≡ Menu

Environmentalists Are a Cancer on the Earth

Treehugger.com is thrilled at the effects of the recession: Amazon Deforestation Drops 46% In One Year reports that “2008-2009 was a better year for the rainforests, with logging rates dropping 46%. The lowest it’s been since these groups started monitoring in 2004.”

As a friend said, this just underscores the very real fact that environuts hate prosperity. And they hate energy too. As environut Paul Ehrlich infamously said, “Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.

And this is the real reason the alleged environmentalists oppose nuclear energy, even though it is an obvious way to combat “global warming” and pollution. (See Green Nukes, where some greens actually admit it; Nuke Me; Nuclear Spring; Re: Nuclear Spring; Dam Nukes; Greenpeace to advocate nuking the earth?; Access to Energy.)

These fake “environmentalist” misanthropes basically believe humans are a cancer on the earth. These anti-human, anti-industrialist sickos are the real enemies of humanity.

Some good pieces:

{ 16 comments… add one }
  • Michael Thorne September 9, 2009, 1:19 pm

    I totally understand your points about environmentalists who carry their issues too far and end up doing stupid stuff that causes more harm than good. They can have a tendency to blindly latch onto ideas that sound like they will protect the environment and then blindly ignore any of the terrible consequences that these things cause. Some Examples I can think of:

    Cash for Clunkers, which is incredibly wasteful with the destruction of the vehicles, and pollutes the environment with sodium silicate, and from a humanitarian perspective is another political policy that screws the poor in more ways than one.

    Recycling which with the exception of aluminum is largely inefficient both from an energy/environmental perspective and from an economic perspective. But … it makes people feel really good about themselves so they do it, and look down on anyone who questions their ways.

    Global Warming and the crazy Carbon policies which they force upon everybody including entire communities in third world countries where they try to force them to embrace much more expensive forms of energy production that produce less carbon but at the expense of not being able to bring power to these cultures which need it for basic survival requirements.

    The thing is … I consider my self an environmentally conscious person. I’ve always loved nature, and I studied ecology for my bachelors. I do believe that it’s very important to protect our ecological resources. The two largest ecosystems that I feel are being severely damaged by human behavior are the oceans by our rampant fishing policies and the destruction of huge amounts of unique sections of the rain forest. These issues are distinctly different from each other in terms of the type of solution that must be applied, but what they have in common is that these both offer incredibly valuable resources for us now but even more for our future generations. Obviously both serve critical roles in controlling the climate, but also the genetic biodiversity of these environments will offer priceless resources to our future generations of genetic engineers once that science becomes more mature. As for how to solve these problems, I don’t know … what do you think? What would be the libertarian, non-coercive approach to preventing the problem? I find myself very attracted to libertarian ideals, but I have yet to get a satisfactory answer about how these types of problems can be addressed.

    For the rain forests, I think it should be up to the people of each country in which these rain forests exist to decide what to do with them because it is theirs. They have the right to do with it as they please. I’m not sure what the best way to preserve those ecosystems would be … make national parks which can serve as tourist destinations, have non-profit organizations buy and protect the land with money given voluntarily, encourage lower consumption of new resources which encourage deforestation. What do you think?

    The oceans aren’t attached to any nation. Also the resources of the ocean move around a lot more than land locked resources. Since there is no form of ownership of these resources, there must be different policies. I’m a big advocate of fish farming – why are we still hunter-gatherers when it comes to fish? I feel to some degree that catching wild fish is the equivalent of stealing from everyone. Obviously, in small quantities, this won’t cause any problems and no one is going to mind someone going out on their boat and catching some fish for a weekend feast with their friends and family. But, in the same way that a factory which pollutes a river or the air which a town breathes needs to compensate that town for the harm that they cause to the people living there, huge fishing companies which make a significant impact on the oceanic ecosystem should make reparations for the consequences of their business practices. However, this seems to be a global issue. Who gets paid? How? How much? I can’t really see any way for this to be accomplished other than government policies, but I hate that idea. Are there other possibilities?

    Anyway … when I hear that deforestation has gone down, this makes me feel good. Why shouldn’t it? Lower levels of consumption IS good. Not only is it better for the environment – I’d argue that it’s very clear that western levels of consumption are going to have to come down to be sustainable. I believe that the only reason consumption is as high as it is, is because of our debt based, Keynesian based economics system.

    BTW, I love your stuff on IP. I’m a web developer who works with open source projects and strongly believe that knowledge is a “common” but with no adverse effects when those commons get used by everyone – in fact, with time the commons just grow like a living organism getting better with age and input. The human knowledge commons have been growing for thousands of years. Fertile land indeed. When I have a bit more time, I’ll follow up on some of the suggested readings here. Thanks …

  • Stephan Kinsella September 9, 2009, 1:36 pm

    Thanks Michael. In my view all one needs to do, to be “environmentally conscious,” is to be in favor of capitalism. That is all. If you are libertarian you are automatically an environmentalist; and you are an environmentalist only if you are a libertarian.

    I have spoken. So let it be written, so let it be done.

  • Mark Cloney November 18, 2009, 1:44 pm

    Stephan – I think your online scrolling photo album alone would be enough to make the environuts start foaming at the mouth – ok, foam at the mouth even more. It’s like you’re showing off your massive, swollen carbon footprint, you worldwide jet-setter, you. (Of course, you don’t even hold a candle [flamethrower?] to our Beloved Planetary Savior, AlGore, when it comes to carbon footprints.)

    Anyway, thanks for your articles, especially on IP. They have been very enlightening.

  • PirateRothbard November 18, 2009, 5:30 pm

    I see animal rights as being orthogonal to libertarianism. As animals can feel pain, I don’t think they can be considered property in the same sense as a chair.

    I do believe I may have a right to interfere with someone who intends to torture his pet dog, even if he owns it. But I’m not sure exactly when interfering with animal torture becomes justified.

Leave a Reply

© 2012-2024 StephanKinsella.com CC0 To the extent possible under law, Stephan Kinsella has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to material on this Site, unless indicated otherwise. In the event the CC0 license is unenforceable a  Creative Commons License Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License is hereby granted.

-- Copyright notice by Blog Copyright