In their 2011 book Deep Green Resistance, authors Aric McBay, Lierre Keith, and Derrick Jensen wrote that the only way to save Planet Earth from human-caused total destruction is for a few enlightened people to rise up in resistance – not to reform, but rather to totally tear down the corporate capitalist economic system, even civilization itself as we know it. Jensen is best known, however, for his two-volume tome Endgame, which called for an end to civilization)

The authors were quite clear: “The goal of DGR [Deep Green Resistance] is to deprive the rich of their ability to steal from the poor, and the powerful of their ability to destroy the planet.”  Simply put, “Industrial civilization [including corporate agriculture] must be stopped.” Direct actions against strategic infrastructure (even blowing up dams and destroying electricity grids) represent just one set of tactics in their arsenal.

While many do not openly endorse the “Endgame” philosophy, radical greens and climate controllers increasingly seek to “solve” problems through assaults on human freedom.

Don’t Fly With Me!

The United Kingdom’s Committee on Climate Change now wants to ban frequent flyer reward programs offered by airlines. The Committee moans that just 15 percent of the British population takes 70 percent of all flights. The horror! The fault lies, of course, with a business model that regards air traffic as an essential component.

The British panel also called for an “air miles levy” to punish people who fly long distances, targeting those who rack up the most air miles. Their long-term goal is to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050 by discouraging air traffic.

Their proposals, if implemented, could destroy flyer loyalty to certain airlines, which offer incentives that include seating upgrades or even free flights for racking up flyer mile points. Moreover, airlines who partner with banks to issue airline-branded credit cards could also lose the revenues they rack up as people use those cards to buy tickets – and more.

Under these proposals, the losers include airline passengers, airline employees, airline executives, bankers, and (no doubt) taxi and Uber/Lyft drivers. But are there any real winners?

Don’t Even BUY the Charmin!

Another civilization staple under attack by the radical greens is Charmin and Bounty, two of Procter & Gamble’s best-selling and best-performing products. [Even bears love Charmin, we have learned from television. And Bounty is indeed “the quicker picker upper.”]

Greens demand that P&G change the way it makes these products – specifically, they demand that the company use recycled materials and stop cutting trees from Canada’s boreal forests.

“It’s just unacceptable that a company like P&G is making toilet paper, a product that is used for seconds and flushed, from virgin pulp,” Natural Resources Defense Council corporate campaign manager Shelley Vinyard lamented at P&G’s annual meeting of shareholders.

P&G offers a simple reason for not using recycled wood pulp: It doesn’t make for good toilet paper. Toilet paper made from recycled fibers doesn’t have the same qualities, causing people to use more tissue made directly from trees, a company the spokesperson explained.

On the other hand, P&G has pledged to continue its efforts to source its paper from forests certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, a nonprofit conservation group, and from other certified forests.

Don’t Stay in Your Car To Eat, Get Cash, or Pick Up Meds!

Another target of the climate killjoys is drive-through windows at banks, fast-food restaurants, pharmacies, and other outlets. Never mind that drive-throughs make it much more convenient for customers to do business – especially the elderly or disabled, those with small children, or anyone in inclement weather.

Trendy Minneapolis has banned construction of new drive-through windows for any reason, and Long Beach, California, has imposed a six-month ban while city officials “study” the issue. Similar ordinances restricting or prohibiting fast-food windows have also been adopted in Creve Coeur, Missouri; Fair Haven, New Jersey; and Orchard Park, New York.

The Minnesota Puritans cited air pollution from idling vehicles as a major factor for the ban on drive-throughs. Other sins include litter, noise, and the potential of vehicles blocking sidewalks. The order is part of the city’s long-term plan, Minneapolis 2040, which includes a goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by 2050.

Most of the bans are intended to curtail emissions, cut down on litter, and make it easier to walk around business areas, while some seek to eliminate tackiness or even to discourage fast food consumption as a means of fighting obesity.

But in every case, it is consumers, who benefit in multiple ways from the convenience AND safety of not leaving their vehicles, who are the biggest losers.

Author

  • Duggan Flanakin is the Director of Policy Research at the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow. A former Senior Fellow with both the Texas and Arkansas Public Policy Foundations, Mr. Flanakin has a Master's in Public Policy from Regent University. During the years he spent reporting on environmental regulation in Texas and nationwide, Mr. Flanakin authored definitive works on the creation of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality and on environmental education in Texas.