like Ross River Virus, dengue fever and other nasties."
“In stark contrast there is no major increase in public transport funding, yet this is urgently required. This does double harm. We will have more greenhouse gases, more lethal air pollution, higher future health costs from vehicle pollution and from the spread of infectious diseases as our climate becomes more mosquito friendly to spread diseases like Ross River Virus, dengue fever and other nasties."
.
There is no evidence whatsoever that subsidising public transport reduces greenhouse gas emissions. None. There is evidence that building some road projects reduces greenhouse gas emissions, by easing congestion and eliminating bottlenecks. So because public transport isn't getting more subsidies, New Zealand might get dengue fever. A flyover on the Western Hutt Road gets built getting rid of two annoying sets of traffic lights on a 4-lane highway, and fuck me silly but the Tropic of Capricorn is now the Tropic of Milford and dengue fever is rife along the Manawatu River.
.
What’s more hysterical than that?
.
The education system has inculcated this guilt trip for a good generation now. This is why as Pedersen puts it:
.
"They often give support to relieve themselves of any guilt about their lifestyle. Kiwis must understand that ill thought out environmental controls based on emotion rather than science will inevitably lead to a reduced standard of living."
.
Indeed!
No comments:
Post a Comment