I have linked - repeatedly - to articles from all over the world that indicate that it has never been easier to rape the earth than it is today. All you have to do is say you are fighting "global warming" and you are good to go. Eradicate the orangutans? Cool, just say you're producing biofuel. Torch the rain forests. Ditto. Enslave humans to make ethanol. Easily done. It's for the good of the planet! Displace native people? Piece of cake. (Biofuel is a great excuse for earth-rape.) Make humans run on giant hamster wheels? Carbon offsets, baby! This is so damn easy.
Again - It. Has. Never. Been. Easier. To. Rape. The. Planet.
Plant trees? Absolutely useless and a fraud.
I am a happy subscriber and/or member of the following publications and/or groups: National Geographic Magazine, the Audubon Magazine, the National Audubon Society, the Iowa Audubon Society, Birds and Blooms, the Iowa Ornithologists Union, and a few others. Although all of these organizations and/or publications are fantastic, I more-than-occasionally have to read through, or hear, the anti-Bush Administration rant of a few environmentalists. On occasion, I even read a well-reasoned, well-researched and not so-impassioned-that-it-can’t-be-taken-seriously report on the Bush Administration and the environment. Imagine my surprise when I opened the new Audubon this weekend and found an article disputing heartily the “accepted” practice of planting trees to offset carbon emissions. I was shocked. Enviro-hippies and liberals can dismiss what comes from the Bush Administration as partisan and political, but not what comes from Audubon. Their credentials are almost unmatched as protectors of the environment.
Anyway, the article got pulled from Audubon’s website (I have no idea why), but Google cached it (thanks, Google!).
Here it is. READ IT. The article is entitled “As Ugly As A Tree” and is written by Ted Williams.
Americans are on a tree-planting binge, on the premise that jamming seedlings into the ground can offset carbon pollution. In truth, they’re causing a lot of harm. The public doesn’t understand that forests and trees are not the same thing. Forests are comprised of many organisms, only a few of which are trees. Planting monocultures of alien trees or even native trees doesn’t restore forests; it prevents them. This is why naturalists find recurring pledges to plant, say, a “billion trees” so terrifying. Having engaged such formidable labor as the Boy Scouts, the United Nations’ Plant for the Planet campaign now vows to cluster-bomb the globe with “a billion trees”—all in 2007. As part of this effort it encourages faux-forest monocultures, or “sustainably managed plantations,” as it prefers to call them. But few plantations are “sustainable,” and most deplete water and require massive chemical fixes of fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides. Plant for the Planet partners include the U.N.’s Food and Agriculture Organization and the Program for the Endorsement of Forest Certification Schemes, both of which promote sprawling, unsustainable monocultures.
Do go read what Private Pig wrote at Liberty Pundit. Then consider this from the Guardian: After environmentalists blocked the introduction of genetically modified crops into Britain and Europe back in the 2004, everyone thought that was a dead issue. Wrong. Global warming makes it perfectly cool to bring those in now.
Government ministers have given their backing to a renewed campaign by farmers and industry to introduce genetically modified crops to the UK, the Guardian has learned.
They believe the public will now accept that the technology is vital to the development of higher-yield and hardier food for the world's increasing population and will help produce crops that can be used as biofuels in the fight against climate change.
"GM will come back to the UK; the question is how it comes back, not whether it's coming back," said a senior government source.
Attempts to introduce GM to Britain in the late 1990s met a wave of direct action from activists tearing up crops. At the same time supermarkets such as Sainsbury's and Marks & Spencer barred GM ingredients from their ranges for fear of provoking a consumer backlash.
In 2004, the government announced that no GM crops would be grown in the country for the "foreseeable future", prompting Lord Peter Melchett, policy director of the Soil Association to declare: "This is the end of GM in Britain."
Recent polls also revealed that about 70% of the European public remained opposed to GM foods.
However, ministers are confident that the technology's virtues will be more apparent this time because of increased public awareness of pressing environmental concerns.
"The ability to have drought-resistant crops is important not only for the UK but for other parts of the world," said the source. "And the fact that some GM crops can produce higher yields in more difficult climactic conditions is going to be important if we're going to feed the growing world population."
Where are the real environmentalists? The planet is going to be radically changed, alright. But not by any global warming. It will be devastated by the zealots saying they can do whatever they want as long as global warming is the excuse. You foolish, foolish people. Al Gore and his sycophants are leading you right down the path of environmental destruction, not salvation.
Where are the environmentalists?
