Is the Green Movement Anti-Human?

That is the assertion made in a recent National Review article.  The subtitle of the article is “The use of fictitious necessity to rationalize human oppression is not new.”  The phrase “fictitious necessity” refers to the amn made global warming argument.  It is not the first time that someone has argued that the scientific case for man made global warming may be fictitious, but such a fiction is necessary.  Consider the following quote from one of the GW theories supporters: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world” –Christine Stewart, then Canadian Minister of the Environment, before the editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald, 1998 and quoted by Terence Corcoran, “Global Warming: The Real Agenda“, Financial Post, 26 December 1998 from the Calgery Herald.  The National Review article notes that the notions of human justice and equality are not the primary concern of all of the theory’s proponents:

On February 11, 2013, the Denver Post ran a guest commentary of great clinical interest. In the piece in question, Colorado State University philosophy professor Philip Cafaro advanced the argument that immigration needs to be sharply cut, because otherwise people from Third World nations will come to the United States and become prosperous, thereby adding to global warming.

“And make no mistake: Immigrants are not coming to the United States to remain poor,” warns the philosopher. “Those hundreds of millions of new citizens will want to live as well and consume energy at the same rates as other Americans. . . . What climate change mitigation measures . . . could possibly equal the increased greenhouse gas emissions we would lock in by adding 145 million more new citizens to our population?”

Heaven forbid that people would want to become prosperous.  Unfortunately, professor Cafaro is not alone in the global environmentalist movement when it comes to expressing such anti-human sentiments.  Consider the following quotes:

“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” — Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.

“A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.” — Paul Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich, “Population, Resources, Environment” (W.H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1970, 323)

“If you ask me, it’d be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we would do with it. We ought to be looking for energy sources that are adequate for our needs, but that won’t give us the excesses of concentrated energy with which we could do mischief to the earth or to each other.” — Amory Lovins, The Mother Earth – Plowboy Interview, Nov/Dec 1977, p. 22

“Giving society cheap, abundant energy … would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” — Paul Ehrlich, “An Ecologist’s Perspective on Nuclear Power”, May/June 1978 issue of Federation of American Scientists Public Issue Report

“We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the same industrialization, we have in the U.S. We have to stop these Third World countries right where they are.” — Michael Oppenheimer. Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University. He joined the Princeton faculty after more than two decades with Environmental Defense, is a long-time participant in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), serving most recently as a lead author of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report.

“We’ve already had too much economic growth in the US. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure.” — Ehrlich again.

“The planet is about to break out with fever, indeed it may already have, and we [human beings] are the disease. We should be at war with ourselves and our lifestyles.” — Thomas Lovejoy, assistant secretary to the Smithsonian Institution.

“The only real good technology is no technology at all. Technology is taxation without representation, imposed by our elitist species (man) upon the rest of the natural world.” — John Shuttleworth, FoE manual writer.

“People are the cause of all the problems; we have too many of them; we need to get rid of some of them, and this (ban of DDT) is as good a way as any.” Charles Wurster, Environmental Defense Fund.

“We can and should seize upon the energy crisis as a good excuse and great opportunity for making some very fundamental changes that we should be making anyhow for other reasons.” — Russell Train (EPA Administrator at the time, and soon thereafter became head of the World Wildlife Fund), Science 184 p. 1050, 7 June 1974

“The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man.” — Alan Gregg, former longtime official of the Rockerfeller Foundation

“Man is always and everywhere a blight on the landscape.” — John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club

“Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental.”– Dave Forman, Earth First! and Sierra Club director (1995-1997)

“Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.” — John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal.

In the United States the policies pushed by the so-called “Green” movement are merely slowing our growth at the moment.  The results in the developing world, however, are more drastic.  In a book entitled “Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death” Paul Driessen introduces the idea of eco-imperialism as the forceful imposition of western environmental views on developing countries with devastating results.  He tells a tragic tale of life and death as such policies stymie economic development and actually create more hazardous environmental conditions.  For more details, see his site.