|
Eco-Marxism is on the march. Recent headlines include the forecast that 2007 will be the hottest year ever; that the arctic is melting at an unprecedented rate; that greenhouse gases will somehow cause massive ecological damage; that global economic growth is leading inexorably to a degradation in the environment; and that governments must do ‘something now!’ to alleviate planetary annihilation. All compelling, populist and emotionally mollifying headline news - but is any of it true?
There are two major strands to the eco-marxism ideology which are faulty, illogical and in the extreme quite dangerous. The first strand of eco-marxist thought is that the world’s environment is worse off today than at any time in history. The second strand of eco-marxist ideology is that economic growth, capital markets, and private business are the main culprits of ecological devastation causing inter-alia and most importantly for the ‘Al Goreans’, the emissions of green house gases and global warming. Neither concept holds up to scrutiny.
In the current and intolerant eco-marxist orthodoxy the first premise and one that the media never disputes, is that the world is worse off ecologically than ever. How is such an idea measured? Various baselines are used ranging from air quality, to water quality, to ‘smog’, to deforestation, to sewage output, to chemicals found in organic substances. But there is no evidence that we are worse off today than 5, 10, 20 or 200 years ago. In fact the opposite is true.
The Guardian newssheet in the UK – hardly a pro-market or pro-business paper- even admitted that air quality today is better than at any time in history. “And despite increasing traffic, particulate emissions in the UK are expected to decrease over the next 10 years by 30%.…Generally, the data indicates that this picture holds true for all developed countries. Although air pollution is increasing in many developing countries, analyses show that they are merely replicating the development of the industrialised countries. When they grow sufficiently rich they, too, will start to reduce their air pollution.”
The same is true of water quality, land usage, and almost any variable you care to mention. For example more forests now cover North America than existed 200 years ago. The native Indians lovlingly regarded by the media as pure and innocent creatures of the dale and glen, were adept at removing hundreds of thousands of acres of forest annually to fertilize the soil to grow crops and sustain their small conurbations. Modern farming techniques are more productive; consume less energy per output than 20 years ago and are environmentally less damaging than the pre-modern pagan techniques of agro-production.
The exception to the above are areas where the ‘tragedy of the commons’ plays out – in particular in seas and oceans. Private property, technology and wealth are the best guarantors of a clean world. Where that breaks down is where private property and jurisdictional control do not exist. The oceans and their marine life are under strain due to the commons problem – no one has a vested interest to care or to manage these resources. The tragedy of the commons necessitates the creation of cross border agencies that must act like they have property and legal control over these resources and manage them as if they were assets to be productively harvested – not just easy plunder to be stolen.
The second and pernicious strand of the new eco-marxism is of course Global Warming. Nothing titillates the populist and the socialist more than scare-mongering doom and gloom scenarios of earthly devastation and the catastrophic castration of the virginal planet Gaiea. Paroxysms of orgasmic convulsions inform the Gaiea earth cult. Eco-marxism is more of a pagan worship club than a collection of informed and rational minds. In any event the nonsense around Global Warming is so obvious that the media’s exaggeration of any climate change threat is criminal.
One can dismiss the Global Warming canard in many ways. We can start with the Global Cooling predictions of 1975 – when the UN said that the civilized world had ‘only 5 years to act’ before society would be destroyed by an age of cold weather. Here is a typical media excerpt from 1975 [Newsweek 04-75]:
“A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.” From such observations came the cry to ‘do something now’ to combat Global Cooling.
Magically within 30 years the cooling scare has mutated into ‘climate change disaster’ – where any and all weather patterns are now deemed to be caused by the poorly defined ‘Global Warming’ catastrophe. How convenient. But is the earth getting warmer? The junk science of the 1970s was wrong – a temporary cooling trend was followed by variations in temperature that give no discernible pattern from 1975 until today. In fact the earth’s mean temperature has changed little in 130 years. As reported by the National Climatic Data Center [http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.html] the mean surface temperature between 1880 and 2004 was 13.9 C. Today the average in 2006-2007 is about 14C – a scientifically irrelevant difference.
So what about all this chatter over CO2 and those diabolical carbon emissions? 95 % of CO2 emissions are from the natural biomass. This means that if you eradicated mankind you would not affect the output of this gas. Inside the so-called greenhouse gas emissions the most important elements are water vapor and clouds. This means that the majority of the so-called greenhouse effect is due to water vapor. According to scientists and climatologists water accounts for about 90% of the Earth's greenhouse effect -- perhaps 70% is due to water vapor and about 20% due to clouds (mostly water droplets). In other words CO2 output is hardly a valid concern. By extension the eco-fascist war against industry has no basis either in fact or logic. Destroying industry does nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions since 90% of ghg’s are water vapor.
An obvious example of the eco-marxist hatred of all things modern and industrial is their incessant attacks on big, bad oil. Oil is cheap, plentiful, reasonably clean to use and powers the modern world. Only a pre-modern pagan moron would consider its abolition. Yet the news items are demonstrably pro-eco Marxist and decidedly anti-oil. Consider this pathetic headline about Exxon: “Washington, D.C., January 3, 2007—A report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists claims Exxon Mobil has been involved in a ‘disinformation’ campaign on global warming through its funding ideologically driven groups that are opposed to global warming.”
That news item is the essence of the new intolerant eco-fascist agenda. Anyone who opposes the orthodoxy of global warming is engaged in an ideological crusade against mother Earth. It is a sad commentary that such items are reported as news. In fact Exxon along with Beyond Petroleum [formerly British Petroleum] spend hundreds of millions of dollars on eco-marxist projects per annum ranging from the stupid [windmill power] to the useless [arcane new synthetics to replace oil]. They do this for good PR, to appear green and to buy off eco-advocacy groups. They don’t do it to increase shareholder wealth.
The worthiest guardians of a green world are the ones that have created the richer, cleaner, and more progressive societies in the North Atlantic area. The failed states of Islam, Africa, Eastern Europe, Russia, most of Asia and Latin America are dirtier, have lower life expectancies and are convulsed by diseases and environmental problems that were long ago resolved in the richer G7 nations.
Eco-marxists might have the right objective in their hearts and pure intentions. Then again they might be a group of Al Gores and David Suzukis intent on control, power and more money for their own aggrandizement. It could be suggested that trusting such people is rather foolhardy. Destroying the modern world based on eco-marxist hyperbole is criminal and would lead to the degradation of the environment – not its salvation.
|
