Environmentalists Want to Save the World, But You’ve Got to Go

Scratch a committed environmentalist, you’ll almost always find a misanthrope of some sort.

That nearly all so-called “green” policies are intended to work at the expense of humanity should be made obvious by any review of environmental programs and proposals.

Take the recent trend toward banning plastic bags because of all the fish and wildlife allegedly getting caught in or choking on them.

take our poll - story continues below

Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?

  • Will the Democrats try to impeach President Trump now that they control the House?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Godfather Politics updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Trending: Climate Priests Furious Over Report of Booming Polar Bear Population

A study by the National Center on Policy Analysis looked at the real effect of plastic bag bans on the economy in Los Angeles County, where a number of cities have recently passed the bans and county regulations have been phased in during the past couple of years.

The findings of the study were very clear. Businesses affected by the bag bans saw their business shrink by 6 percent, while those not covered by the regulations grew by 9 percent overall. The affected businesses reported a 10 percent spike in unemployment, while unaffected businesses reported 2 percent increased employment.

This was during a time when general unemployment in Los Angeles County decreased from 13.4 percent to 11.1 percent over the past two years.

The study also points out that most plastic bags used at stores are made in America by an industry that employs more than 30,000 people directly and many more indirectly. Reusable bags are mostly imported. Further, plastic bags require less energy (182,361 kcal) to make than paper bags (626,672.9 kcal).

Consider another green policy that’s sticking it to Americans. In the past several years, there’s been a huge increase in corn production, most of it allegedly for the sake of making fuel to replace gasoline.

Normally an increase in the supply of a crop would make the price of that crop go down, but because almost half of all corn is being diverted to dabbling in ethanol under the Renewable Fuel Standard, there is less available for more traditional uses such as feeding livestock, especially with this year’s drought. It’s gotten so bad that some ranchers have tried feeding their cattle foods that just aren’t fit for a cow, including in at least one publicized case, candy.

The result for consumers is soaring prices of meat that comes from poorly nourished, possibly sickly, animals.

But hey, we’ve got a lot of ethanol you probably can’t use. It also hasn’t helped bring down gasoline prices at all, as you may have noticed.

But the ultimate in green fantasies is to attack the real source of the imagined problem — man.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in July co-sponsored a “family planning” summit that marked the 100th anniversary of the First  International Eugenics Congress in London.

It also included sponsors like the United Kingdom Department for International Development, Planned Parenthood and the U.N. Populations Fund.

According to WorldNet Daily, the summit was held 100 years after the first congress led by Leonard Darwin, Charles Darwin’s son, and dedicated to Francis Galton, Charles Darwin’s cousin who coined the term “eugenics” for the theory that selective breeding would improve humanity.

The original 1912 conference promoted the idea that the economy could be improved by decreasing the population of poor people. It was based on the ideas of Thomas Malthus, a 17th century writer who believed the poor were a drag on the world’s resources. Malthus believed large numbers of peasants should be killed to resolve the situation and promoted the idea of relocating people to live near swamps so that they would contract fatal diseases.

Bill and Melinda Gates have been advocates of population control for some time, promoting contraception in Third World countries and other impoverished areas.

In 2010, at an invitation-only conference in Long Beach, Bill Gates gave a speech titled “Innovating to Zero,” in which he said CO2 emissions have to be reduced to zero by 2050. Gates presented a formula: CO2 (total population emitted CO2 per year) = P (people) x S (services per person) x E (average energy per service) x C (average CO2 emitted per unit of energy).

Regarding people, Gates said, “Let’s take a look. First we got population. The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.”

He also talked about using cell phone technology to track all births and immunizations worldwide.

At another conference, mHealth Summit, Gates explained his theory that by improving health care, within a decade, parents start deciding to have fewer children.

According to Natural News, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was involved in immunizing children in Malawi against measles — a program that was enforced at gunpoint against parents’ religious objections.

The Gates Foundation is involved in other projects to limit the births of “surplus” people, such as giving a grant to develop a form of ultrasound that makes men sterile, and partnering with the World Health Organization, which forces sterilization of women around the world.

And that’s the bottom line. Greenies want to save the world at your expense.

Previous Obama Increased Foreign Debt By 72%
Next Whites Need Not Apply for Reasons of 'Diversity'


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.