The ambitions of Big Green

 American Thinker:

...

Just take a look at the Sierra Club's website today, and see what its goals are for 2030.  Within the next seven years, the Sierra Club hopes to eliminate enough coal and gas in the energy sector to make for 80% carbon "pollution"–free electricity by that time, in addition to decreasing oil used in the transportation sector by 18%, ending the sale of gas appliances, and halting the fossil fuel market by banning oil and gas exports and petrochemical expansion at the same time.  This is an ambitious plan...and also a complete load of BS and magical thinking. 

Although it may not faze most people at first, notice how they call carbon a "pollutant" and claim they want to reduce it by 80% in electricity production.  Since when is carbon a pollutant?  Carbon is an element necessary to all life on earth. No organism can survive without it.  Indeed, the entire process on which all human life depends, photosynthesis, requires carbon dioxide.  In order for plants to produce oxygen for living beings to breathe, they must first collect carbon dioxide dispelled from the living being breathing the air they are producing.  Numerous studies have indicated that areas with higher carbon concentration are more green and more fertile, not less. 

So why would the Green cult want to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere?  Also, if the Green cult is so concerned about the effects of fossil fuels, then why is it so opposed to using nuclear energy, a form of energy production that requires zero fossil fuel at all, while simultaneously endorsing solar panels and windmills, which use fossil fuels throughout their energy production processes?  The Green cult knows that the wind isn't always blowing and the sun is only out for about half the day, so why would cultists favor unsustainable energy sources like wind and solar?  Could it be because the "climate crisis" hysteria is actually just a mask that their movement is wearing?  Do they actually believe the hyperbolic nonsense they spew?  Or could their environmental alarmism be cover for something more sinister? 

It probably isn't a coincidence that most environmentalists, and especially the crowd at the World Economic Forum (WEF), also happen to be fairly Malthusian in attitude.  Moral connotations aside, Malthusianism, named after English economist and demographer Thomas Malthus, essentially states that, by necessity, human population growth will outpace the scarce available resources within a given society and that, for a society to be stable, the population growth rate should be stabilized or reduced to match the available resources.  The Green cult and their WEF allies clearly believe that a steadily growing human population is straining the Earth's resources and is causing irreversible damage to the natural habitat, the landscape, and especially the climate.  The Environmentalist Conquistadors seek not only to preserve the ecosystem, but to destroy anything they deem as a threat to it, including humans. 

The WEF, for instance, predicts that by 2100, the population of the Earth will be between 6.3 and 8.8 billion people.  As it stands now, the population of the Earth is about 8 billion people.  That means that the entire population of the Earth will either be fairly dramatically reduced (by 1.7 billion people) at the low end, or hardly increase at all.  Whether you think this would be a good or bad thing is irrelevant, the point is that the WEF wants, predicts, and is betting on a decreased population, and so are their environmentalist friends, who view a decreased human population as a "healthy" trend for the Earth's sake. 

...

The projections of the climate change crowd have been serially wrong for decades.  They fall into the same category of many who came before them making predictions of the end times.