Environmental Propaganda And The 10:10 No Pressure Campaign

As I’ve often said, environmentalism as a political philosophy is a cult of death, the highroad to hell, truly neo-Marxism at its blackest. For all those who have so stridently claimed that my criticisms are unjust, that they are divorced from reality and wildly exaggerated, I offer you this latest inanity from the 10:10 propaganda machine:


And here’s another one from the World Wildlife Fund.

More on the matter from Ed Driscoll’s James Delingpole and also this thorough article.

13 Comments

  • E.A. Blair

    October 7, 2010

    From Capitalism Magazine

    Nihilism, destruction for the sake of destruction, is their guiding creed. Death is what they call success. The terrorist is consistent: he rides with his victims into the nirvana of a jet-fuel inferno. The radical environmentalist rather exempts himself for the moment while awaiting the demise of millions. “Until such time as homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along,” claimed one famously, his prayers answered by the malaria that resurged after DDT was banned. The unabomber was more specific, personally addressing his victims, but also sparing himself momentarily to continue his rampage. As to the anarchists, the front page of the Wall Street Journal of September 11 is particularly poignant. In a story about anticipated anti-trade protests in Washington D.C., an official pledged: “D.C. is not going to burn.”

    Ultimately the nihilist wishes to bring the world back to pre-civilization. Radical Islamics want a medieval religious state in which wealth is denied, art is destroyed, heretics are killed, and all are subordinated to Allah’s spokesmen. The anarchists want to destroy the technology needed to feed millions and to return to subsistence farming.

    But even these are too advanced for the radical environmentalists. “The search for a postmodern ecological cultural paradigm,” claims one professor, “leads to the recultivation of Paleolithic consciousness.” In the Paleolithic period, however, man did not yet even farm. He chipped stone tools, finding and grabbing what he needed. He death by age 30 was his contribution to a beautiful world. In Afghanistan, the life expectancy is now 42-to an environmentalist, almost heaven, and to an anarchist, blissfully devoid of evil businesses.

  • E.A. Blair

    October 7, 2010

    Paul Ehrlich, population biologist, Stanford University
    King of the pessimistic screechers, it would require a book to list all his foolish ideas… actually, he’s written several. Here’s a random sampling:

    “In ten years [by 1980] all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.”

    “We must go back to the spinning wheel, returning to a beatific state of endless drudge labor, six days a week…”

    “In the 1970’s… hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death…”

    “I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

  • E.A. Blair

    October 7, 2010

    And from George Reisman – A word to Environmentalists.

    The “extremists” among you openly call for the death of 1 to 6.4 billion human beings. The “moderates” among you openly call for the forced reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of 90 percent within a few decades, which would serve to reduce energy use almost to the same extent. Such a severe reduction in energy use follows from the fact that there are no presently existing large-scale viable alternatives to fossil fuels other than atomic power, which is regarded by most members of your movement as a death ray and is opposed more vehemently than fossil fuels. Furthermore, the likelihood of ever finding and developing such alternatives will be greatly reduced by destroying the energy sources we do have and need to increase. So what your movement advocates is mass death or, at the very least, dreadful mass impoverishment whose outcome will be tens or hundreds of millions of unnecessary deaths and a life of misery for those who survive.

  • E.A. Blair

    October 7, 2010

    Great blog post on this subject over at Pro Libertate

    Here are a few excerpts

    “Our job is to encourage proactive decisions at class level to reduce carbon emissions,” sniffed ActionAid, which is presiding over 10:10’s schoolroom indoctrination efforts. “We did it because evidence shows children are deeply concerned about climate change…. So we think the 10:10 campaign is very important, but the moment this film was seen it was clear it was inappropriate.”

    Ha – and why are they “concerned about climate change”??? Having an Inconvenient truth shoved down their throats probably helps…

    The week before Earth Day, professors teaching the lab portion of CORE 101: Science, Technology and Society required their students to watch Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth during class. Every student at RWU must enroll in this core class to qualify for graduation.
    Dana Peloso, a Young America’s Foundation student activist and a junior at RWU, sent an email to the assistant dean of the science department, Jeffrey Hughes, conveying that same point: “with the scientific community unsure if global warming is man induced or part of the natural cycle of the earth, do you think that it is intellectually honest to only show the alarmist viewpoint? If the movie is still shown, what plans are there to incorporate the ideas of leading global warming skeptics into class discussion?”


    Sweet.

    Were an inmate of the government school system in either the People’s Republic of Blighty or the U.S.S.A. to submit a student film depicting fantasies of mass murder, he would be charged with terrorism and consigned to the nearest psychiatric gulag. Yet when the same diseased fantasy is submitted by a government-aligned eco-lobby, the sternest adjective used to describe it is “inappropriate.” There’s something other than the storied British understatement at work here.

    As long as your nihilism is shaded green, everything is ok.

    What is more interesting about this 10:10 video is that it is actually a re-tread of a website produced by ABC – the Australian broadcasting corporation – telling children when they should die

    It was known as “Planet Slayer”

  • ScummyD

    October 9, 2010

    Enviro-statism:

    10-08-10

    California grossly miscalculated pollution levels in a scientific analysis used to toughen the state’s clean-air standards. . .

    The pollution estimate in question was too high – by 340 percent, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency charged with researching and adopting air quality standards. The estimate was a key part in the creation of a regulation adopted by the Air Resources Board in 2007, a rule that forces businesses to cut diesel emissions by replacing or making costly upgrades to heavy-duty, diesel-fueled off-road vehicles used in construction and other industries.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/10/07/BAOF1FDMRV.DTL#ixzz11iqEfuN9

  • Ray

    October 9, 2010

    Speaking of D, how are you ScummyD? Sorry your comment got caught up in the spam queue. Sometimes hyperlinks make WordPress suspicious, particularly when those hyperlinks contain dirty language, like “gross miscalculation of pollution levels.”

    Excellent information.

    Thank you for dropping by.

  • Redomondo

    October 10, 2010

    While I am writing this post, I am sitting in ikea, waiting for a couch cover.

    The Swedish retail giant IKEA announced Thursday it will invest $4.6-million to install 3,790 solar panels on three Toronto area stores, giving IKEA the electric-power-producing capacity of 960,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) per year. According to IKEA, that’s enough electricity to power 100 homes. Amazing development. Even more amazing is the economics of this project. Under the Ontario government’s feed-intariff solar power scheme, IKEA will receive 71.3¢ for each kilowatt of power produced, which works out to about $6,800 a year for each of the 100 hypothetical homes. Since the average Toronto home currently pays about $1,200 for the same quantity of electricity, that implies that IKEA is being overpaid by $5,400 per home equivalent.

    Welcome to the wonderful world of green economics and the magical business of carbon emission reduction. Each year, IKEA will receive $684,408 under Premier Dalton McGuinty’s green energy monster–for power that today retails for about $115,000. At that rate, IKEA will recoup $4.6-million in less than seven years–not bad for an investment that can be amortized over 20.

    No wonder solar power is such a hot industry. No wonder, too, that the province of Ontario is in a headlong rush into a likely economic crisis brought on skyrocketing electricity prices. To make up the money paid to IKEA to promote itself as a carbon-free zone, Ontario consumers and industries are on their way to experiencing the highest electricity rates in North America, if not most of the world.

    The full scale of Ontario’s green energy spending extravaganza is hard to convey in a few words, but here’s a list of the increases in dollar spending Ontario’s electricity consumers will have to bear during 2015, in millions of dollars:

    Feed-in-tariff $3,848

    Renewable energy $330

    Renewables — other $96

    Bruce Power $74

    Bruce Power new $461

    Ontario Power Generation $237

    Natural gas $192

    Non-utility generation $170

    Conservation $267

    Transmission $1,012

    Distribution (non-green) $293

    Distribution (green energy) $759

    TOTAL 2015 COSTS $7,739

    According to Aegency Energy’s calculations, the cost of power produced by IKEA solar panels at 71.3¢ will reduce carbon emissions at a cost of $1,384 a tonne if there is a corresponding reduction in Ontario’s need for gas-fired electricity production. That number compares with official national and international carbon tax ideas involving maybe $25 a tonne or, at the extreme, $200 a tonne.

    Average per-capita carbon emissions in Ontario are said to be about 15 tonnes. The government’s schemes suggest that reducing Ontario carbon emissions by say 20% to 12 tonnes would cost $5,000 per person or upwards of $15,000 per household per year. That’s a lot of Billy shelving.

    shouldn’t ikea be giving me this couch for free???

  • ScummyD

    October 10, 2010

    Thanks Ray. Nice to know. Thought I got banned for some reason.

  • Ray

    October 11, 2010

    Banned!? My dear fellow, that would never happen.

  • Stacy

    November 15, 2010

    Regarding the Professor of Physics: I have been researching the environmental/sustainability religion for the past two years; carbon dioxide is the great satan these environmental fanatics are pursuing. After analyzing massive amounts of information about global warming and climate change, my favorite (and scientifically based) two numbers are these:

    1. 38 one thousandths of one percent is the total amount of carbon dioxide in earth’s atmosphere
    2. 114 one hundred thousandths of one percent is the total amount of carbon dioxide being emitted by human beings into earth’s atmosphere

    And, my favorite definition is:

    Sustainability – requires the sharing and management of economic, environmental and social resources equitably throughout the community

    When people learn about those few facts, they are able to easily understand why carbon footprints and sustainable development have very little to do with the health of the planet.

  • Jungle Orchid

    November 20, 2010

    clearly this is THE subject of the century. global warming happened many times during earth’s history as well as cooling. so why the panic one would ask. one unmistakeable fact is that earth is in a warming phase that has and will continue to have a profound impact on our ecosystems and consequently our economies. man made or not, let’s leave that to the politicians and various interest groups to fight about. important for me as a human being having produced children, is that we need to get clear on the real science about the warming and, in the event it causes serious harm, to figure out what we can do about it. i for one am not prepared to take the risk that global warming will destroy my great grand children’s environment or that of any other great grand children. that is my position. i call for uncorrupted scientists and technologists to stand up (if they are still around) and come up with practical solutions. that is what our world and our future generations need. bickering over who is to blame for what doesn’t impress me and has never solved a single problem.

  • Ray

    November 20, 2010

    Hello Jungle Orchid. You wrote: “one unmistakeable fact is that earth is in a warming phase that has and will continue to have a profound impact on our ecosystems”

    Unmistakable? Hardly:

    http://www.co2science.org/

    Thank you for dropping by and commenting.

  • Stacy

    November 23, 2010

    31,487 American scientists have signed the “Oregon Petition”, including 9,029 with PhDs. This petition says “There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”

Leave A Response

* Denotes Required Field