Previous Breaking News: Environmentalist |
Most Environmentalists tend to be Leftists who insist on censoring, blocking and sometimes destroying human use of the environment for productive purposes. Going way beyond conservationism, they seek legal limitations on human use of the Earth's natural environment and resources. Media reporting usually blurs the distinction between "no-use" environmentalism and "wise-use" conservation. Some liberals who promote left-wing policies claim to be "conservative" in order to deceive conservatives into adopting socialist policies.[1]
David Gelernter wrote:
In June 2007 residents of Lake Tahoe California were furious at environmentalists and the grip they hold on government regulators who refused to allow the clearing of dead trees. 1,300 homes sustained damage, and the newly homeless victims blamed the special interest environmentalists for their woes.
The amount of fuel in the Tahoe Basin reached critical levels after years of discord among environmentalists and government agencies over how to thin forests and reduce the fire threat. And it has led to predictions of a devastating wildfire because the basin is one of the areas with the most fire starts in the Sierra Nevada.[3]
Citing a heretofore unknown connection between the environment, animal rights, and vegetarianism movements, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) requested of Democratic Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid special treatment in administration of tax laws used to support ecological sustainability. PETA President Ingrid Newkirk alleges, "[V]egetarians are responsible for far fewer greenhouse-gas emissions and other kinds of environmental degradation than meat-eaters," and that vegetarians should receive a tax break "just as people who purchase a hybrid vehicle enjoy a tax break."
Asked how would the government certify the special interest tax break would go to vegetarians only, PETA spokesman Matt Prescott said, "I imagine that a system could be adopted whereby taxpayers could show receipts for food purchases and/or sign an affidavit attesting … that they are vegetarian." [4]
The environmentalist movement has taken on a new age religious philosophy, and this belief system is considered to be the religion of choice for urban atheists and is one of the most powerful religions in the Western World:
“ | The religion of environmentalism is a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths. There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe.
Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative religious beliefs. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith. Facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.[5] |
” |
Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore sees a "spiritual crisis" in global warming.[6] He also believes that goddess worship is a better and more legitimate spiritual belief than Christianity and that the life of human beings is comparable to that of trees.[7] British biologist James Lovelock [8] first publicly explained the Gaia theory - that the earth as a whole is a living, conscious organism.[9] Rep. Helen Chenoweth (R-Idaho) has described this phenomenon as "environmental religion" and says that it has "profound constitutional implications" because of the First Amendment prohibition on government establishment of religion.[10]
Dr. Reid Bryson, founding chairman of the department of meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and of the Institute for Environmental Studies, now known as the Gaylord Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies and is known as the father of scientific climatology says of global warming:
“ | It's almost a religion. Where you have to believe in anthropogenic (or man-made) global warming or else you are nuts.[11] | ” |
Environmentalism has been called "school prayer for liberals", in the sense that it functions as a substitute spiritual experience for them, since they lack a true spiritual connection to God. This allows them to feel good about themselves, if only temporarily.[12]
“ | And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Genesis 1:28 | ” |
Many Christians have looked to this passage to justify their use of the gifts God has left us in and on the Earth. Construction, farming, fishing, logging, mining, oil drilling, hunting, industry, and the like are all examples of human beings making the most of our dominion, converting it into glorious products that help our fellow man. Products like medicine, shelter, and food satisfy the basic needs of mankind, while other products make a life serving God easier and more effective.
Creation Ministries International points out:
“ | The reality is that nations and cultures with a Christian background have, on the whole, the best track records when it comes to issues like pollution, etc. Following the collapse of communism, the appalling environmental track record of these socialist ‘model states’, run on atheistic assumptions, went on world display.[13] | ” |
However, other Christians interpret this as stewardship, the belief that human beings are "caretakers" of the Earth.
Deep ecology is an environmental movement that rejects modern culture and seeks to include non-human life in the moral circle. They find the cause of the current ecological crisis in the modern attitude towards the environment. The theory can be defined as the following principles;
Issues that arise from the practice of this theory is where one life form needs another life form as food. Such an example may include humans needing to eat a cow, how would a deep ecologist justify this?
According to the U.S. EPA, "sustainability creates and maintains the conditions under which humans and nature can exist in productive harmony, that permit fulfilling the social, economic and other requirements of present and future generations."[14] There are two things wrong with this liberal concept of sustainability. The first is that it directly contradicts the word of God (as described above), since living in productive harmony is not the same as humans having domion over nature. The other important point is that the EPA's definition does not take into account rapidly changing social and economic conditions. There are numerous examples of economically[15] or socially[16] valuable activities that are not regarded as "sustainable."
See wilderness
For deep ecology see Environmental Ethics; A Guide. Hammerman and Gass 1993
Categories: [Political Terms] [Environmentalism]