.

Environmentalism: What is the Real Agenda?

Environmentalism used to be about clean water and clean air. No it's a completely different agenda.

It used to be that if you spoke about environmentalism, it meant that you were for clean water and clean air.  Something we could all agree on.

Now, if you are not 100% behind the current environmental agenda, then somehow you are for pollution, the trashing of nature and you are morally challenged.

Environmentalism has gone to an extreme of putting all wildlife above Man.  Environmentalists see human beings as disruptive to the environment and according to John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club, “Nature is sacred and humans are intruders who should look but not develop.”   Modern technology, the use of chemicals and actions to deal with animal overpopulation is not to be tolerated.  Today’s environmentalists propose a world of no innovation, no science and no technology – an anti-free market, anti-capitalist stance.

The enforcement of any of the environmental agenda will change the way we live, diminish the quality of life we enjoy and diminish our energy production.

Let us seriously look at what would happen if nature were truly left to itself with no intervention by Man.  What would happen to mankind and animals?  What are the consequences of Man’s inaction in his environment?

Central Valley, CA is the glaring example of how destructive the concept of Nature above Man is playing out. 

A fish, which was put on the endangered species list, has now caused the government to turn off water to food producing areas in California that are suffering from a draught.

Apparently, these fish are more important than opening the water flow for farmers.  What was once lush farmland that produced food for many is now best described as a “dust bowl.”  No more food production and no more jobs.  This region produced more than half the fruits and vegetables consumed in the U.S. and people who once had jobs are now receiving government hand outs instead of working. 

Without dams, which help to bring water to draught areas and control flooding in other areas, our food supply would be negatively impacted.  But, environmentalists don’t like this “manipulation” of the environment.

What about drilling for oil and energy production?

Environmentalists do not want any harm to come to the environment, therefore drilling for oil is not to be tolerated.  And nuclear power is not an acceptable.  But yet wind farms, an eyesore on the landscape, are okay, even though other wildlife are at risk. 

Since environmentalists are against using natural resources, how do they propose to keep warm in winter, cool in the summer and have shelter from harsh elements?  Do they propose we live in caves?

Now imagine a world where Man did not intervene in animal control.

In New York City, with spring in the air, families are excited to be enjoying the parks and outdoor areas.  Instead of enjoyment, they are being met by an overpopulation of rats in neighborhood playgrounds. 

If the rodent population is not controlled, do environmentalists want to see the city overrun with them, along with the potential of bringing deadly diseases to humans?

If they are against the use of chemicals, how do we keep our food production at a maximum level to feed the largest amount of people?  How do we protect ourselves from the infestation of bedbugs and malaria?  In 2010, malaria caused an estimated 655,000 deaths, mostly among African children due to the abolishment of DDT (with unproven links to cancer), a chemical which killed the disease-carrying mosquitoes.  Instead, people are now being given nets to put over their beds and burying their children.  Is that okay with environmentalists?

Do they not enjoy the quality of life we all enjoy thanks to modern technology? Do they not use computers, cell phones, ipads?  Or do they propose a greatly diminished quality of life, one in which we go back to foraging for food and water? Will they be the ones flying their private jets to make sure the rest of us abide by their rules?

Caring about the environment does not mean that we cannot use the environment.  We need land and natural resources for food production, water and shelter.  It is our responsibility to be good stewards of our environment and always strive to leave it better than we found it.  But it is also man’s right to use the land for his survival and benefit.  How can we pursue our right to happiness if we cannot make life better for ourselves?  Technology and science have freed us from disease and offered us a way of life in which we can pursue our individual interests. 

These advances have made the US one of the cleanest, healthiest and most sanitary of countries.  All you need to do is look at developing countries with less modern advances and see the conditions in which people live and the young age at which they die.

Then again, let’s remember, human population control is another tenant of the environmental agenda.  According to Treehugger.com,  “you certainly couldn't solve all the global warming issues of the world when it’s the overpopulation of people who are causing the greatest burden on the planet.”

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

ninja April 24, 2012 at 08:57 PM
this is just propaganda, her job title says it all, I'll take the advice and guidance of accomplished scientists and environmental professionals over this partisan jibberish any day...prime example is the rhetoric we hear on capping carbon emissions, which is something research supports and nearly every country in the entire world has agreed must be done. yet, this practice is bad for business so it can be politically expedient for some to make environmental regulations and the "environmentalists" who support them sound like they are evildoers
William Hobbie April 24, 2012 at 10:52 PM
DDT was the number one cause of the Ameican Bald Eagle and Osprey utter collapse in the United States. DDT does not decay and absorbed up the food chain where is accumulates in fat cells. In the case of these birds it creates very bittle shells... I is amazing to me in this day and age when there is so much scientific proof as to it destructive power that anyone would suggest that we would let that genie out again.
sgyaft April 24, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Sounds like more rhetoric from ALEC and the Tea Party dolts.
John Lee April 24, 2012 at 11:25 PM
kudos Williams Hobbie !
John Lee April 24, 2012 at 11:43 PM
DDT, which was first cited as dangerous in 1962, but continued to be used in the US into the early 1970s has a rather long half life in the environment and is also stored in fat. DDT is also linked to an increased risk of diabetes in humans, and surprise, those areas in which DDT was used most extensively are also hot spots for huge percentages of the population being diabetic or pre-diabetic.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »