by Einar Du Rietz
Many years ago, when I was working for an environmental information department at a large company, I was intrigued to discover that a colleague, putting together a data base with information sources, had created a sub category called “Anti Environmental Groups”. At a closer look, this turned out to be a listing of think tanks with a scientific, free market oriented approach to environmental issues (no doubt CFACT would have been on the list, had she found us). She claimed she couldn’t come up with any alternative name. Should be added that she was a very skilled and reasonable working mate, but apparently tricked by the mainstream propaganda in those days. As the main listing included both WWF and Greenpeace, a better division could have been between reasonable, militant and violent groups. No such luck.
The history and rhetorics of the radical green movement is not a sunny one, sometimes just ridiculous, on occasion rather sound. More often downright scary.
Peter C. Glovergoes through some of the often forgotten rethoric on the barricade, in a splendid article in The Commentator.
You should read thew article in full, but let me pick a few central passages and quotations:
Journalist Alex Lockwood (in the leftwing UK Guardian) proposes “the internet should be nationalised as a public utility in order to contain the superfluous claims of warming skeptics”. Fred Pearce (again in the UK Guardian) demands we “silence the doubters”. At the 2007 Live Earth concert, Robert F. Kennedy Jnr called for skeptics to be “treated as traitors” following this up with the demand that all coal execs “should be in jail for all eternity”.
Alarmist high priest James Hansen has called for skeptics to be put on trial for “high crimes against humanity”. Hansen has also endorsed a book by Keith Farnish that advocates sabotage and environmental terrorism by blowing up dams and demolishing cities to return us to an agrarian age.
Kari Norgaard is professor of climate change at the University of Oregon. At a recent London conference she called
for skeptics to be viewed as “racists” and climate scepticism as a “sickness” needing to be “treated.
If I may pitch in, couldn’t we agree that environment is about what’s around us. Our living conditions. These, in my humble opinion, not only include, but are based on things like private property and common decency.