Happy Earth Day!

Today is Earth Day.  Rather than celebrating the truly incredible nature of the planet God created for us, many will use this day to push harder than ever before to persuade you that our planet is in the throes of death, and only 'green' measures such as expensive mercury-filled light bulbs will save it.  I've blogged about this before: this is a prime example of humanity worshiping the creation rather than the Creator.  More on that in a moment.

Nevertheless, I will participate in Earth Day, in my own fashion.  I have chosen three links that really hit home with me in contemplating this particular day.  First is Michelle Malkin:

April 22 is Earth Day. Get ready for an orgy of eco-sanctimony. I've often joked that the real agenda of the Greenies is to send us back into the Dark Ages–literally and figuratively. In contrast to the Gulfstream Liberal jet set who preach environmental socialism while enjoying the fruits of the free market, however, there are many left-wing world leaders who are open about their true aims. Take Bolivian thug president Evo Morales.

Bolivian President Evo Morales has told a UN forum that capitalism should be scrapped if the planet is to be saved from the effects of climate change.

"If we want to save our planet earth, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system," he said.

Opening an UN meeting in New York on the rights of indigenous people, he also said the development of biofuels harmed the world's poorest people.

The forum's theme is the global impact of climate change on native people. Mr Morales gave the keynote address at the opening of the seventh session of the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. As a descendent of the Aymara people, he is Bolivia's first indigenous president.

Bolivia's left-wing president said unbridled industrial development was responsible for the pillaging of natural resources. Speaking through an interpreter at the UN headquarters in New York, he had this uncompromising message: "If we want to save our planet earth, to save life, to save mankind, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system."

She then references a Heartland Institute article from a couple years ago that includes these excerpts:

Contrary to the slogans of demonstrators throughout the world, the nations that have the best track records on environmental protection and improvement are those with the highest amount of free-market capitalism.

Make no mistake, the anti-capitalism demonstrators often add environmentalism to their claimed objectives solely because it attracts many gullible young persons and appears to legitimize their activities, which often have little or nothing to do with the environment.

Nations with the freest economic systems are the ones whose citizens can afford the luxury of protecting their environments. Conversely, persons living in command-and-control economies barely surviving on life's necessities of food, clothing, and shelter use their natural resources to the absolute limit. They have no other choice in providing for themselves and their families…

…Beware the individual, group, or organization that relentlessly attacks the free enterprise system, bashes big business, and bashes corporations. Too often their real agenda is power–power to remake the economic and social systems to suit their own command-and-control goals, not to serve the public good as they so loudly proclaim.

Free enterprise capitalism provides the economic lifeblood for many of the world's poor. The late senator Paul Tsongas said in his speech at the 1992 Democratic Convention, "You cannot redistribute wealth you never created. You can't be pro-jobs and anti-business at the same time. You cannot love employment and hate employers."

Environmentalists who sincerely desire to advance their cause must disassociate themselves from anti-capitalists and destroyers of the social orders of communities, nations, and the world.

Nothing highlights this problem more than the Heidelberg Statement, which was signed in the spring of 199[2] by 250 prominent scientists, including 27 Nobel Prize winners. It noted, "We are worried at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development. The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, not science, technology, and industry. We do forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudo-scientific arguments or false and non-relevant data."

Malkin points out that over 4,000 scientists have signed the Heidelberg Statement calling for reason on this irrational topic.  What you have here is anti-capitalists using the environment as an excuse to attack America and its foundational principles.

Rick Moran adds this commentary:

The environmentalists will never admit that the free market is better in the long run for the earth because it would ruin their plan for control - control of not only the economy but the world's population as well.

After all, they know best for us all.

This, I think, is the key to the environmentalist wacko movement.  It is not about science, nor is it about the environment.  It is about control.  I absolutely love this last article by David Bueche.  He nails this thing to the wall, so read the whole thing:

I drove by a Protestant church recently that had the following moral exhortation on their lawn marquee:

"Saving the world, one light-bulb at a time."

Wow!  Talk about a test of faith.  Don't think you're going to slide through the gates of heaven without renouncing Satan's bulbs -- not a chance!

Later that week a Liberal friend asked me, "Do you believe in global warming?"  As I contemplated my answer I was struck with conflicting images - a Senate sub-committee, and a child asking about Santa.  To his credit, he stuck with me through my multi-part response.  To wit:

1. The world has been warming since approximately 1650 when it reached its latest low and almost dipped into a modern Ice Age.  This episode is well-recorded and notable for its misery as crop yields declined, economic activity contracted, and people were generally extremely cold.  On the lighter side...  you could ice skate on the Thames.  But all in all, not a good trend...
2. The world is now the same temperature as it was in 1000 A.D.  We've basically climbed out of the trough that we descended into for 650 years and now enjoy the same general climate as feudal rulers and Vikings a millennium ago.   ("Beautiful day wouldn't you say Erik?  This is pillaging weather Gefhert - pass me that mace!")
3. Theoretically, there is some incredibly complex formula that explains weather, temperature and climate.  We will probably never comprehend it in any great detail in the lifetimes of any of us. If ever.
4. Since we've only been in the carbon footprint game for a short period, there are obviously other big levers which control climate, (as evidenced by the repeated warming and cooling of the planet -- the majority of which preceded humans entirely). 
5. If you were omniscient and could see this formula, there would probably be a legitimate factor in the equation representing human emission of CO² through industrial processes and agriculture.  It is quite possible that this factor is a very minor influence on the equation as a whole.
6. It is our influence on this possibly trivial climatic input that is being debated. 

I asked what brought all this to mind.  In short, why the long face?

What followed was the standard global warming litany: Crop failures, rising tides, malaria in Vermont, people dying of heatstroke during the endless summer, etc., etc., etc...

I countered each point with one of two arguments:

• This problem already exists and can be solved more efficiently by directly focusing on it than by attempting to manipulate the global climate - (For example, malaria can currently be eradicated for pennies on the dollar, and will never be a problem in Vermont)
• This "problem" is not really a problem at all.  It either doesn't exist, or is the lesser of two possible outcomes. (For example, a warmer world will cause a slightly higher incidence in summer heatstroke, which will be completely negated by the decrease in winter deaths due to cold.  The modeling that's been done, [for what its worth], actually shows an overall net decrease in mortality in the "warmer world" scenario due to the fact that humans adapt more readily to heat than cold).

At some point along the way I realized I was making him angry.  It wasn't that I was being abrasive or disrespectful.  I was responding point by point to each of supposed global warming calamities.  "We can fix all this stuff now," I said.  "No need to give up your SUV, no buildings underwater, no tribes of cannibals living in the burned out skeleton of Baby Gap."  This should be good news, correct?

That's where you'd be wrong.  The thing you need to realize is that all these supposed outcomes are a smokescreen.  Most global warming activists don't really care about people being fed or preventing malaria.  If that's what they were concerned about they would focus on that.  Trying to address world hunger by worrying about CO² levels is about as direct as trying to become a famous actor by waiting tables in a Hollywood restaurant, (actually that may be a little too pessimistic but you get the picture).

The "science" of global warming is nothing more than a cover for their irrational emotional needs.  It's religion for people who are too cool to go to church.  All that yearning, the need for something bigger, transcendent: Hey the planet's heating up and I've been placed here to save it!

When Al Gore says, "The Earth has a fever," no one calls him on his cartoon personification -- as if the Earth has a temperature it prefers. 

Compare this to GW's comment that Jesus Christ was his favorite philosopher - "Oh what a sad misguided fool.  He still believes in God.  And this is the guy who's running our country?"

To borrow a phrase, (as I have liberally in this post), from the brilliant statistician and eco-philosopher, Bjorn Lomborg, visualize the people living on Earth 100 years from now.  Let's imagine that they can reach back in time and speak to us, give us some feedback on the world we'll be leaving them.  What do you think they'd ask us to focus on?  Where would they have us concentrate our scarce time and energy? 

A world in which hunger and AIDS have been eradicated or  a world where the sea level is 6 inches lower?

A world free of Jihad where everyone lives under some form of representative democracy, or a world that is 2.1 degrees cooler in the months between October and March?

A world with 10% more polar bear habitat or a world where even the poorest or the poor have clean water and a sanitary place to go to the bathroom?

These are our choices.  We can't do everything.

And frankly, to hear people who are so wealthy that they're clinically obese from excess food and leisure time yammering on about what kind of light-bulbs they use, while other people are literally starving to death...  It's beyond bizarre.  It speaks to a frightening level of self-deception that seemingly intelligent folks engage in en masse.

Which brings us back to the church I saw.  Is this what passes for morality today?  Is this what constitutes a courageous stand?  Is this honestly the best we can do? 

Do you know how much the sea level rose since 1850?  1 foot. 

And what did we do?  How did we handle this catastrophe?  Well, actually, we didn't notice that it was happening -- that's how horrible the climate change we experienced was.

Do you know how much the UN's IPCC panel predicts the sea level will rise by 2100?  One foot.* It may be the same nightmare we went through last time. Or maybe half the nightmare.

So next time you fret about whether your car is Gore compliant or if you're protecting your precious Gaia by buying carbon offsets for your private jet, think for a minute about how it would look to our friends a hundred years hence, or better yet, to a little kid in present-day Africa or Asia who's starving to death.

Maybe we ought to return to an elemental truth the folks a hundred years in our past knew clearly and without reservation. 

People come first - the Earth can take care of itself.

Bueche is exactly right!  The key phrase is this: "global warming is nothing more than a cover for their irrational emotional needs.  It's religion for people who are too cool to go to church."  Paul predicted this in the Bible thousands of years ago, in Romans 1:25:  "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator."  Even the high priest of environmentalism himself, Al Gore, has said this is a moral issue.

On this Earth Day, let's remember what truly matters.  Our world is an incredible place, and a unique place in the universe.  God put it here, God put us here, and God has blessed us here with life and freedom.  Don't buy the hype of 'global warming' or 'climate change', or any other politically correct way they phrase it.  Environmentalism is, at its heart, an attempt to control the world while rejecting the Creator and worshiping the creation itself.

There's my two cents.