Protecting the planet and its resources is a noble and worthwhile goal for humanity. How and why we go about it however, is another matter entirely.
A close friend of mine recently sent me an article from a publication called THE CANADIAN PATRIOT (which I have to admit, I had never heard of before reading this article). The essay in question was by Matthew Ehret and was entitled The Misanthropic Bankers Behind COP26 and the Green New Deal. Within, it tackles the many (supposed) entwining machinations of the global glitterati in actualizing "Vast sweeping change towards a 'green economy' [that] is now being pushed by forces that may make an educated citizen rather uncomfortable."
I fancy myself as an "educated citizen." Am I "rather uncomfortable" with "vast sweeping changes?" As a matter of fact - I am - but not necessarily for the same reasons as Mr. Ehret.
Predictably, this gentleman has an entre nous writing style similar to Dan Brown as he trots out the usual cast of conspiracy stock characters from royalty to Rothschilds - but once you scrape away the nonsense, there is a kernel of sense in his thinking that warrants exploration. What are the motivations for urgency in the Green Movement and how do all these many convergent "priorities" align?
Let's start with the warming planet. Earth is getting warmer. Fair enough. Whether this is because of human beings, solar radiation, or a Bugs Bunny magnet on someone's refrigerator is a question for debate, but without a doubt, the planet is getting warmer - and as in every other case when our planet's climate has changed - coastlines and species will change with it.
Many in the Green Movement see this as a reason to ban the use of carbon; also a fair point. Mankind has been using carbon for fuel ever since Prometheus gave man fire, and after several millennia, It's fair to say quite a bit has built-up in the atmosphere. The only problem is that we need something to replace carbon, and wind and solar won't fit the bill (See - Beware of the Toxic Green Menace! 17 OCT 2020 - The Socratic Review). It seems a bit disingenuous to want to abolish carbon, but at the same time wanting to eschew nuclear energy, which for the past half-century, was by far our best chance for abolishing carbon.
Another curious anomaly is the perceived bridge between "racial justice" and "climate justice." How do these two things even remotely fit together? I find this concept particularly off-putting since the Green Movement's love of solar power (for an example) is so incredibly racist it makes my skin crawl. Why? Because the pursuit of electric cars and solar panels falls disproportionately on the developing world and naturally, on people of color. As cited in a 22 JUL 2020 piece for UNCTAD entitled Developing countries pay environmental cost of electric car batteries the pursuit and mining of the chemicals needed for a "Green" world is not only environmentally suspect it is downright counterproductive to human rights.
We can view these two disparities in a number of different ways. We can choose to view the proponents of rapid climate action as misguided by zeal, or we can view them as venal for either money or power. Both theories have strong foundations in likelihood, but I prefer to think of the phenomenon as a spectrum continuum that encompasses a wide net of people from thoughtful to erratic. On 29 APR 2020 Medium published an excellent essay by Nick Hunt entitled - How (Not) To Become A Climate Crisis Fear-monger where he adroitly explored the subject. A former self-described "progressive" who had finally lost faith in and abandoned his incrementally more "leftist" and "greener" positions, Mr. Hunt describes a visit of an old friend and comrade, and their discussion of Greta Thunberg as a global shrew and fear-monger. Granted, Ms. Thunberg is only one among many, and her shrill approach to activism is generally inaudible beyond her own growing choir - but how do such zealots arise and what hot air lifts them?
The point of concern for me is not so much saving the planet. Regardless of warming or cooling or anything else, I would like to see carbon phased out because it's dirty, expensive and inefficient. Another good reason is a dependence on carbon generally empowers and or enriches folks "civilized" nations don't normally want to empower or enrich. Wouldn't this be a valid (if not saner) reason for shifting away from carbon as quickly as feasible?
But so much of the modern Green Movement looks and sounds like utopian, One World Government (and frankly speaking, Marxist) drivel - it becomes difficult for any reasonable person to take them seriously; especially when the sincerity is blatantly wanting. When all these many marching climate activists give up their cellphones, laptops and air conditioning, perhaps I will take them and their "outrage" a tad more seriously. The same could be said for the various assorted plutocrats in Mr. Ehret's worldview (or imagination - you decide) who I doubt will be giving up any cellphones, laptops, or air conditioning any time soon as well.
I will not deny collaboration is essential in protecting this planet, but consider this - the League of Nations and the United Nations were both created to end war. One failed and started the Second World War; the other in no way mitigated the Cold War and every other war in the Twentieth and Twenty-first centuries. The United States is by far the largest federated republic in the world and yet - our federated system is in the midst of a two century long culture war between active or passive central government. How could any federation encompassing Europe, Africa, Asia, the Americas and Oceania ever hope to find commonality? Why would they?
The dreamers and the utopians like to focus on "humanity" as the motivator in collaboration and consensus, but in reality, whatever similarities we have (and we certainly have many) our cultures, ethics and world-views are not alike. You can frame urgent climate action as "leadership" but the picture inside that frame will still look a lot like imperialism and colonialism to the developing world, as well it should.
So looking to banking cabals and shadowy conspiracies may seem absurd (and in an active way, I think it certainly is), but the kernel of truth that incites some people to think this way is not altogether insane - and we need to be ever vigilant about some activists and their motivations. We want a greener world to be sure, but we do not want a green monster that mocks the meat it feeds on.
Comentarios