Environmentalists Want to Save the Planet by Killing Asthma Patients

By Daniel Greenfield, @ Sultan Knish Blog

After blaming the imminent destruction of the planet on cows, babies and supermarket shoppers, environmentalists have found a new villain to scapegoat and persecute.

Asthma patients.

Remember the ‘ozone hole’ crisis that was supposed to wipe out the planet when the atmosphere would disappear any day now and flood us with deadly radiation? That particular fake environmental crisis in a series of them (overpopulation, global food shortages, ice ages, global warming) led to a crackdown on hairsprays, fridges and air conditioners.

Asthma inhalers were exempted because environmentalists didn’t believe that even liberals were quite ready to kill a quarter of a billion people in the name of ‘saving the planet’.

Maybe that has changed.

Most people have forgotten about the ‘ozone layer’, but the war on asthma inhalers has been heating up. The latest shot was fired in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which is supposed to advocate for patients, rather than against them, claiming that asthma inhalers release as much carbon dioxide as 530,000 cars or an entire conference of the American Medical Association.

Emissions from asthma patients trying to breathe “drive global warming”, a JAMA editor’s note falsely claimed. A ‘researcher’ at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine huffed and puffed that “inhalers add to the growing carbon footprint of the US healthcare system.”

The “carbon footprint” being the health and lives of hundreds of millions of human beings.

The researcher neglected to apply the same number crunching being used to condemn the asthma inhalers that millions of patients depend on to the private jet of David Geffen, a Hollywood billionaire, which has been listed as emitting 158.7 metric tons of carbon dioxide, or as much as 28 asthma patients with inhalers could emit over a lifetime of trying to survive.

UCLA shamefully admitted to emitting 279,834 metric tons of carbon dioxide. That’s the equivalent of 12 million asthma inhalers. If we had to choose between the existence of UCLA and millions of asthma patients, it’s no choice at all. But obviously David Geffen is not about to stop flying his private jet, most recently to the Super Bowl in New Orleans, and UCLA is not about to stop handing out degrees in transgender poetry that could just as easily be dispensed via Zoom to AI-driven bots programmed to be woke, but asthma patients have to sacrifice.

At a campaign rally in Virginia, President Trump had complained that post-Ozone hysteria hairsprays were less effective. That’s obviously true. But less effective hairspray doesn’t kill people. Less effective asthma inhalers do. The push to get asthma patients to switch to ‘dry powder’ inhalers and other ‘environmentally friendly’ inhalers has severe consequences.

Another study published in JAMA earlier this year found that veterans in the VA system who were switched from metered-dose inhalers to ‘dry powder’ inhalers suffered increases in hospitalizations and ER visits.

“We had hoped that the inhaler formulary change would have had a neutral effect on clinical outcomes because the dry-powder inhaler was both less expensive and better for the environment, but the analyses showed that patients taking fluticasone-salmeterol dry-powder inhaler experienced more adverse health outcomes — likely offsetting some of the health system’s cost and carbon savings,” one of the researchers said. Though if the veterans had died, some environmentalists would have viewed that as a net ‘carbon savings’.

Those concerned more about a fictional environmental crisis that was made up yesterday and will be forgotten tomorrow than about the suffering of asthma patients keep claiming that ‘patient education’ is the way to go. Except that some asthma patients are using their medication during moments of stress and breathing difficulties, others are elderly, and metered dose inhalers are simple and simply work, which can make all the difference between home and a hospital trip.

Asthma patients already struggling to breathe are trying to suck in powder because environmentalists would rather ration the precious ‘carbon’ so that it can instead be used to offset the next trip by environmentalists to a global conference on how the world will end unless we outlaw asthma inhalers, supermarket shopping bags and human reproduction.

The level of environmentalist cruelty knows no decency, no boundaries and no limits.

The war on asthma inhalers has had numerous side effects on patients, with some newer medications only being made available in the more challenging ‘environmentally friendly’ and patient unfriendly inhalers, and the rush to patent new ‘environmentally friendly’ and ‘patient friendly’ propellants is further raising the price of already expensive medications. And giving insurance companies another reason to reject them from their narrowing formularies.

Asthma patients are having their lives and health threatened by environmentalists over a claim that their inhalers emitted less than 25 million tons of carbon dioxide over ten years.

The current estimate of 2 million tons of carbon dioxide a year from asthma inhalers also happens to be roughly the annual carbon emissions from the United Nations. Which one should we save and which one should we sacrifice: asthma patients or the United Nations.

Environmentalists of course aren’t advocating a shutdown of the UN while its various delegates, terrorists and appeasers hold their sessions via Zoom. Instead they want to grow the UN and destroy the lives of asthma patients over nearly the same number of carbon emissions.

It was never about the fictional problem of carbon emissions, but about inflicting misery.

Environmentalists don’t really want to save the planet, they want to kill us. The various fake crises are a pretext for wrecking lives, causing pain, and taking away even basic necessities while they jet off to their various conferences that ‘emit’ ten times as much of whatever.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine. Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.  Thank you for reading.

 

If It's Green, It's Not Gold

By Rich Kozlovich

Editor's Note:  I originally published this in 2013, and twelve years have passed and until now, nothing changed.  All these green initiatives whether they involve agriculture, energy production, or anything else, have been an economic and social disasters.  I published a follow up article, If It's Green, It's Not Gold!, in 2023.  I think it worthwhile to republish this 2013 article in order to establish just how disastrous going green really is, and why things need to change.  Please not the Tags at the end.  RK

In years gone by you would hear about some girl that had been given a ring that looked like gold but left a green residue on the finger. Well, there were a couple of things that were clear to everyone. The ring wasn’t gold and the guy who gave it to her was a cheap phony. Those promoting green initiatives in power generation, automotive enterprises and who knows how many other things, fall into that category, but unfortunately, they aren’t cheap. They are sticking the taxpayers with debts to the tune of billions of dollars of so-called green investments. Those investments are going down the rat hole and there is no end in sight.

I subscribe to the e-newsletter from the Environment and Climate news and received their latest edition for March yesterday listing some economically green disasters for which the American taxpayer is on the hook. As you read this you begin to wonder what is wrong with the minds of those who promote this stuff? It certainly can’t be ignorance because we have historical foundation to show that all these ‘green’ initiatives are economically disastrous. 

They were failures when promoted by Jimmy Carter, and they're still economically disastrous today. The only difference is that Carter could be excused for promoting these ‘alternative’ schemes because no one really knew if these were good ideas or not, and society had been prepped by circumstances for such an effort at that time.

He at least could claim ignorance, and in this case a valid argument. Every scientific success starts with ignorance which is dispelled through the trial and error processes of experimentation. But now we knew the outcome even before they started. We were of course being led to believe that the technology was “new and improved”, which has always been a great sales slogan, and a great punch line by comedians who parody con artists in some skit, or movie script.

Although I have no doubt that there were improvements, those improvements were in no way so advanced as to make ‘going green’, especially involving energy production, an economic success, and they had to know it. In short, it is impossible to believe that this wasn’t a deliberate effort to fraudulently promote this to the American taxpayer, who is now on a “green hook”.

Ideology and financial gain can cause intelligent people to fall for really dumb ideas, but this is inexcusable. I use this quote from Viv Forbes dealing with every green issue:

“The public has been misled by an unholy alliance of environmental scaremongers, funds-seeking academics, sensation-seeking media, vote-seeking politicians and profit-seeking vested interests.”

Please don’t tell me they were now ignorant. They are driven by greed, ideology or both and someone ought to be prosecuted, starting with the politicos who signed these agreements.

In an article entitled, Delaware Taxpayers on the ‘Green’ Hook as Fisker Can’t Pay Bills by Alyssa Carducci, she notes that “Delaware taxpayers may lose a $21.5 million “investment" as Fisker Automotive took taxpayer money to create green jobs but has yet to produce a single car in the state.” 

(Editor's Note:  The links in this article no longer work.  So you will just have to take my word for what appears here...or not... as you please. RK)

She goes on to say that the state will have to cover $400,000 in electric bills. So how did this come about? She says that:

In 2009 Gov. Jack Markell announced California-based Fisker Automotive Inc. would be setting up shop in the state after he offered the company $21.5 million in incentives. Delaware residents were promised 2,500 green jobs in return for their investment. And the results have been a complete failure to the point that even the “U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) suspended a $529 million federal loan to Fisker.” 

 And it gets worse as she notes that:

“Two months later, Fisker halted operations and laid off workers at a former General Motors site it had taken over in Delaware.”

My questions have always been thus:

1. How do they come up with these figures on how many jobs are going to be created with these initiatives?
2. It runs the gamut of a few hundred to five million. 
3. What formula are they using? 
4. Where did they get their insights? 
5. And if they are that smart, why are they wasting their time in government?

In reality these people don’t have a clue, and they're wasting their time in government because they'd fail as investment councilors, and this way they can be stunningly wrong, and still get paid.  

People who pick and choose companies to invest in for a living have difficulty, failing regularly. Why would we think a politician or a government bureaucrat would do any better? As my friend David Hansen, who at the time was President of the Buckeye Institute, asked an audience to name one politician or bureaucrat who picked Microsoft as a winner. No one put up their hand and for good reason. There isn’t one.

James M. Taylor, managing editor of Environment and Climate News reported that “Florida Rep. Gaetz Seeks End to State’s Ethanol Mandates”, saying:

“Florida State Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fort Walton Beach) will introduce legislation this year to repeal a state law requiring Florida service stations to sell only ethanol-blended gasoline. Energy experts say ethanol requirements raise transportation fuel costs, hike food prices, decrease gasoline mileage, and harm the environment in many ways.”

Even those who were going to stand against repealing this state law realized that “ ethanol production in Florida is not viable”. All these ‘Feel-Good’ Mandates have consequences, and one of those consequences is that “according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, ethanol subsidies and mandates have caused a dramatic rise in U.S. food prices since 2005, reversing 50 years of declining.” Are we to believe no one could see this was going to happen? This should have been obvious to the most casual observer.

Promises that never materialize are perfectly exemplified in the ‘experimental’ wind turbines that were placed (less than two years ago) on roof of the Michael V. DiSalle Government Center in Toledo, Ohio. They have now failed and all the expense for that fell on the backs of the taxpayers.

The promise by renewable energy advocates was that this scheme would save taxpayers thousands of dollars “each year” due to the reduction in their electricity bills. It didn’t! “The turbines ceased to spin and generate energy in March 2012. Beth Gianforcaro, state Development Services Agency (DSA) spokeswoman, reported the government agency deactivated the turbines due to maintenance and performance issues.”

Oh…yes….as always it gets worse. Helix Wind Corp., the manufacturer and installer of these turbines went broke and is out of business. So even if the state wanted to continue on with this scam they have no idea whether they can be fixed or who could do it.

This stuff is no different than any scam by any con artist that promises untold and unearned dollars for nothing. What disturbs me the most about this particular scam is that it occurred in Ohio. We don’t usually see things so stupidly, except happened in Toledo, and that explains it. 

Let’s face it, ‘going green’ is a bad investment, otherwise the world would have already ‘gone green’ from investments from the private sector and wouldn’t have had to be subsidized by governments all over the world.

Bad green investments that end up down the rat hole are one thing, but there are other even more onerous consequences to ‘going green’. Food prices are dramatically rising all over the world as a result of ethanol subsidies and mandates. After fifty years of falling prices that trend has reversed, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The so-called Arab Spring is believed to have been triggered by the rising cost of food caused by these ‘green’ mandates, and if that is the case this will only get worse worldwide.

The common theme from the green movement is that all of the things they promote; from the elimination of pesticides, an abandonment of production of energy by traditional sources and means, the elimination of dams so that the rivers may flow free, taking over millions of acres of other people’s property in order to save some beetle, or mouse, or a flower which may be listed as an endangered species; is for humanities own good.

The reality is that the writings from the foundational thinkers of the green movement show they were misanthropic, blaming mankind for all sorts of calamities that had no basis in fact, much like the claims by Rachel Carson in her science fiction book that ended up causing the ban on DDT, Silent Spring.

And if that is doubted intellectually, we must at the very least, acknowledge that in the real world none of their schemes generate the utopia they say they desire. In reality there are two things we can glean from history; dystopia follows the green movement like Sancho Panza followed Don Quixote de Le Mancha, a mad man.

If its green isn't gold!  It's corrupt, it's insane, it's irrational, it's misanthrope, and it's morally defective.   

Tags:  

2. Fraud is Still a Crime, Including Green Fraud!
3. If Green Prediction Was a Corporation, They'd Have a Monopoly on Being Wrong!
4.  To Be Green is to Be Irrational, Misanthropic, and Morally Defective, Part II 
5. Wind power makers suffer huge losses, want to abandon major project 
6. Oh No! Say it Ain't So!
7. Green is a Perfectly Nice Color

Pathways and Stepping Stones

By Rich Kozlovich

History is the pathway of the past which leads to the stepping stones into the future.  For more years than I can recall we've heard activists demand all sorts of insane things, including banning .... welllll.... anything that makes an advanced civilization possible.  And "it's all for the children".  This, in spite of the fact that most of what they've done has been "to" the children, not "for" the children.  The ban on DDT, and the ban of chlorine in water in South American nations are two excellent examples.  Both of which cause massive negative health problems.  Both crimes against humanity.

Huge numbers of children have suffered and died unnecessarily from “green” policies that banned pesticides and genetically modified foods.  Yet we only continue to hear all sorts of theoretical, speculative claims about pesticides andcausing a host of "potential" disasters from the media.  Even if there was a grain of truth in these claims, the benefits would seriously outweigh any potential risks.  Why do we keep ignoring the facts? 

The events surrounding pesticide bans in the undeveloped world should be lesson enough to show that these types of actions are detrimental to the public health; yet we still go along with the activist’s nonsense.   So many just really want to be green; yet we have no idea what that means. 

Everyone from my generation remembers that great comic strip “Peanuts”.  One scenario was repeated over and over again was Lucy offering to hold the football for poor Charlie Brown to kick.  Charlie always knew that Lucy would pull the ball out just at the last minute and he would fall on his back.  Why was that funny?  Because they would go through this dance about how she “always” pulled the ball out at the last minute and she would swear that this time it would be different, and he fell for it each and every time.   Believing that activists can be believed to keep a bargain is not one bit different.

No agreement made with the activists will be kept by them because they have no command and control structure.  If one group makes a deal with industry, another group will attack them and industry.  No agreement will be honored by them.  And that goes for government agencies also.  No matter what agreements are made with bureaucrats, just as soon as some activist group starts making demands the agreement be rescinded, it will be overturned. 

What probably sickens me the most of all is the worldwide media!   In spite of the vast amount of evidence activists are directly and indirectly responsible for the death of tens of millions, not to mention and the needless suffering of hundreds of millions more because of the implementation of environmentalist’s policies, the media mostly remains silent.   By remaining silent or promoting these green activists ideas they are as blood guilty as Walter Duranty was when he won the Pulitzer Prize for say that Stalin wasn’t starving his people to death. 

Industry information sources also do not challenge these people because they say that we can’t win in the court of public opinion, or they are not in a position to do so.  If industry never challenges them every time they make outrageous claims, how does anyone know?   At the very least, information should be made available to the public and to those inside industry that will give them the ammunition to defend industry. 

It is painfully obvious to me these leftists intend to destroy developed societies, with little concern over the human suffering that would entail.   It is also painfully obvious to me that industry will not have any problem compromising.  No matter what the cost may be in human suffering.  

Why do so many young people embrace this insanity?  Here's some of the rationale offered:

1.  “They're attracted by the romantic radicalism and emotional appeal of the ‘movement.’” 
   
2.  “The "movement" provides them with an outlet." 
   
3.  “They protest against the seeming inertia of the politicians of the older generation."
4.  "It is a truly religio-psychological phenomenon.”   
5.  "The clouded vision of the green movement is one of bio-harmony; like a beautiful rainbow." 
   

That is romantic nonsense that facts and history demands that neither industry or society can justify embracing such delusions. 

Leftists demand perfection.  The best we can hope for is the most acceptable imperfections.  That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t attempt to improve what becomes the acceptable level of imperfection, but the solutions presented by the left ignores, derides, and abandons the most effective system for overcoming imperfection the world has ever known.  Capitalism!  

Imperfections are weeded out by the profit motive.  If something isn’t working it's dismissed, and replaced by something that does.  And if the dominant companies refuse to innovate, then they become commercially incompetent and someone else will come along and innovate.  The end result?   Those dominant companies will be out of business or cease being dominant. 

IBM gave Bill Gates DOS because “because everyone knows that the money is in the hardware”.   Much of what Microsoft and Apple used as the basis for their empires was thrown away by IBM and Xerox. 

When Rockefeller’s Standard Oil of New Jersey monopolized the oil industry did things get better or worse for the nation?  Let’s take a look at this.   

Rockefeller believed it was necessary to take over the oil industry because he believed it was the patriotic thing to do.  Shocking isn’t it?  In reality he was right! Because the price of oil was based on availability, and no one knew when the next gusher was going to come in.  The fluctuation of the price of oil was so dramatic that it was difficult for industry to plan.  

Rockefeller reasoned that if he controlled all the oil it would stabilize the price; and it did.  It might be noted that he didn’t crush all the oil companies…many of them asked to be taken over because it would stabilize their profits.  Before he monopolized the oil industry the price of oil in 1860 was $12.00 to $16.00 a barrel.  Between 1879 and 1900 it dropped to under $1.00 a barrel in every one of those years.   

The Standard Oil of New Jersey story is often touted to show that breaking up monopolies works because the five companies that Standard Oil was broken up into became much, much larger than Standard Oil ever was.  That is a logical fallacy because they leave out the most important part of the story.   

What was the number one product of Standard Oil?  Kerosene!  And gasoline as a byproduct that was thrown away because it was so volatile they had no use for it.  Obviously that changes the values of the story.  They didn’t become so much larger because they were the product of a Sherman Anti-Trust Act breakup.  They became so much larger because the introduction of so many automobiles it turned that volatile product into the energy source to run the huge number of cars and trucks that appeared in America.  That is, as Paul Harvey used to say; “the rest of the story!” 

We need to start telling the story; the whole story, and that needs to be done by attacking the lies told by leftist activists.  The activists attack and society changes to appease them.  The activists attack some more and society adapts and changes and continuing to appease them.  They attack again, and again, with  their successes breeding more attacks.  Attacks which become even more virulent.    

When society adopts their philosophies becoming compliant, subservient, and obedient, that's not compromise, it's capitulation.    Those days are over!  Trump is attacking them at their very core, the money!  End their funding, and crush them.  He's eliminating thousands of bureaucrats, and he's eliminating regulations that are arbitrary, insane, and never passed by Congress.  

Will that stand the test of time.  We'll see.  

Update:  This was from my e-newsletter in 2007, and deals with environmental activist Paul Watson, founder of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, says that you are a virus infecting planet Earth.  You are a virus infecting planet Earth, and wanted to cut the human population down by 85%.  The link no longer works and he's since been forced out over his confrontational tactics, so, you will just have to take my word this is what was in the article...or not if it pleases  you.  

  “Curing a body of cancer requires radical and invasive therapy, and therefore, curing the biosphere of the human virus will also require a radical and invasive approach.”  How radical?  Watson thinks that the parasitical human population should be reduced to less than a billion, and those chosen to survive should inhabit colonies of twenty thousand or less, with uninterrupted wild areas separating them. They will all be vegans or vegetarians, of course, and reproduction will be limited to those who are responsible enough, in Watson's judgement, to handle parenthood…JAWA  REPORT)  Who is he?)   

The views of a fanatic? Yes, but Watson is also a co founder of Greenpeace and a former member of the Sierra Club board of directors, not to mention one of Time magazine's 20th-century environmental "heroes." It is unlikely that his support for eliminating 5.5  billion human beings and most modern conveniences will hurt his standing among the green elite. On the contrary: Within the environmental movement, antipathy to population growth and technology is utterly conventional." (Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe)  

Since then he's since been forced out over his confrontational tactics, so, you will just have to take my word this is what was in the article...or not if it pleases  you. 

Fraud is Still a Crime, Including Green Fraud!

By Rich Kozlovich 

Daniel Greenfield published this piece entitled,  Environmentalists Killed Logging to Protect Owls. Now They Want to Kill the Owls, saying:

Thirty-five years after “save a logger, eat an owl” could be seen across the Pacific Northwest, the government environmentalists at US Fish and Wildlife want to kill half a million owls….......the Owl Wars that entered the 1990 presidential election seem implausible. But they cost tens of thousands of jobs, wiped out sizable amounts of the logging industry in the Pacific Northwest........listing the spotted owls as an endangered species. The northern spotted owls (which to non-owl fanciers look like most other owls except smaller) were listed as endangered by that noted scientist, Judge William L. Dwyer, who apart from destroying logging also helped create the Seattle Mariners which placed two crimes against humanity on his checkered soul.

Okay, "noted scientist" was for those who didn't get it, was a bit of snarc, and rightly so.  But being wrong is legendary for the environmental movement, right along with lying, and corruptly using the Endangered Species Act as a bludgeon for their fallacious claims.  

This insanity didn't only kill jobs, it killed forests, and people.  In October of 2022 Kevin Nelson, posted this article, Two Words Explain California’s Wildfire Woes: Spotted Owl, saying:

Some things in life are hard to understand and explain. The theory of relativity, for example, or the origins of black holes. Other things are easy to grasp, however,  Such as: California’s wildfire woes. In the past five years summer and fall firestorms have killed dozens of people, wiped out homes, businesses and entire communities, torched millions of acres of forestlands, caused billions in property losses, and swept away untold numbers of animals and wildlife.

The cause of all this wreckage is easy to pinpoint. It’s simple as two words: spotted owl.........The fight was over protecting the owl’s habitat. After lawsuits, protests and even violence, the environmentalists won............. delivered a death blow to an entire way of life. Sawmills shut down, loggers lost their jobs, and those little backwoods lumber towns went from boom to 1930s Depression-era bust.............

At the risk of over-simplification, the prevailing forest management wisdom in the post-spotted owl era has been: Don’t touch those trees. Leave ‘em where they be, for people coming up from the city to enjoy on the weekends. And sue and regulate the hell out of anyone who dares try to make a profit by harvesting them

It wasn't logging that decimated the spotted owl population, it was the barred owl.  Repeal the Endangered Species Act and remove enforcement authority from the Fish and Wildlife Service, or even better, eliminate the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Their claims about owls, frogs, polar bears, honey bees, and more, were outright lies, misrepresentation of the facts, or speculation without foundation.  A common thread in all environmentalist writings.  But who really got that ball rolling was  Rachel Carson's and her "science fiction" book Silent Spring ultimately causing the unscientific ban on DDT.

As an  exterminator for 40 years who wrote extensively defending my industry I had to do a great deal of reading delving into the twisted reasonings of the green movement and it wasn't long before I began to realize everything they say is a lie, speculation, logical fallacies, and projection, with just enough truth to give the impression what they're promoting is right and true, mostly based on emotion. 

From that point on no matter what they promoted I started out with the valid premise it was a lie, and then did the research to find what was a valid and what was not, then develop the intellectual response to show why it's a lie.  

I posted this article in March of this year, Junk Science Thirteen Years Ago, saying:  I have to point out this was 13 years ago and nothing has changed.  We know the scientific fraud perpetrated to promote global warming initiatives, we know alternative energy is a bust, we know the EPA is corrupt to it's core, we know sustainability is a code word for the imposition of big government tyranny, and we knew it 13 years ago. 

So why are we still listening to these misfits promoting it.  Nitwits like John Kerry who thinks the world would like Russia better if they were more concerned about emissions.  How delusional is this man?  However, we know two things for sure from that.  Kerry is a blithering idiot, and we dodged a gigantic bullet when it wasn't elected President.  We can thank the Swift Boaters for that, not Karl Rove.  

No matter what the media and others regurgitate about ‘science,’ it’s always about money and control - People should know by now that they can’t trust so-called experts, and they certainly should not believe anyone who makes absurd claims in the name of “science.” ......

Whether it's endangered species, global warming, endocrine disruption, or any other green meme, it all ended up being lies, and many times promoted by scientists who abandoned truth in favor of grant money.  And the EPA has been party to this, and as my now passed friend Jay Lehr, one of the founders of EPA, the EPA needs to be dismantled.

The end of the Chevron Deference should help to end a lot of the tyranny of these agencies. but the question I keep coming back to is now that we know all their claims were lies, and government agencies, and the heads of these agencies had to know their claims were lies, how do we make it right?  

• When will someone finally realize all these environmental movements are blatantly promoting fraud.  The last I heard fraud is a crime?
• When will someone finally realize it's only these green organizations who are promoting fraud, but also those who fund them, and the agencies that enable them?
• When will someone finally realize this is all part of a massive international criminal enterprise, and decide an equally massive RICO investigation is needed?  
• When will someone finally realize someone needs to be sent to prison over all this?

As I watch the events unfolding all around the world I look at those who are in leadership roles, and I can't help but think of the words of one of my personal heroes, Col. John Boyd who said:   "One day you will come to a fork in the road. And you're going to have to make a decision about what direction you want to go."..... "To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?"

Definition leads to clarity, and it's clear the time as come to make the decision do properly define these people as the enemy of all mankind, with dark pursuits, and darker goals.  

Update:  Talk about fraud!  The Ninth Circuit shoots down COVID vaccine.  The COVID shot was put on trial in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and coming from California the result might surprise you.  Three of four judges agree it was never a “traditional vaccine” and therefore could not legally be mandated. ....

I really like seeing this as so many of us were saying this from very early on and criticized .... seriously criticized, including by scientists who until then worked together to expose junk science.  Now I really do want someone to go to jail as untold numbers are people are dying from these false vaccines that were in reality gene manipulating chemical compounds. 

The climate agenda is blatantly anti-progress and anti-human

December 5th, 2023 By Joe Bastardi 14 Comments @ CFACT

I have been told many times to stay in my lane. Don’t bring up racism, abortion, or religion when discussing climate and weather. But the problem is this runaway train of climate change lunacy does not discriminate as to what lane it will drive in, Why? BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL LINKED TO THE SAME DECEPTIVE, DISTORTED, AND DELUSIONAL Philosophy that is anti-human.

Am I right? Let us take climate anxiety among children. There is no reason for this to be occurring except for the brainwashing that has taken place by people whose ignorance on this matter is only exceeded by their arrogance in spouting it. It is like watching Gavin Newsom, who despite having a state where a million people have left and to rent a moving van to move out of his state is much more than one moving into his state (since the demand is so great to get out of the green and brown hell — example San Francisco poop map) get up there and rely on ignorance to fuel arrogance. So you have teachers teaching things they were told and in this matter back up the old adage, if you can’t do it, teach it.

Bad enough these kids have a face a hellscape of truly human-induced problems (drugs, pornography, homelessness, economic destruction, the threat of mad power brokers blowing up the planet), just to name a few. Let’s tell them their biggest hell is where people live enduring .19C above average is a sign of their doom despite rising personal GDP, more food than ever produced and despite 4x the amount of people on the planet, there is 1/28th the amount of deaths related to climate and weather.

(John Kerry, who is breathtakingly ignorant and arrogant on what drives the climate, continues to push the “HOTTEST EVER” gibberish not knowing that the warmth is a sign that it has to be water vapor driving this via warming oceans that CAN NOT BE FROM CO2. I ask any rational human being, is 57.54 hot? I am sure he is not walking around in short sleeves and shorts on his yacht when it’s 57).

Human progress has led to adaptation, whether there is a problem or not.

So their solution: Push policies that stop the advancement of the Human condition.

Lately, we have heard about environmental justice and that warming is racist. Given most of the warming is occurring where it is coldest and driest in the winter, where few people are, and in areas where there are fewer people of color, this is gibberish. So they are moving to make it a racism problem. The high priest of AGW, Al Gore, somehow spent many years as a senator from Tennessee, has a state park and a large monument dedicated to the head of the Ku Klux Clan, Nathan Bedford Forrest, yet did nothing about it; but climate racism, well that’s a different story. He is all over that. He can recognize that but can’t recognize the offense he so loves to criticize others over.

Then there are the great catholic theologians Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden. As of this writing, the pope, despite his foray into sectarian politics (a good way to be ripped apart, with one foot in the city of God, the other the city of man), still appears to be pro-life. But who knows where he is going. In any case, despite Nancy Pelosi, in her defense of gangs saying every life has a spark of divinity, is indeed a climate change high priestess and has no problem supporting policies that snuff out sparks of divinity, 60 million by last estimate, and 75% of them people of color. And those that do make it, well, they have to face the living hell of climate change she pushes. So, in her warped world, she advances the cause of climate justice and anti-racism by advocating policies that would eliminate the chance for so many people to have to face the living hell she paints.

Then, of course there is the aforementioned John Kerry and his daughter, who is a special climate envoy to WHO on climate. It is rich they are doing this, given man’s progress in the fossil fuel era has caused life expectancy to increase over 30 years.

You simply can’t make up the level of hypocrisy here that has links across the board on every issue we face today. But they are rolling it all into climate. I wrote a few months ago that their ideas are Deceptive, Distorted, and Delusional.  It is up to people to see the linkage and stand up to it. Because it’s the main message of an agenda that will do away with freedoms as we know them.

Climate Scare Threatens Pro-life Movement

By Tom Harris

As if the movement didn’t have enough on its plate already, pro-lifers now must prepare for battle with climate change alarmists. While their position is usually cloaked in a supposed respect for woman’s rights, many eco-activist groups strongly support abortion and it is clear that their drive for de-population is a major reason for it. For example, his Feb 6, 2017 interview with then Fox News host Tucker Carlson, Michael Brune, former Sierra Club Executive Director, was asked: 

“Last year on the anniversary of Roe v Wade, you all issued a press release saying that the Sierra Club stands in solidarity with [the pro-abortion] Planned Parenthood…Why does legal abortion make the environment better?”

Brune answered with the usual justification about believing in empowering women, etc.

So Carlson asked again:

“What does that do with the environment? Like how specifically does more abortion or legal abortion help the environment?”

Brune finally admitted:

“Well, it helps to address the number of people that we have on this planet. We feel that one of the ways in which we can get to a sustainable population is to empower women to make choices about their own families.”

Bingo. They want abortion because they want less people on Earth to supposedly protect the environment, specifically to “stop climate change,” a wholly impossible objective, of course.

Brune next boasted about how the Sierra Club “is working hard to transition off of fossil fuels to move towards ‘clean energy.’” Yes, that too would reduce Earth’s population since moving off these reliable fuels at any time in the foreseeable future would result in poverty, famine and wars, killing billions.

This seems to have been going on for a long time. In the 1998 news release “Sierra Club Spends Millions on Pro-abortion Propaganda,” Life Site reported that Sierra were paying for political ads on TV and radio, promoting, among other things, “abortion rights.”

And they apparently still support this objective. For example, in the wake of the overturn of Roe v. Wade by the Supreme Court last year, Sierra published “ Why Environmental Justice Is Part of Reproductive Justice | Sierra Club ”a convoluted article that attributed the court’s decision to relegate abortion law to the states to “ecofacism.”  

Other enviro groups have been saying similar things for years, presumably for the same reason:

An open letter in support of Planned Parenthood, sent on March 22, 2017, to leading federal elected officials was signed by:

• Alaska Wilderness League
• Green For All
• Green Latinos
• League of Conservation Voters
• Natural Resources Defense Council
• Oil Change International
• Safe Climate Campaign
• Sierra Club
• The Climate Reality Project

World Wildlife Federation (WWF) published “Healthy People, Healthy Ecosystems, A Manual on Integrating Health and Family Planning into Conservation Projects” in which they stated:

“Reproductive health programs include such activities as…reducing the practice of unsafe abortion, providing post-abortion care…”

Center for Biological Diversity opposed Republican plans to defund Planned Parenthood’s reproductive health services and pass a 6-week abortion ban. Their online article, TACKLING THE POPULATION PROBLEM stated bluntly:

“Human population growth is at the root of our most pressing environmental issues…”

World Watch Institute has decried “The legal absurdity of decreasing access to safe abortion in developing countries puts the US administration in clear violation of the 1994 Cairo Program of Action.” In World Watch Magazine, March/April 2007, Volume 20, No. 2, by Richard Hayes was stated:

“There’s no reason we can’t draw lines that protect abortion rights and medical research while prohibiting applications of genetic science that open the door to profoundly undesirable outcomes.”

Some media agree. In “Is Having A Baby In 2021 Pure Environmental Vandalism? "Vogue Magazine writer Nell Frizzell worried “feverishly about the strain on the earth’s resources that another Western child would add. The food he [the child she was originally considering having] ate, the nappies he wore, the electricity he would use; before he’d even started sitting up, my child would have already contributed far more to climate change than his counterpart in, say, Kerala or South Sudan.” 

University of Ottawa Gwartney Professor of Economic Education and Research Dr. Peter Jacobson demonstrated in an article (that pro-life advocates should study) that her fears are generally misguided. 

Or how about “Kids are cute but they’re not really eco-friendly” a 2017 Times Trends article being shared on the Web (and refuted in “Does the value of children depend on their usefulness? - Children are a gift, not a liability”).

It is not just that environmental groups are supporting abortion to supposedly help achieve their climate goals. Pro-abortion organizations are using the climate scare to promote their agenda as well. The Virginia-based Population Research Institute sums up the latter situation well in their important video, “Climate Change is an Excuse for Abortion.” Here are some excerpts (see here for the complete video):

• “Climate crisis advocates blame human activity as the leading cause for climate change. So why not push for global access to abortion and contraception under the guise of climate activism to address the source of all climate change - humanity?
• “This is precisely what the abortion industry has attempted to do. … Groups in the abortion industry have slowly been distancing themselves from the eugenics and population control movement, and re-branding themselves in a different type of campaign that promotes woman's ‘rights.’
• “With this rebranding, they fall under a broader movement that provides them more flexibility and sway to push their ultimate goal—international abortion laws under the guise of woman's rights and woman's health. This new rights category has made it possible for abortion advocates to use woman's autonomy as a guise in order to rebrand the movement as a champion of a movement now at the forefront of agendas across the world: Climate Change.
• “…They [sexual and reproductive health and rights groups] claim that an inevitable and necessary step to combat climate change is with family planning…The international Planned Parenthood Federation insists that contraception and abortion are basic human rights that women, especially in impoverished countries, lack. Clearly, the abortion lobbies association with the climate crisis has not changed its population control agenda. Rather, it has empowered them to make their population control agenda more relevant by means of embedding fear through climate crisis theory and claiming their movement as the solution.”

And, of course, some academics have been promoting de-population for decades. Dr. Paul Ehrlich, formerly a butterfly biologist at Stanford University, successfully scared the world with his 1968 book The Population Bomb. In it, he attempted to convince readers that the English economist, Thomas Malthus, was right in predicting the end of the world back in 1798. As a result of his highly inaccurate publication, Ehrlich was awarded a MacArthur Genius Award. This gave him prominent platforms from which to give annual predictions of doom and gloom, 100% of which proved false. Now 91, Ehrlich maintains he has been right all along, just off in the timing.

More recently, in “The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions,” published in 2017 in Environmental Research Letters, Seth Wynes and Kimberly A Nicholas lamented the fact that high school textbooks and government documents did not focus on high impact actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In particular, they explained that having one fewer child would, on average, save 58.6 tonnes CO₂-equivalent (tCO₂e) in emissions per year for developed countries (see graph below from their video presentation): 

And then, of course, there is the  Voluntary Human Extinction Movement who are trying to convince us to not have any children at all. They maintain:

“Phasing out the human species by voluntarily ceasing to breed will allow Earth’s biosphere to return to good health.”

Besides being a dangerous and depressing worldview that encourages suicide, abortion, euthanasia and sterilization, all of this is wrong, of course. We are not overpopulated and, as Christians would remind us, the Bible says:

“Children are a gift from the Lord. They are a reward from him” (Psalm 127:3).

Even Dr. Carl Sagan, a humanist and a supporter of naturalistic religious beliefs that finds religious meaning in the natural world but did not believe in God said:

“The cosmos is within us. We are made of star-stuff. We are a way for the universe to know itself.”

And even people who have no religious faith whatsoever can and indeed should view humanity as wonderful. Every baby born is a marvelous gift to the universe with unlimited potential for undreamed of inventions, philosophies, art, music, science, and philanthropy. Everything from Mozart to our expansion into space shows that we are not merely another part of nature, but, indeed, are the very pinnacle of life on our planet, perhaps in the universe.

Many of the arguments in support of abortion fall flat if it can be shown that the environment, specifically the climate, is not in crisis. In next week’s article, I will show pro-life advocates the first steps to fighting back against the unscientific climate scare threatening their movement. Stay tuned!

---

Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.

Editor's Note:  By way of transparency, I've had the privilege of doing three podcast with Tom, and his dedication to these issues is truly exemplary.  RK