The environmental movement has a long, reactionary history.
Can the environmental movement be considered “progressive”, given it’s long history of misanthropic hatred for humanity cooked up in elite institutions? Or is this movement reactionary because it attempts to“rollback the wheels of time”(Marx, Communist Manifesto)?
Are outfits like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil (funded by Rockefellers) the “revolutionaries” of our time? Or will they be declaring “industrial society to be a mistake” and committing futile terrorism in ten or twenty years, like the unabomber?
There is obviously a revolutionary energy to the environmental movement who feel strongly about multi-national companies treating the earth and its inhabitants like a toilet.
The Working Class is rightly abhorred by the way multi-national companies pollute, how oil cartels behave in financing wars. The frank disregard for nature and human life. But does the “green movement” have anything that advances the forces of production to produce the next mode of production(Socialism)? Or is the green movement a fetter on the forces of production, desperately attempting to cling to the old order?
Prior to 1974 it was the parlour talk of eugenicists and Malthusians in elite institutions. Petite-bourgeois criminals who view humanity as a plague. Here in this paper is explored the different green institutions and their howls of despair at the success of humanity.
In the 1970s a number of things happened. The predictions of the Malthusians of famines and population “explosion” bringing down civilisation were proved false. In 1974 the Coal Miners and National Union of Mineworkers brought down the Tory Heath government in Britain at which time the Tories began scheming to destroy and export the coal industry (and the industrial proletariat) so they would not have to deal with their political influence.
After 1974 it went mainstream by Thatcher, George HW Bush, Helmut Kohl and Brian Mulroney. To ensure that the working class could never impact the general maintenance of capitalism again.
Can one marry Marxism-Leninism to an ideology that doesn’t even believe in economic growth?
Is the standard of value for an environmentalist human life? If not what is?
Why is the same imperialist cosmopolitan bourgeoisie, that financed Nazi Germanys “racial hygiene” institution also funding climate hysterics” researchers, scientists and activists?
The Rockefellers are an Oil dynasty from the “robber-baron” era of oil cartels. Made infinitely rich from “fossil fuels”. “Fossil fuels” was a name Rockefeller gave to oil to make it appear as a scarce and diminishing resource. This name has oddly stuck – when even Titan (one of Saturns moons) has more surface hydrocarbons than Earth. (Nasa, Titan’s Surface Organics Surpass Oil Reserves on Earth, 13 Feb 2008)
Why then, would these oil barons fund climate research since the 1950s, help shape climate policy measures since the 1980s and support climate activism since the 1990s?
Stalin in Foundations of Leninism explicitly named the Rockefellers as one of the dynasties that control capitalist governments
Under capitalism the exploited masses do not, nor can they ever, really participate in governing the country, if for no other reason than that, even under the most democratic regime, under conditions of capitalism, governments are not set up by the people but by the Rothschilds and Stinneses, the Rockefellers and Morgans. Democracy under capitalism is capitalist democracy, the democracy of the exploiting minority, based on the restriction of the rights of exploited majority and directed against this majority.(Stalin, Foundations of Leninism)
The Rockefeller Foundation has been described as a “State within the (US) State” by a supreme court justice.
The Reece Committee inquiry confirmed what Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis had once said about the extent to which foundation funds(Ford Founation, Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegi) were being used to achieve political objectives, while the foundations themselves had become “state within a state.” The Reece Committee reported that a mix of the Old World aristocracy and heirs to the American “Robber Barons” had emerged to control extensive resources while “operating outside of our democratic processes.”(Judith Resiman, Kinsey Crimes and Consequences, p269)
It was American eugenicists that exported fake “race science” to Germany from the hallowed halls of bourgeois ideology and falsification and psychological warfare; Harvard, Stanford, Princeton and MIT.
“But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn’t originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement’s campaign for ethnic cleansing.”(Edwin Black, The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics, Sept 2003)
This was to be a pet project of the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Institution.
“Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America’s most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics’ racist aims.” ibid
The Rockefeller Foundation financed the Kaiser Wilhelm Insistute, responsible for Nazi Germanys “racial hygiene” laws.
“The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.”ibid
After the destruction of Nazi Germany by working masses in the Soviet Union. Those heroic peoples beat to death Nazi Fascism – at great cost to themselves and their country. Fake race science was discredited forever.
Post World War 2 the Eugenicists were forced to relabel their departments to “genetics”, merely changing the labels on their doors, the bourgeois fascist criminals of United States continued their work of sterilising “eugenically undesirables” even after Nuremberg.
“Only after the truth about Nazi extermination became known did the American eugenics movement fade. American eugenic institutions rushed to change their names from eugenics to genetics. With its new identity, the remnant eugenics movement reinvented itself and helped establish the modem, enlightened human genetic revolution. Although the rhetoric and the organizational names had changed, the laws and mindsets were left in place. So for decades after Nuremberg labeled eugenic methods genocide and crimes against humanity, America continued to forcibly sterilize and prohibit eugenically undesirable marriages.” (Edwin Black, War Against the Weak: Eugenics and Americas Campaign To Create A Master Race, p20)
The Rockefellers (and imperialist bourgeoisie more broadly) moved quickly into the environmental movement. Their
With the onset of imperialism came the rentier parasite state of decaying capitalism concerned with retarding the productive forces. At the height of the British empire came the ideological foundation of Malthus and his overpopulation theory used to justify retarding the productive forces by reducing the number of human beings in the world. The apex of British Empire an ideology was needed for the elites to justify the inhuman holocausts they pushed on the Worlds people to perpetuate the maintenance of the Empire. Malthus’s concept was that of human beings being blind consumers on fixed amounts of resources. His solution was to let disease run through populations.
Resources are (according to Malthus) like stocks in a cupboard and if there’s too many people we’ll run out of resources.
History has disproved Malthus a thousand times wrong on this account. Every mouth also has a brain and arms and legs. Humans are also deeply ingenious and creative. And thirdly even the concept of a “resource” changes over time. In the 1800s there was a very real worry that the world would run out of trees due to human beings chopping them down for ships. This stagnant approach of looking at resources could not account that in a few short years humans would be making ships out of steel rather than wood. In a more recent example countries that had previously been sat on worthless lithium deposits suddenly find themselves sitting on a mountain of wealth as lithium is used in high technology for batteries. Coal was a worthless resource to humans until they learned how to burn it.
The Malthusian worldview has stubbornly remained popular. First because the bourgeois promotes it (for obvious reasons we will soon see) and secondly because conceiving of resources, and what even constitutes a resource, takes a bit of thought. Rather than assumption and static thought processes of “if we use X resource this will run out in 20 years”. We may find a better, cheaper and alternative resource to use at scale during this time period. This resource might be superseded entirely by another product. We no longer dig ice out of the arctic and transport it on lorries for instance. Efficiency at scaling production. New techniques in agriculture. New technology.
It is not for nothing that Julian Simone declared there “were no limits to growth” and the “Ultimate Resource” was the human brain with it’s creativity and innovation.
But then Crusoes find other islands. Humankind traveled farther and farther in search of resources finally to the bounds of continents, and then to other continents. When America was opened up, the world, which for Europeans had been bounded by Europe and perhaps by Asia too, was suddenly expanded. Each epoch has seen a shift in the bounds of the relevant resource system. Each time, the old ideas about “limits,” and the calculations of “finite resources” within those bounds, were thereby falsified. Now we have begun to explore the sea, which contains amounts of metallic and perhaps energy resources that dwarf any deposits we know about on land. And we have begun to explore the moon. Why shouldn’t the boundaries of the system from which we derive resources continue to expand in such directions, just as they have expanded in the past? This is one more reason not to regard resources as “finite” in principle. (Julian Simone, Ultimate Resource 2, p113)
“There is no physical or economic reason why human resourcefulness and enterprise cannot forever continue to respond to impending shortages and existing problems with new expedients that, after an adjustment period, leave us better off than before the problem arose. Adding more people will cause us more such problems, but at the same time there will be more people to solve these problems and leave us with the bonus of lower costs and less scarcity in the long run. The bonus applies to such desirable resources as better health, more wilderness, cheaper energy, and a cleaner environment.”ibid p627
Julian Simones wonderful book, Ultimate Resource 2, was not written addressing an abstract idea. It was in direct response to the 1950s and 1960s eugenics, Malthusian and environmental movements who held Malthusian worldviews about resources. A number of these wildly popular books appearing in the 50s and 60s were Paul Erhlichs Population Bomb that depicted a baby with a fuse in it, Famine 1975 which predicted a famine in USA by the 1970s and most famously the Club of Romes Limits To Growth. The Club of Rome is an organisation explicitly for the Imperialist Cosmopolitan Bourgeoisie.
This marriage between fascists, Malthusians, Eugenicists and the Green movement was not a hard marriage. The Green movement had been into eugenics almost from the beginning.
With the rise of the US empire the United States would now take up the mantle as the headquarters of Malthusianism worldwide. In order justify the massive disparity in wealth the United States hoarded like a dragon, fettering the means of production and stifling human potential.
George Kennan was frankly more honest than Malthus
‘We have about 50% of the world’s wealth but only 6.3% of its population…Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security.’ – George Kennan, architect of the Cold War
The “Pattern of Relationships” pursued by the United States would be in spreading Malthusian ideology. As history disproved the Malthusians wrong with their “Limits to Growth” as humanity continued to flourish and get better over time. The Malthusian push by the Club of Rome was a success though. Limits to Growth went on to sell 30 million copies in more than 30 languages, making it the best-selling environmental book in history. It contributed to the “Kissinger Report”(otherwise known as the National Security Memorandum 200) in which depopulation of other countries became a stated US national security goal.
Population growth of foreign nations provides more geopolitical power and possible opposition to US interests
- The United States relies on countries being underdeveloped in order to easily obtain natural resources
- High birth rates result with more younger individuals who oppose established governments
- American businesses are vulnerable to interference by foreign governments that are required to provide for growing populations
But as the decade went on and the famine in United States that was supposed to happen in 1975, the improvement of life in Bangladesh and India shocked even the Malthusians themselves. The ghouls of Malthus were proven wrong all over again by historical example. The Imperialist Bourgeoisie byt eh 1990s (ie. American bourgeoisie at the apex of US empire now having to deliberately retard productive forces to maintain its monopolies) needed a new enemy. They needed one nebulous enough that they could sell to the public but direct humanity in the line of fire.
This “common threat” would then be “humanity itself”. The bait and switch complete.
“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.”(Club of Rome, Alexander King, Bertrand Schneider, 1993)
Paul Erhlich – “Humans Are Cancer”, Compulsory Sterilisation and the Main Influence of the British Green Party
Stanford University’s Paul Erhlichs “Population Bomb” made lurid assertions that “millions of people were going to starve to death in the 1970s”. Population Bomb was a sensation of a book written in 1968 selling millions of copies. It would influence US public policy throughout the 1960s and 70s. It’s cover features a baby with a bomb fuse on it – linking the birth of children to a violence. Paul Erhlich demanded
“We must have population control at home, hopefully through a system of incentives and penalties, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail. We must use our political power to push other countries into programs which combine agricultural development and population control.”
Elsewhere Erhlich compares humans to cancer
A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people … We must shift our efforts from treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer… – (Paul Ehrlich, ‘The Population Bomb’ (Ballantine Books 1968) pg. xi, pg. 166 )
“I don’t see how India could possibly feed two hundred million more people by 1980.”
Also stating “I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks that India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971.” In the book’s 1971 edition, the latter prediction was removed, as the food situation in India had improved. It would be decades before Julian Simone would prove in Ultimate Resource 2 that humans are creators more than they are destroyers.
In reference to nations like Bangladesh, bourgeois writers were advocating “letting whole countries go down the drain”.
“When Bangladesh became independent after the devastating war in 1971, U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger called it “an international basket case.” Over the next few years the food supply was sometimes so bad that some writers advocated “letting Bangladesh go down the drain,” whatever that arrogant phrase might mean.” (Julian Simone, Ultimate Resource 2, p122)
These bourgeois pessimists were wrong and forced to admit as much when they returned in 1980
Life expectancy in Bangladesh rose from 37.3 years at birth in 1960 to 47.4 years in 1980 to 55 years in 1984. Compare this actual long-term result with the pessimistic predictions in Lester Browns 1978 The Twenty Ninth Day, where he heads a section “The Tragic Rise in Death Rates,” and puts into a table data that show increasing mortality in one area of Bangladesh from 1973-1974 to 1974-1975, and in three areas of India from 1971 to 1972. On the basis of just those two one-year reversals in the long-run trend, Brown built a prediction of decreasing life expectancy.(ibid)
The (British) Green Party’s origins go back to PEOPLE, a political party founded in Coventry in November 1972 by a small group of professional and business people. Influenced by Paul Erhlichs “Population Bomb” and with nothing better to do with their lives they set about fretting themselves with:
“His predictions of famine caused by rapid population growth terrified Lesley and her husband, Tony, and led to them forming the PEOPLE party in February 1972.”(Independent, The Green Party: a short history, Sunday 23 November 2014)
Extinction Rebellion make these same lurid estimates today. They justify these scare stories on some “moral” insistence of awakening public concern.
“I am talking about the slaughter, death, and starvation of 6 billion people this century—that’s what the science predicts.”-Extinction Rebellion, Roger Halem
We will see soon the fraud of “science” from Extinction Rebellion, that merry band of hippies and reactionaries. Today they are sitting in roads annoying everyone. Tomorrow they will commit terrorism like the unabomber.
The PEOPLE partys first document was the Manifesto for Survival, largely based on the Blueprint For Survival written by the Ecologist.
The Blueprint for Survival took as fact the book Limits to Growth.
Limits To growth took computer models and did the famous Malthusian trick of “limited resources” with a growing population taking these resources like stocks from a cupboard. Failing to factor in human ingenuity, resource replacement (by more abundant or efficient resources) and insisted that civilisation would collapse in the near future.
Limits to Growth was so discredited:
“..that book has been so thoroughly and universally criticized as neither valid nor scientific that it is not worthwhile to devote time or space to refuting its every detail. Even more damning, just four years after publication it was disavowed by its sponsors, the Club of Rome. The Club said that the conclusions of that first report are not correct and that they purposely misled the public in order to “awaken” public concern.”(Julian Simone, Ultimate Resource 2, p96)
One should remember how Extinction Rebellion types want to “awaken” public concern.
The People Party’s Manifesto for Survival demanded population controls after believing the contrived, fake computer models in Limits to Growth, because “Britain can only sustain 30 million people”
“The sustainable level of population for Great Britain is approximately 30 million, This is the number which it is generally accepted can be fed at an adequate level without the necessity for food imports. Even if that is too low a figure, and a substantial increase to say 45 million is allowed, by the year 2000 it still means the population will be far too large unless drastic steps are taken immediately.”(PEOPLE, Manifesto For Survival, 1974)
Like the anarchists, the Greens hope to turn back time to petite-bourgeois modes of small artisan production before the arrival of mass industrial production. “Nay, they are reactionaries because they want to turn back the wheel of time” (Marx, Communist Manifesto)
“There will be considerable scope for initiative and enterprise, but for the ‘little’ man–the painter and decorator, the cobbler, the small shopkeeper, and the rag and bone man, who will be-come the front line in the recycling industries on which much future prosperity will depend.”(Ibid p2)
This petite-bourgeois mindset is explicitly stated identifying economic growth itself as the enemy, alongside humanity.
“PEOPLE accepts the growing body of scientific evidence that the twin evils are economic growth and continued increase in population” (ibid p1)
It should be noted that the author of Population Bomb and Limits To Growth, Paul Erhlich and Dennis Meadows the inspirations for the Green Party, did not go quietly into the night after repeated wrong predictions and even being thrown under the bus by the Club of Rome (who had funded and advertised the book to best-seller status), a few years after Limits to Growth publication.
Dennis Meadows (author of Limits to Growth) obsession with culling the worlds population remained. Insisting that the planet can only support 1 billion people (these predictions should be familiar by now) and he hopes we can chop the population down to 1 billion people in a “civil way”. Listen to this bourgeois academic criminal discuss genocide at a scale the world has never seen before
“but in one way or another we are so far global you are so far above the population and the consumption levels which can be supported by this planet that i know in one way or another it’s going to come back down. So i don’t hope to avoid that. I hope that it can occur in a a a civil way. I mean civil in a special way, peaceful way. It doesn’t mean uh that everybody’s happy but it means that conflict isn’t solved through violence through force but rather in other ways and so that’s what i hope for that. I mean the planet can support something like a billion people maybe two billion depending on how much liberty and how much material consumption you want to have. If you want more liberty and more consumption you have to have fewer people. And conversely you can have more people, i mean we could even have eight or nine billion probably, if we have a very strong dictatorship which is smart. That’s unfortunate, you never have smart dictatorships, they’re always stupid so but if you had a smart dictatorship and a low standard of living you could have a..(unintelligible) but we want to have freedom and we want to have a high standard of living so we’re going to have a billion people. And we’re now at seven so we have to get back down. I hope that this can be slow relatively slow and that it can be done in a way which is relatively equal uh you know so that people share uh the experience. And you don’t have a few rich you know trying to force everybody else to to deal with it. So those are my hopes. I mean these are pretty pessimistic hopes you know but i mean that’s that’s what lies ahead” – Dennis Meadows, Author of Limits To Growth
What can be said that this bourgeois fascist criminal does not already say?
So according to the greens so far we should abandon economic growth entirely and work toward massive depopulation that would chop down seven in eight of us.
Marxism-Leninism promethean desire to build and create surely has a home in this movement! (sarcasm if it is not obvious).
But Dennis Meadows is not the first environmentalist to express such abhorrent and deep genocidal intent.
In fact, that seems almost like a requisite of being an environmentalist.
Behind the flowery rhetoric of the Greens is genocidal intent. They do not take the flourishing of human life as their a priory standard but some abstract concept of an untouched “nature” and “climate”. Firstly as if man is not part of nature. Second as if climate and “mother earth” are somehow hospitable to human life if only we lived in “harmony”. The opposite of course being true – man adapted nature to his needs utilising fossil fuels that allowed him to live and flourish in almost any environment or, say, climate. It is only with the creativity of man that people can live in very diverse climates ranging from freezing tundra to scorching deserts.
These dangerous socio-paths are everywhere and quotes of contempt for the human species from these radical-environmentalists in mainstream publications speak for themselves
“The Economist wrote in an editorial: “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable, but a good thing.” The Economist (quoted from Julian Simone, Ultimate Resource 2, p555)
“Given the total, absolute, and final disappearance of Homo Sapiens, then, not only would the Earth’s Community of Life continue to exist but … the ending of the human epoch on Earth would most likely be greeted with a hearty ‘Good riddance!’ – Paul W. Taylor, ethics professor at City University, NYC, in ‘Respect for Nature’ (Princeton Univ Press, 1989) pg. 115
If radical environmentalists were to invent a disease to bring human populations back to sanity, it would probably be something like AIDS. – from a good old Earth First! periodical, quoted in ‘Access to Energy,’ Vol.17 No.4, December 1989
Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society…all potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing. – Herr David Brower, founder of Friends of the Earth, quoted in ‘The Coercive Utopians’ by Rael Jean Isaac and Erich Isaac (1985 Regnery Gateway Inc.)
I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds. – Paul Watson, a founder of ‘Greenpeace,’ quoted in ‘Access to Energy’ Vol.17 No.4, December 1989
We, in the Green movement, aspire to a cultural model in which the killing of a forest will be considered more contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year old children to Asian brothels. – Carl Amery of the Green Party, quoted in ‘Mensch & Energie,’ April 1983
A reporter asked Dr. Wurster whether or not the ban on the use of DDT would not encourage the use of the very toxic materials, Parathion, Azedrin and Methylparathion, the organo-phosphates, [and] nerve gas derivatives. And he said ‘Probably’. The reporter then asked him if these organo-phosphates did not have a long record of killing people. And Dr. Wurster, reflecting the views of a number of other scientists, said‘So what? People are the cause of all the problems; we have too many of them; we need to get rid of some of them; and this is as good a way as any.‘ – Victor J. Yannacone, Jr., lawyer and co-founder of the Environmental Defense Fund, on EDF co-founder Dr. Charles Wurster, at a May 20, 1970 speech at the Union League Club in New York City. Published in the Congressional Record as Serial No.92-A of Hearings on Federal Pesticide Control Act of 1971, pg.266-267
Most self-described environmentalists declare that their goals are for “clean air, clean rivers, and unspoiled environments”. Who isn’t for this?
Who doesn’t want to breathe clean air, drink clean water and enjoy nature?
With the increased useage of fossil fuels the flourishing for human life went up massively. The Greenies assume that the “Climate” was somehow friendly and hospitable to human life prior to human beings changing and moulding their environment. This is simply the wrong way to view things. With increased fossil fuel useage air quality improves we were able
(Alex Epstein, The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels, p18)
And improved water sources
A nd with increased fossil fuel useage we have fewer climate related deaths
But why should we bother to continue with Fossil Fuels with the arrival of “Green” energy? Surely we can restructure our economy along lines of green energy and utilise wind and solar and sea turbines!
The dirty secret about green energy is that it is not really “green”. Wind turbines are made from the industrial grade steel that can only be produced via “coking coal” plants. Fossil fuel technologies dig the foundations of the Wind Turbines(diesal diggers). The Turbine blades themselves are produced by fossil fuels and only last seven years before they are shoved into a landfill. Alex Epstein explains this fraud
“The top five countries ranked by solar energy consumption are Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan, and China. The percentage of each country’s electricity that comes from solar energy is, respectively: 4.5 percent, 6.3 percent, 4.0 percent, .09 percent, and .6 percent. The top five countries ranked by wind consumption are the United States, China, Spain, Germany, and India. Faring slightly better than solar, the percentage of each country’s electricity that comes from wind energy is, respectively: 3.3 percent, 2.03 percent, 16.5 percent, 7.44 percent, and 2.96 percent. 13 (If this seems impossibly low, because we frequently hear numbers such as “50 percent solar and wind,” stay tuned.)” (Alex Epsein, The Moral Case For Fossil Fuels, p37-38)
Below is a graph of wind and solar energy production.
“As you look at the jagged and woefully insufficient bursts of electricity from solar and wind, remember this: some reliable source of energy needed to do the heavy lifting. In the case of Germany, much of that energy is coal. As Germany has paid tens of billions of dollars to subsidize solar panels and windmills, fossil fuel capacity, especially coal, has not been shut down—it has increased.
“Because Germans need more energy, and they cannot rely on the renewables. In a given week in Germany, the world leader in solar and number three in wind, their solar panels and windmills may generate less than 5 percent of needed electricity. 21 What happens then? Reliable sources of energy, in Germany’s case coal, have to produce more electricity. For various technical reasons, this is even more inefficient than it sounds. For example, because the reliable sources have to move up and down quickly to adjust to the whims of the sunlight and wind, they become inefficient—just like your car in stop-and-go-traffic—which means more energy use and incidentally more emissions (including CO2). And what about when there’s a particularly large amount of sunlight or wind? For an electric grid, too much electricity will cause a blackout just as too little wil —so then Germany has to shut down its coal plants and be ready to start them up again (more stop and go). In practice they often have so much excess that they have to payother countries to take their electricity—which requires the other countries to inefficiently decelerate their reliable power plants to accommodate the influx. This is obviously not scalable; if everyone’s electrical generation was as unreliable as Germany’s, there would be no one to absorb their peaks.” (ibid)
Surely The Greenies Would Celebrate An Unlimited, Clean Energy Source?
Greens have taken wildly contradictory stances on energy. In the 1980s the greens supported coal against Nuclear arguing for coals carbon capture technology that can capture carbon before it’s even released. Todays prominent greens, like George Monbiot, are Nuclear enthusiasts against coal.
In the 1980s when nuclear fusion (not to be confused with the Nuclear plants in operation that are Nuclear Fission) would occasionally hit the headlines, promising an unlimited supply of cheap and clean energy. There is a famous joke that nuclear Fusion has been “only 20 years away” for the last 70 years. Fission utilises the decay of heavy atoms such as uranium. Fusion unleashes much more power through the fusing of two light atoms, hydrogen for example. The sun is an example of nuclear fusion.
A breakthrough in Nuclear Fusion would be the ultimate energy fantasy coming true. It would be the cheapest and cleanest and plentiful energy source ever created. For the Marxist-Leninist this would mean the Promethean construction of humanities potential. With Nuclear Fusion we would not have the worry of Nuclear Reactor meltdowns, nor the storage of Nuclear waste. The environmentalists could not be upset at the giant coal chimney stacks (where most carbon is captured before it’s released anyway!).
What did environmentalists say to the possible onset of Nuclear Fusion?
And even if it were, given society’s dismal record in managing technology, the prospect of cheap, inexhaustible power from fusion is “like giving a machine gun to an idiot child,” Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich says.
Laments Washington-based author-activist Jeremy Rifkin, “It’s the worst thing that could happen to our planet.”
Inexhaustible power, he argues, only gives man an infinite ability to exhaust the planet’s resources, to destroy its fragile balance and create unimaginable human and industrial waste.(LA Times, Fear of Fusion: What if It Works?, 19 April 1989)
A mere technological change in fuel sources also does nothing to change man’s attitude toward nature–what UC Berkeley physicist John Holdren calls the “pave the planet and paint it green” mentality.(ibid)
Fusion proponents, he notes, also estimate that commercial applications of their work are at least 20 years off. And it will be 30 years beyond then before fusion power has significant impact. In this sense, says Ehrlich, fusion is irrelevant because, he asserts, the world will have long since succumbed to over-population, famine, global warming and acid rain.(ibid)
“Fusion energy is an expedient short-lived diversion to the real problem,” Rifkin says. “It gives some people the false hope that there are no limits to growth and no environmental price to be paid by having unlimited sources of energy.”(ibid)
Ehrlich, having failed his predictions in Population bomb is here again insisting in 1989 that the “world will have long succumbed to over-population, famine and global warming” within 20 years, 2009. Rifkin repeats the debunked insistence that there are “limits to growth”.
Beyond that what more is to be said of these petite-bourgeois ‘intellectuals’?
Rachel Carson – The “Mother” Of The Environmental Movement
The anti-human venom can largely be traced back to the whore of Babylon, Rachel Carson. Though she was just the expression of the imperialist-bourgeoisie of this death-cult nihilism and fascism that crept into the Imperialist nations. Environmentalists still honour this sadist for her work Silent Spring, warning of the cumulative effect of DDT.
A work of pure scientific fraud her activism, advanced by the imperialist bourgeoisie for the deliberate spreading of death (as outlayed in NSSM200) killed millions of people. The costs to humanity of this Whore of Gaia have been enormous
In India, between 1952 and 1962, DDT caused a decrease in annual malaria cases from 100 million to 60,000. By the late 1970s, no longer able to use DDT, the number of cases increased to 6 million.
In Sri Lanka, before the use of DDT, 2.8 million people suffered from malaria. When the spraying stopped, only 17 people suffered from the disease. Then, no longer able to use DDT, Sri Lanka suffered a massive malaria epidemic: 1.5 million people were infected by the parasite.
In South Africa, after DDT became unavailable, the number of malaria cases increased from 8,500 to 42,000 and malaria deaths from 22 to 320. (Fee Stories, Millions Died Thanks to the Mother of Environmentalism, 17 June 2017)
Rachel Carsons apologists, mostly ideologically committed environmentalists, defend this Fascist criminal and tool of the bourgeoisie by insisting
Rachel Carson never called for the banning of pesticides. She made this clear in every public pronouncement, repeated it in an hour-long television documentary about Silent Spring, and even testified to that effect before the US Senate. Carson never denied that there were beneficial uses of pesticides, notably in combating human diseases transmitted by insects, where she said they had not only been proven effective but were morally “necessary”.
But what outcome could an influential author have expected after her fake science insisted DDT caused Leukemia (a death sentence in 1962), liver disease, birth defects, premature births and a whole range of chronic illnesesse?
According to UNICEF, malaria kills a child every 30 seconds. Over one million people die from malaria annually, and they are mostly children. Extending that figure linearly since the banning of DDT in 1972, about 46 million people have died, although it could be more. These are all preventable deaths.(Janet G. West, Rachel Carson: Whore of Babylon, 30 Nov 2018)
It would take decades and millions, of mostly children, dying needlessly. Cooked up by a fraud whos social circle included occultists and kooks. Pushed centre stage by the United States so it could cultivate disease among the worlds working classes for explicit aims laid out in NSSM 200.
Is There A Climate Emergency?
The Soviets, in their battle with the IPCC stated that extra Co2 would help humanity with the co2 fertiliser effect. The Soviets, whilst revisionists at this point, I doubt they would have a reason to lie. It was not like giant oil corporations in Soviet Union held the sway they do in Western societies.
“During the 1980s, Kondrat’ev began to give global environmental change a significant amount of attention, and this included the specific issue of global climate change.64 His work in this area was characterised by a number of general themes. First, while he considered the debate concerning anthropogenic climate change of significance, he was at the same time wary of over-simplifying the issue as well as the inadequacies of available datasets.65 In particular, he understood the climate system as just one facet or expression of the Earth’s global physical system.66 Second, this expansive understanding of the climate system ensured that he placed emphasis on the functioning of the biosphere as a whole, and resisted reducing the climate issue down to single factors such as an increase in CO2 emissions.67”
“Battle lines were now clearly drawn inside the IPCC, then in the process of drafting its first report. It could not afford to offend major governments or its sponsors. Born into the controversy over response strategies, it had already become a target for conflicting pressures. One of its first actions would be to discredit the Soviet view, stated by Professor Izreal [sic] at home, that global warming was a good thing, and reducing Soviet influence in WGI [Working Group I].117
For Alan Hecht, writing in the foreword to the English-language edition of Izrael’ and Budyko’s book Anthropogenic Climate Change (1987), the notion of a possible favourable future climate for parts of the northern hemisphere was grounded on the results of the application of palaeoclimatic analogues outlined in the book.118 Budyko’s insistence on the potential beneficial impacts of climate change, primarily through anticipated increased levels of precipitation and the so-called ‘fertilizer effect’ of heightened CO2 levels (enhancing crop growth), clashed with Western climate modellers as well as the emerging international consensus that anthropogenic climate change was an issue to be addressed with growing urgency.”https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305748817301998
www.Clintel.org also released a “There is No Climate Emergency” list of signatures of prominent scientists insisting There is No climate Emergency. One of the most prominent is John Clauser, who won the nobel prize in physics in 2022.
A Chinese Climate Scientist rebuffed an environmental activist here in 2010. This was before the Chinese realised that the Green movement meant the West gifting their energy infrastructure over to the Chinese as they have monopolies on rare earth minerals.
Industrial workers are dangerous to a capitalist society. Stalin pointed out how the vanguard of the British working class were precisely the coal miners.
“The British workers cannot fail now to understand that the miners of Britain are the vanguard of the British working class, that support for the miners and securing their victory is, therefore, the concern of the entire working class of Britain.” (Stalin, The General Strike, 1926)
Is was therefore the Interntional Planetary Climate Change that was setup by Thatcher, to demonise coal mining. With Thatcher then John Major and their progeny under the Labour Blair/Brown and Cameron governments, by 2016 they had closed down 200 coal mines and 160 coal power stations.
“British gas is a finite resource in Britain but left to the domestic market and specialist industries it could’ve lasted us hundreds of years. It was wastefully burnt off in power stations to get rid of coal. So you’ve ended up where you’ve killed coal, despite the fact we’re sitting on trillions of tons of it, you’ve burnt off vast amounts of gas making it short in supply and very, very expensive. Because the State thought it could import gas and oil from all over the world and everybody would generously give it to us. In a war which they partly generate, through the international machinations of America, generated the war with Ukraine the gas has been turned off (from Russia to Europe). So now we’re scrounging and scratching about trying to find energy because you can’t run an industrialised economy on renewables. It’s just a fact.” David John Douglas, National Union of Mineworkers)
The task the cosmopolitan imperialist bourgeoisie were then tasked with was discovering how they could begin to stifle and retard human and economic development. This deeply parasitic bourgeoisie (now divorced from even the industrial bourgeois who want to see resource extraction and growth and simply live off rents) would marry itself to the environmental movement. The marriage was easy as the environmental movement had