The Great Environmentalist Conspiracy
Environmentalism is liberalism
By Gavino, August 5, 2010
Reprinted with permission from the author, originally published at author's website
See PDF
In 1907, the
twenty-sixth president of the United States, Theodore Roosevelt, famously
said that, “The conservation of our natural resources and their proper use
constitute the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other
problem of our national life.”
Today, this problem has morphed into a philosophical battle between those
who, like Roosevelt, have a wish us to use natural resources and others who
try to apply the power of government to prevent them from being used. This
ideological conflict over the use and control of productive resources is not
some modern nicety fought out in tea rooms, but rather can be traced back to
the writings of Karl Marx. Environmentalists want to limit the use of our
natural resources and they want to impose their beliefs and values on the
rest of us.
In true Malthusian tradition, current economic development is rejected as
unsustainable. Resources - specifically those related to energy, food
production and land use – are judged to be more scarce, more vulnerable and
more polluting than we had thought, while the global population, growing in
size and wealth, apparently cannot be sustained by a fragile earth.
Liberal environmental campaign groups have been using international
organizations to further their anti-development aims ever since the
International Whaling Commission (IWC) was hijacked by Greenpeace and other
animal rights activists in the early 1980s. The group paid membership dues
for small island states to join the IWC and then voted to establish a
moratorium on commercial whaling irrespective of the abundance of the
various species.
Today, this technique has ballooned into a vast network of well-paid
lobbyists who monitor and influence the global governance institutions that
regulate what nations must and must not do when it comes to environmental
issues like climate change, biodiversity and trade in endangered species.
The message and the medicine is the same in each case: the planet, climate,
oceans, animals, etc. can only be saved if we stop the offending activity.
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) cannot make formal proposals to United
Nations bodies like CITES, the Convention on International Trade in
Endangered Species, so they lobby governments to adopt their anti-use
positions and then use access granted by their observer status to support
and cajole from the sidelines as these countries do their bidding.
Part of the beauty of this approach is that multinational lobby groups like
the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Greenpeace are not geographically aligned
to any one single country, and can therefore present themselves as a
domestic constituency to many powerful governments simultaneously – the
United States, European Union, Australia, etc. And because they present
themselves as objective, ethical and without party affiliation, rather than
ideological, they can appear neutral to politicians who really should know
better.
Externally, they can set up nations against each other on different issues,
while internally they can lobby to get their policies adopted by opposition
parties who will eventually win power. The Obama administration in America
and the Rudd government in Australia both came to power accepting the notion
of man-made global warming, in marked contrast to their Bush and Howard
predecessors.
European governments are particularly susceptible to lobbying by
environmentalist NGOs because the European Union imposes common positions at
international meetings, potentially giving the campaigners a huge bloc vote
if they can secure the backing of a few of the bigger countries like
Germany, France and the United Kingdom. With industry groups, like fishermen
and ivory artisans, fragmented and not resourced to undertake major lobbying
campaigns, and others like the energy producers wary of antagonizing
regulators, the field is left mostly clear for the anti-development agenda
to be pushed forward.
So, like puppet masters, western NGOs are able to create the perception of
environmental crises – man-made climate change, empty oceans, potential
species extinctions – and then secure restrictive proposals from willing
government bureaucracies, which are submitted to the relevant
intragovernmental institutions.
Journalists at these international meetings rely on the same NGO lobbyists
for comment and evaluation, casting them as concerned and objective experts
with an independent worldview. A quote from an environmentalist lobbyist for
the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) holds greater news value than the supposedly
narrow perspective of a spokesman for a specific country. Needless to say,
their modus operandi is to cast aspersions against the evil motives of those
countries that do not share their objectives. And the NGOs diligently feed
the press rooms with new controversies to keep the circus moving.
In this way, the world was misled in March into believing that the Atlantic
Bluefin Tuna will shortly go extinct, after a proposal to prohibit its trade
was rejected by member states of CITES. The proposal was drafted by WWF and,
in true liberal intellectual tradition, submitted by the wealthy European
principality of Monaco. The species has been over-fished but it is not
endangered and actions taken by the International Commission for the
Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) offer the best option for increasing
stocks. Nevertheless, after the defeat of its proposal, WWF called the
decision scandalous and arrogantly urged “restaurants, retailers, chefs and
consumers around the world to stop selling, serving, buying and eating this
endangered species.”
But it doesn’t stop there. Now unsuspecting taxpayers around the world are
even being co-opted into backing the campaigns of international
environmentalist groups, as governments have become their proxies. Several
years ago the Irish government took on the cause of four of its nationals
when it went to the International Tribunal on the Law of the Sea to stop the
operation of a nuclear fuel manufacturing plant in England. The bid failed
and cost Irish taxpayers millions.
Australia’s government has now succumbed to the lobbying of animal rights
groups and filed suit at the International Court of Justice to stop Japan
from undertaking research whaling. The research is a treaty right that is
not precluded by the commercial whaling moratorium and it can only be
challenged by a sovereign nation. The International Fund for Animal Welfare,
an American animal rights NGO, organized legal panels in Australia that
recommended the action. The costs and legal footwork will be paid for by
Australian taxpayers.
Policy by policy, expediency or ideology has been embraced by various
governments, and development has been sacrificed. As a result, citizens have
to pay higher costs for energy, food and housing. Some taxpayers are also
directly subsidizing the campaigns themselves. Like it or not, we are all
liberal environmental activists now.
Copyright © 2010 Ask Gavino
Photo Copyright© REXANO 2010
www.REXANO.org