April 22 is Earth Day. Get ready for an orgy of eco-sanctimony. I’ve often joked that the real agenda of the Greenies is to send us back into the Dark Ages–literally and figuratively. In contrast to the Gulfstream Liberal jet set who preach environmental socialism while enjoying the fruits of the free market, however, there are many left-wing world leaders who are open about their true aims. Take Bolivian thug president Evo Morales.
Bolivian President Evo Morales has told a UN forum that capitalism should be scrapped if the planet is to be saved from the effects of climate change.
“If we want to save our planet earth, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system,” he said.
Opening an UN meeting in New York on the rights of indigenous people, he also said the development of biofuels harmed the world’s poorest people.
The forum’s theme is the global impact of climate change on native people. Mr Morales gave the keynote address at the opening of the seventh session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. As a descendent of the Aymara people, he is Bolivia’s first indigenous president.
Bolivia’s left-wing president said unbridled industrial development was responsible for the pillaging of natural resources. Speaking through an interpreter at the UN headquarters in New York, he had this uncompromising message: “If we want to save our planet earth, to save life, to save mankind, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system.”
He also lambasted other South American leaders for producing biofuels, which he blamed for creating hunger.
This Earth Day, conservatives ought to be defending free market principles and property rights–instead of capitulating to Green Fever.
The Heartland Institute put it well two years ago:
Contrary to the slogans of demonstrators throughout the world, the nations that have the best track records on environmental protection and improvement are those with the highest amount of free-market capitalism.
Make no mistake, the anti-capitalism demonstrators often add environmentalism to their claimed objectives solely because it attracts many gullible young persons and appears to legitimize their activities, which often have little or nothing to do with the environment.
Nations with the freest economic systems are the ones whose citizens can afford the luxury of protecting their environments. Conversely, persons living in command-and-control economies barely surviving on life’s necessities of food, clothing, and shelter use their natural resources to the absolute limit. They have no other choice in providing for themselves and their families…
…Beware the individual, group, or organization that relentlessly attacks the free enterprise system, bashes big business, and bashes corporations. Too often their real agenda is power–power to remake the economic and social systems to suit their own command-and-control goals, not to serve the public good as they so loudly proclaim.
Free enterprise capitalism provides the economic lifeblood for many of the world’s poor. The late senator Paul Tsongas said in his speech at the 1992 Democratic Convention, “You cannot redistribute wealth you never created. You can’t be pro-jobs and anti-business at the same time. You cannot love employment and hate employers.”
The extremes of big government socialism and communism have been tried and found wanting in many nations, but their principles still dominate the thinking in world environmental conferences and are widely taught in many major U.S. universities.
For three-quarters of a century the Soviet Union was touted as the model of what a planned economy could do for its people. To the embarrassment of many economics professors, it imploded. It could never afford environmental protection or improvement.
Environmentalists who sincerely desire to advance their cause must disassociate themselves from anti-capitalists and destroyers of the social orders of communities, nations, and the world.
Nothing highlights this problem more than the Heidelberg Statement, which was signed in the spring of 199 by 250 prominent scientists, including 27 Nobel Prize winners. It noted, “We are worried at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development. The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, not science, technology, and industry. We do forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet’s destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data.”
Since it was first released, some 4,000 scientists have signed on to this appeal for reason. I’m reprinting the Heidelberg Appeal in full and you can learn more here. Do you think any one of the presidential candidates in either political party would put their names on a rational statement like this? Sadly, based on what we have heard and not heard from the entire lot of them, I doubt it.
blog comments powered by Disqus
The Heidelberg Appeal was publicly released at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. By the end of the 1992 summit, 425 scientists and other intellectual leaders had signed the appeal. Since then, word of mouth has prompted hundreds more scientists to lend their support. Today, more than 4,000 signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries have signed it. In spite of this spontaneous and growing support from the world’s scientific community, the Heidelberg Appeal has received little media attention.
Neither a statement of corporate interests nor a denial of environmental problems, the Heidelberg Appeal is a quiet call for reason and a recognition of scientific progress as the solution to, not the cause of, the health and environmental problems that we face. The Appeal expresses a conviction that modern society is the best equipped in human history to solve the world’s ills, provided that they do not sacrifice science, intellectual honesty, and common sense to political opportunism and irrational fears.
The Heidelberg Appeal
We want to make our full contribution to the preservation of our common heritage, the Earth.
We are, however, worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development.
We contend that a Natural State, sometimes idealized by movements with a tendency to look toward the past, does not exist and has probably never existed since man’s first appearance in the biosphere, insofar as humanity has always progressed by increasingly harnessing Nature to its needs and not the reverse. We full subscribe to the objectives of a scientific ecology for a universe whose resources must be taken stock of, monitored and preserved.
But we herewith demand that this stock-taking, monitoring and preservation be founded on scientific criteria and not on irrational preconceptions.
We stress that many essential human activities are carried out either by manipulating hazardous substances or in their proximity, and that progress and development have always involved increasing control over hostile forces, to the benefit of mankind.
We therefore consider that scientific ecology is no more than extension of this continual progress toward the improved life of future generations.
We intend to assert science’s responsibility and duties toward society as a whole.
We do, however, forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet’s destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments or false and nonrelevant data.
We draw everybody’s attention to the absolute necessity of helping poor countries attain a level of sustainable development which matches that of the rest of the planet, protecting them from troubles and dangers stemming from developed nations, and avoiding their entanglement in a web of unrealistic obligations which would compromise both their independence and their dignity.
The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology, and Industry, whose instruments, when adequately managed, are indispensable tools of a future shaped by Humanity, by itself and for itself, overcoming major problems like overpopulation, starvation and worldwide diseases.
Jill Stein calls to mobilize for war like after Pearl Harbor, except the enemy is climate change, or something
October 12, 2016 08:59 PM by Doug Powers
Science! Reporter reminds America that if Paris Agreement goes as planned, we may have seen our last hurricane
October 7, 2016 01:37 PM by Doug Powers
October 4, 2016 12:21 PM by Doug Powers
September 29, 2016 09:00 PM by Doug Powers
September 20, 2016 07:37 PM by Doug Powers