Power plan dooms world's poor

Lorrie Goldstein | 11 May 2007
Edmonton Sun

Environmentalists keep telling us they love humanity.

So apparently it's just people a lot of them have trouble with.

This tendency is being noted with alarm even by former environmental crusaders, as the hysteria over global warming escalates.

In the British documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle, Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, describes many in the environmental movement today as "anti-human", adding they tend to see people as "scum."

Moore says that's why they think "it's OK to have hundreds of millions of them go blind or die" and in particular why "the environmental movement has evolved into the strongest force there is for preventing development in the developing countries."

Paul Driessen, a former environmental campaigner and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death notes in the same film: "My big concern with global warming is that the policies being pushed to supposedly prevent global warming are having a disastrous effect on the world's poorest people."

He means that if environmentalists succeed in their campaign to have developing countries abandon fossil fuels to produce electricity, and to substitute unreliable and expensive wind and solar power, it will doom the world's poorest to permanent poverty.

Without affordable, reliable electricity, human society is condemned to low productivity and to disease, famine and early death. Driessen complains global warming crusaders always talk about the speculative risks of using fossil fuels in terms of climate change, never about the known risks of not using them.

African economist James Shikwati, also featured in the film, describes First World environmentalists descending on Africa urging it not to use its coal and oil resources, as effectively counselling Africans to commit "suicide."

James Lovelock, a founder of the global green movement, criticizes selfish, ill-informed, affluent environmental radicals in his book, The Revenge of Gaia, for condemning millions of people living in the developing world to death from malaria because of their overly hysterical campaign against the pesticide DDT.

Richard Tren, director of Africa Fighting Malaria, makes the same point in "The Human Cost of the Anti-pesticide Movement" in the April edition of the Fraser Forum.

In his bestseller The Weather Makers, scientist/conservationist Tim Flannery discusses in a chapter titled "2084: The Carbon Dictatorship?" the possibility of an Earth Commission for Thermostatic Control (ECTC) one day zeroing in on the major cause of man-made global warming -- "the total number of people on the planet."

With that, he writes, the ECTC "will have transformed itself into an Orwellian-style world government with its own currency, army and control over every person and every inch of our planet." To be clear, Flannery is not advocating such a body, merely speculating on what could happen if we don't take action against man-made global warming in time.

Too many people

But this idea that the major problem with the Earth's environment is that there are too many people is common in the environmental movement.

Of course, the more people you have, the more pollution there is. But that's not the issue. The issue is what do you do about it, and, as Moore, Driessen and others warn us, that's where the thinking of many environmentalists gets scary. Not because they set out to kill people, but because their low regard for humanity causes them to overlook, or to never see, the unintended consequences of their actions