Radical Leftists Claim Oil Companies Are Committing Climate Murder

They’re gaslighting voters and consumers – when the real mass killers are environmentalists

By Paul Driessen

We’re constantly told fossil fuel use is causing an existential climate crisis, extreme weather, worsening wildfires, and more frequent and intense hurricanes, tornadoes, floods and droughts. 

Actual temperature, storm and other records provide no support for these claims. They certainly don’t back up ludicrous assertions that burning coal, oil and natural gas – and even human breathing and baking pizzas in wood-fired ovens – are causing countless alleged calamities: such as slowing Earth’s rotation, thereby affecting scientific time clocks (by one second). 

The claims are based primarily on computer models that erroneously assume carbon dioxide and a few other “greenhouse gases” (0.05% of Earth’s atmosphere, in total) control the climate, while the sun plays virtually no role, urban heat islands are inconsequential, and incompetent forest management is irrelevant. 

It’s gaslighting: perversions of truth designed to make us guilt-ridden, willing to slash our living standards, and happy to keep poor countries energy-deprived and impoverished. 

In the USA and worldwide, fossil fuels still provide 80% of total energy. They’re also the foundation for our economy, living standards, health and longevity – and over 6,000 vital products, including plastics, paints, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, cell phones, eyeglasses, fertilizers and wind turbine blades. 

“Earth-friendly” wind and solar installations would blanket millions of acres of farmland, scenic areas and wildlife habitats; require billions of tons of ores; generate billions of tons of toxic water and air pollution from mining and manufacturing; and send electricity prices skyrocketing to pay for expensive battery or gas backup systems, and extensive new transmission lines and grid upgrades. 

Climate Defiance, Extinction Rebellion and other radical groups nevertheless block pipelines, rant and rampage through our streets, deface priceless artwork, and glue themselves to roads and statues, to intimidate legislators and regulators. 

Others file endless lawsuits to bankrupt fossil fuel projects and promote their twisted views about “climate justice.” Their latest scheme could be viewed as the culmination of their self-indoctrination. 

A recent Harvard Environmental Law Review article proposes prosecuting major oil companies for “climate homicide” and “mass murder” – for supposedly killing people, by raising global temperatures and sea levels, and causing deadlier hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts, heatwaves, blizzards and wildfires. 

Media outlets eagerly promoted the claims – and Soros-funded prosecutors will undoubtedly be thrilled to indict ExxonMobil and other companies, once they’ve put more flash-mob thieves back on our streets. 

But not even these prosecutors – or any judge, jury or “expert witness” – can separate natural from human causes of modern climate change. Nor can they calculate fractions of manmade-climate-change-induced disasters attributable to coal, oil, gas, dung, or “renewable” energy mining and manufacturing; to China and India versus Europe and the United States; or certainly to specific energy companies. 

What they really don’t want addressed in this “climate homicide” discussion, however, is who is actually committing mass murder, especially of women and children, people with disabilities, people of color and other “particularly threatened” groups so supposedly beloved by climate justice warriors. 

My book, Eco-Imperialism: Green power · Black death, forcefully demonstrates that it is these self-righteous climate and environmental activists, and those who fund them, that are callously causing the eco-murder deaths of millions every year – and setting the stage for dramatically more in the future. 

These environmentalist death tolls have worsened, as greens became wealthier, more powerful, more fanatical, and more influential with and within US, EU and UN government agencies. 

More than 750 million people still have no access to electricity; nearly 2 billion have only sporadic access to barely enough electricity to charge cell phones and power a lightbulb or 1-cubic-foot refrigerator – and no juice for modern homes, schools and hospitals, water purification, or factories and other job-creating businesses. 

These people are forced to heat and cook with wood, charcoal or animal dung, inhaling noxious fumes that cause millions of deaths annually from respiratory diseases. Millions more die annually from intestinal diseases due to contaminated water and spoiled food, due to energy deprivation. 

Green fanatics perpetuate the death tolls, by battling anything except grossly insufficient, weather-dependent wind and solar power. (In European and other modern countries, people die of heatstroke when they cannot get or afford air conditioning; nine times more die from cold – from hypothermia and illnesses they’d normally survive if they could afford to heat their homes properly.) 

The fanatics also wage campaigns to deny Third World people access to insecticides and spatial insect repellants that would control disease-carrying flies and mosquitoes and even modern farming practices and technologies. Millions more thus die every year from diseases that are readily preventable or could be cured in modern hospitals (that don’t exist). 

No wonder developing nations increasingly reject Western carbon colonialism.

Radical food groups despise genetically engineered crops that multiply crop yields, survive droughts and slash pesticide spraying by 75% or more. They vilify Golden Rice, which enables malnourished children to avoid Vitamin A Deficiency, blindness and death. 

They demand “AgroEcology,” which rejects virtually everything that helps modern farmers feed billions more people with less acreage and water, and could largely eliminate hunger and malnutrition worldwide. The perverse movement rabidly opposes biotechnology, chemical insecticides, nitrogen fertilizers, and even hybrid seeds, monoculture farming and mechanized equipment like tractors. 

It demands “food sovereignty” for impoverished, malnourished Africans, Asians and Latin Americans – the right to “define their own food and agriculture systems” and have “healthy and culturally appropriate” food produced through “ecologically sound and sustainable methods.” 

Even more bizarre and frightening, major philanthropies like the Rockefeller Foundation and Walton Family Foundation support this craziness! So do the World Bank and many UN agencies. 

They say the world’s food production systems should be “aligned” with the purely arbitrary goal of preventing more than 1.5ºC of global warming since 1850, by “phasing out fossil fuel use, especially fossil-fuel-based chemicals in industrial agriculture.” 

Farmers who want to “define their own food and agriculture systems” by choosing modern technologies and practices get ostracized instead of supported. 

It’s increasingly obvious that climate fear-mongering and GIGO computer models have replaced evidence-based science, history, human nutrition needs and traditional ethical principles. 

But on a more positive note, climate cultists chomping at the bit to see oil companies prosecuted for climate murder should be careful what they wish for. Such a precedent could put eco-imperialists and their financiers on trial for manslaughter on a truly horrific scale. 

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of articles and books on environmental, climate and human rights issues.

The Green Swastika – Environmentalism in the Third Reich

Environmentalism is Fascism

Nazi Germany was the greenest regime the world has ever seen. To an unprecedented degree Third Reich officials enthusiastically promoted: organic farming, reforestation, eco-forestry, endangered species preservation, extirpated species re-introduction, invasive species eradication, wilderness conservation, naturalism, neo-paganism, pantheism, sun-worship, Religion of Nature, holistic science and medicine, herbalism, animal rights, bio-centrism, wind power, bio-fuels, hysterical anti-pollutionism, back-to-the-land anti-urbanism, limits-to-growth and overpopulation propaganda, and apocalyptic anti-industrialism.

 

Such ecological sentiments were not merely the quirks of eccentric Nazis, nor were they held only by a fringe green faction within the Nazi Party, nor were they disposable propaganda motifs. Most Nazis, and most certainly the Party leadership itself, sincerely embraced ecological values. Ecological messaging played a crucial role in the Nazis’ rise to power and in their wielding of power.

 

Nature-worship was neither a peripheral nor an ephemeral phenomenon in the Third Reich. The Nazi intellectual vanguard disparaged humanity vis-à-vis Nature and mocked human efforts to master Nature. The trope of “Nature’s precarious balance” abounds in Nazi literature. Naturalist metaphors and parallels were standard features of Nazi rhetoric.

 

The naturalist-ecological mindset manifested in a wide spectrum of Nazi institutions and practices. Nazi forest and wetland conservation policies were extensive and extraordinary. An idolatrous nurturing of soil was basic to Nazism. Ecological ideas played significant roles in Nazi policies in conquered territories. Even the Third Reich’s modernizing tendencies exhibited pronounced ecological components.

 

Nazi propagandists deployed the overlapping credos of Social Darwinism, Political Biology, and Human Ecology to justify policies of racial supremacy, international war, social hierarchy, authoritarian governance, and corporatist economics. Aristocratic political structures were deemed expressions of Natural Law. Ecological arguments justified the Lebensraum doctrine. Social Darwinist arguments provided a pseudo-scientific rationale for the Holocaust. Nazis murdered in the name of Nature. (1)

 

At the taproot of Nazi environmentalism lay a German aristocracy, besieged by progress and struggling both to re-monopolize state policy-making and to comprehensively cartelize land markets. A resurgent aristocracy formed the nucleus of both German conservationism and German fascism. These were not two separate movements at a distance but rather a single, indivisible bloc................To Read More...

Real Russian collusion the Dems and MSM ignore

Putin pals fund radical groups that interfere with US elections, energy, agriculture and economy  

Paul Driessen @ CFACT

 

Robert Mueller’s politicized investigation into allegations that President Trump or the Trump campaign or some Trump associate somehow colluded with Russians continues unproven but unabated. Many think partisan politics ensure it will not be concluded or terminated before the fall 2018 elections.

 

Federal District Court Judge T. S. Ellis may have rebuked Mueller for attempting to wield “unfettered power” and actually being motivated primarily by a desire to hurt the President. But Mr. Mueller seems determined to find collusion somewhere – except where it seems blatantly obvious: in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s dealings with Putin oligarchs and the Clinton Family Foundation, her presidential campaign’s ties to Russia in funding and utilizing the Steele-Fusion GPS dossier that launched the Mueller probe, a host of top Obama Administration and Democratic National Committee officials who connived to spy on and disrupt the Trump campaign and transition, and multiple other activities.

 

Moreover, Putin cronies and agents have long colluded with Obama- and Clinton-allied organizations in yet another area to impact election outcomes and drive important public policies. Congress, journalists and others have investigated this collusion and bankrolling – but their detailed reports have been ignored by Mueller, Democrats and the “mainstream” media. They need to open their eyes.

 

The US Senate “Billionaires’ Club” and Environmental Policy Alliance “From Russia with Love” reports, articles by investigative journalists like Ron Arnold and Lachlan Markay (here and here), studies by the US National Intelligence Director and Iowa State University, and a March 2018 report by the US House Science Committee reveal money laundering by Putin cronies and ongoing propaganda efforts by Russian media groups to undermine American drilling, fracking, pipeline and agricultural programs. They found:

 

One of the most clandestine and devious arrangements involves firms owned or controlled by Nathaniel Simons and his wife. Tax records reveal that their Sea Change Foundation gives tens of millions a year to the Natural Resources Defense Council, Climate Action Network, League of Conservation Voters, Center for American Progress, Progressive Policy Institute, Food & Water Watch, Sierra Club and others.

 

Extensive Sea Change funding comes through Bermuda-based Klein, Ltd., a shell company whose apparent sole purpose is to channel money covertly to Sea Change, which passes it on to environmental advocacy and “educational” groups. Klein’s only officers are employees of Bermuda law firm Wakefield Quin, its address is the same as WQ’s, and its registered business agents work for Wakefield.

 

Hefty portions of Klein funds come from Russia: Rosneft, the Russian-government-owned oil and gas giant that is one of Wakefield’s largest clients; Spectrum Partners, a Moscow-based energy investment firm with major assets in Russian oil and gas; the IPOC Group, an international growth fund owned by Russian minister of telecommunications and Putin friend Leonid Reiman; and other Russian companies. (Other Sea Change donors include the Gates Foundation, eBay’s Omidyar Network Fund, David Rockefeller’s personal foundation, the Walmart Foundation and the extended Simons family.)

 

The Science Committee Report explains how the Russian government funnel money through surrogates to US environmentalist organizations to fund attacks on the fossil fuels industry. It also reveals how Russian operatives create and spread propaganda on US social media platforms, to manipulate American opinions about pipelines, fossil fuels, fracking and climate change.

 

Before and after the 2016 elections, Russian agents also promoted protests to block pipeline construction and prevent oil and gas production projects, using Twitter and Facebook accounts created by the Russian government-linked Internet Research Agency, Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) noted.

 

Russian operatives use similar tactics to undermine hydraulic fracturing and pipelines in Europe, which depends on Russia for a third of its natural gas. In fact, several countries get 100% of their gas from Putin-controlled companies, creating serious risks of high prices, transmission interruptions and blackmail. Even more troubling, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security have revealed that Russian hackers were behind cyber intrusions into America’s electricity grid – and might have been setting the stage for hack attacks that could cause widespread blackouts in the USA and other nations.

 

On the agriculture front, the Iowa State study found that Russian agents have orchestrated campaigns to disparage genetically engineered (GE) crops that American farmers utilize to produce more food, from less land, using less water and fewer pesticides, and with greater resistance to droughts, floods, insects and climate shifts, than is possible with conventional or organic farming. Precise modern GE technologies also created Golden Rice, which prevents malnutrition, blindness and death in Third World children; heat-resistant wheat; and the corn (maize) US ethanol producers use as their feed stock.

 

However, radical groups like Greenpeace and Food & Water Watch are determined to eliminate every form of agricultural biotechnology. They are just as virulently opposed to pesticides and herbicides.

 

Financed by organic and natural food companies – and by the Russia-Sea Change Laundromat – they are adept at devising and conducting their own anti-GE/GMO, anti-glyphosate, anti-pesticide and other campaigns. All are eagerly and uncritically covered by print, electronic and social media. But US activist groups and news outlets also parrot or expand on Russia’s RT (formerly Russia Today) and Sputnik propaganda stories that likewise falsely portray these technologies as risky for people and planet.

 

Why do they do all this? US fracking operations, oil and gas exports, miraculous agricultural output, and corn, wheat and other crop exports have hurt Russia’s income, economy, ruble and military. By supporting radical green groups, Russian agents impair US energy and agricultural exports, increase export opportunities for Russian companies, advance their nation’s economic and geopolitical ambitions, especially regarding Europe – and (they hope) make Russia stronger by making America weaker.

 

Foundations, government agencies, rich liberals like Michael Bloomberg, corporations and other donors agree with the green agenda, want to avoid activist attacks, or just can’t see past utopian assertions to recognize what Hard Green agendas really do, especially to working class and Third World families.

 

Radical greens gladly take Russian funds because they can never have too much money to advance their domestic and international ambitions. As Ron Arnold notes in our book Cracking Big Green: just the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace and ten other major US eco organizations raked in $2.1 billion in 2012. Total revenue for all US environmentalist groups exceeds $6.5 billion a year. Over a 12-year period, they received more than $21 billion from major foundations; countless millions in taxpayer money from US government agencies during the Obama era; and billions from other sources.

 

All this cash is fungible. Even if these shady, secretive Russian contributions aen’t used directly to fund anti-energy and anti-technology campaigns – or to air political ads, support candidates (some 99.9% of them Democrats) and influence elections – they free up other funds that do exactly that. And the donors and recipients are fundamentally in sync philosophically on totalitarian socialism, global governance, wealth redistribution, disguised but real disdain for the less fortunate, and detesting America (especially under President Trump) and free enterprise capitalism.

 

All of this is illuminating and disturbing, but hardly surprising. It’s yet another example of greens and other leftists demanding ethics, responsibility, transparency and accountability – except for themselves.

 

So if Mr. Mueller and Judge Ellis ultimately decide there actually are no limits to the scope of these “Russian collusion” investigations and interrogations, perhaps they can focus some of Mueller’s staff and seemingly bottomless budget on the HRC activities noted above; the suspicious funding and spending practices of the Clinton Foundation; and the ongoing transfer of countless millions of dollars from Russia through secretive laundering outfits to radical environmentalist groups that are deeply involved in US policy-making, pressure campaigns, shareholder actions, and political elections of every description.

 

That investigation into Russian collusion would be an eye-opening service to America and the world.

 

About the Author: Paul Driessen

 

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy and environmental science and policy.

Dictatorship of the Landlords - The Green Roots of the Housing Crisis

William Kay

 

The methodology underpinning this posting consisted of a representative survey of land-use and housing documents published by leading free market advocacy groups. Of the 100 groups investigated, 21 were found to have both prominence within the pro-market advocacy community, and to have devoted conspicuous resources to the land/housing issue. From these 21 groups (Cato Institute, Heartland Foundation, Fraser Institute, Frontier Centre, Institute for Public Affairs et al), 33 reports and 35 articles were dissected. To clarify certain statistics, several additional articles and reports from the mainstream media and from government agencies were summoned. A recent Harvard study on housing and a paper on commercial property from the Journal of Real Estate Management also proved helpful. To keep things germane, the canon was restricted to documents published during the last decade.

 

From the 2,000 pages of free market think tank literature perused, some preliminary observations can be made. The groups surveyed self-identify as advocates of: deregulation, privatization, free enterprise, limited government, property rights, individual liberty, lower taxes, and competitive entrepreneurialism. While some hold up this agenda as an end unto itself, most promote this agenda as a means to achieve: economic growth; poverty alleviation; efficient resource use; and the general enhancement of opportunity, innovation, and prosperity.

 

While this entire community could be categorized as “classical liberal,” only the UK’s Adam Smith Institute keeps the “liberal” flag flying. The word “liberal” has been anathematized across the English-speaking world’s pro-market community, especially in the USA. Despite this, surprisingly few of the surveyed groups embrace the term “conservative.” Most prefer epaulette collages wherein “free market” and “limited government” find salience......To Read More...

History of Environmentalism

With Lenin's birthday....oops....sorry...... Earth Day coming, this couldn't have come at a better time.  We need to start paying attention to exactly what these people are up to.  It isn't a secret, it is right out in the open, if we are prepared to see and recognize reality.  RK

Delingpole’s Watermelons

By William Walter Kay

A British Libertarian Bristles Amidst Blustery Times - James Delingpole (b. 1965) has an MA in English from Oxford. His science education peaked at high school physics; a class he took as prep for fighter pilot training. His main career fantasy at the time was to be an SAS commander who would win a Victoria Cross fighting the Soviets. Delingpole’s hostility to environmentalists does not extend to plants, animals, and countrysides. He and his wife rent a holiday cottage in Wales where they and their two children stride across near-deserted hills, forage for bilberries, and gawk at unspoiled views. He shudders at the thought of these vistas blighted by wind turbines. He claims rainforests are devastated by biofuel policies. He has a soft spot for whales and considers wildlife corridors sensible…….In 1992 Prince Charles flew to Rio to proclaim there were 100 months left to prevent climate catastrophe. He then flew home, boarded the biofuel-powered Royal train, and toured Britain to lecture his future subjects on the need to live sustainably. To share the burden, he converted his vintage Aston Martin to run on biofuels. Delingpole recently deprecated Charles as a spoiled and loony prat......Delingpole parallels the 1930s fascist sweep to modern climate alarmism. He likens becoming a climate activist to joining the Nazis. He views the fascistic facets of environmentalism as un-severable. Anti-capitalism, suppression of growth, contempt for democracy, curtailment of liberty, misanthropism, world domination are as integral to environmentalism as lebensraum and death camps were to Nazism.
He contends: “What we’re seeing with the Climate Wars, writ large, is the phenomenon Hitler described in Mein Kampf when he talked about the Big Lie.”   Hitler and Mussolini were fans of socio-psychologist Le Bon who argued masses are only as clever as their dullest members; hence, propaganda must be simple and repetitive......The Third Reich was the first regime to pass national environmental laws and to champion organic foods (an obsession of Himmler’s) and vegetarianism (a fad of Hitler’s). Goring was an animal rights activist. The Third Reich was the first to attack overpopulation with rigorous planning and mechanised efficiency.......




###

New at Environmentalism is Fascism

___

Dowie's Conservation Refugees

The author of Conservation Refugees, Mark Dowie, is the former publisher and editor of Mother Jones magazine. Six books and 200 articles have won him 18 awards. Researching this peer-reviewed M.I.T. Press-published text involved years of globe-trotting and the interviewing of many conservation and indigenous leaders. Dowie was privy to several leaked documents from major conservation organizations. Unusually, this book has no Acknowledgements section and does not mention Dowie’s patrons.

Highlights:

Between 1900 and 1950 about 600 wilderness parks were created worldwide. 400 were added in the 1950s. Today there are 110,000 such parks. 12% of Earth’s land is now conservationist controlled. This is an area larger than Africa. This is an area equal to half of humanity’s farmland.

There is nothing civil about Third World environmental activism. Truckloads of armed men arrive at frontier villages. They torch shacks, wreck wells, rustle livestock, and confiscate firearms. This has happened thousands of times.

The global tally of conservation refugees is somewhere between 5 and 20 million. Dowie estimates 10 million. One scholar estimates 14 million conservation refugees in Africa alone. The topic of conservation refugees has been assiduously neglected by academia. Conservation refugees are invisible because visibility raises the price of conservation.

After 1970, in a top-down process, elite enviro-organizations recruited and indoctrinated an auxiliary from the world’s most atavistic indigenous peoples. This puppet sub-movement is now fronting much environmentalist obstruction.

Conservationists are divided between those who advocate complete depopulation of hinterlands and those who want indigenous-environmentalist auxiliaries to govern these areas.

###

Petropoulos - Royals and the Reich

Petropoulos - Royals and the Reich

This is from the Environmentalism is Fascism Website and outlines much of the history of the green movement; who they are and who they have always been. I would like to thank Mr. Kay for sending this to me. RK

By William Kay

An important feature environmentalism shares with fascism is the centrality, within each movement, of the European aristocracy. However, while aristocrats flaunt their environmental credentials, they conceal their past involvement with fascism. This is why Jonathon Petropoulos’ Royals and the Reich (Oxford, 2006) is so useful.

Highlights:

270 German princes and princesses were Nazi Party members. A sampling of 312 “old aristocratic” families found 3,592 Party members. Every noble family east of the Elbe River had at least one member in the Party. A third of Nazi-aristocrats joined the Party before Hitler became Chancellor; a majority supported the Nazis, or like groups, before this date. Nobles were the most fascistic of any demographically identifiable cohort.

Royal Hohenzollern princes were high-profile Nazi campaigners during the Nazis’ struggle for power.  Aristocrats occupied thousands of top government posts during the Third Reich.

King Edward VIII was a Nazi. He was definitely guilty of treason and possibly guilty of attempted regicide. Edward did not abdicate in order to marry Wallis Simpson. He was forced from the throne by PM Baldwin because Edward was heading up a Nazi fifth column in the UK.   George V, George VI, the Duke of Kent and scores of British aristocrats promoted “appeasement.” This “peace movement” was an effort to steer Britain into the Axis.

Western Europe’s aristocracy, including most German princes, survived World War II. They retained, even supplemented, their land holdings. Over the past few decades they have engineered a remarkable renaissance.

My Take – It has been known for years that the Duke of Windsor AKA Edward VIII was involved in treasonous actions, even after he was removed from the throne. According to William Stephenson, the head of British Foreign Intelligence in the western hemisphere during WWII, this is why Churchill ordered him to the Bahamas. The claim was that they wanted to separate the royal family for security purposes, but treasonous support for Hitler by the Duke and Duchess was the real reason. This is why the royal family always shunned her for all of those years after the war, and not because she married Edward. Much of this came out in 1975 in the book, “A Man Called Intrepid” because the British Secrets Act thirty year embargo on that information ended and he wanted to explain why they made the decisions they did. It is unfortunate that the fifty year embargo has been extended indefinitely.

This will be linked permanently on the History of Environmentalism page.

###