What's Wrong with the Greens?
by Enza Ferreri
Let me clarify that wanting to protect the environment is not the same as being part of the environmentalist movement, and you don’t need to be in the latter to do the former.
Environmentalism is an ideology that is based on wrong assumptions, leading it to both being theoretically flawed and for practical purposes not helping the environment.
To begin with, the way that environmentalism has historically developed is such that its tenets, principles and claims have little or no foundation on evidence, are not empirically documented and, in short, are not scientifically based. The most enormous of these conflicts between the green ideology and real science is the former's investment in anthropogenic global warming, a theory that is refuted by observation every single day.
But in many other areas as well, most of the environmenalists' predictions have been debunked, from the presumed damage of acid rain to the catastrophe that was supposed to stem from the use of pesticides.
The Greens accept that they got it wrong over and over again, but one of their common replies is that their alarms have acted as a warning which helped prevent a disaster. This, however, is not sustainable. There is a difference between a rational argument about a potential - "potential" is the operative word, here, as opposed to certain or quasi certain - danger and the hysterical mass reaction of scare that environmentalist groups and their pet celebrities try to provoke.
If I see a possible area of concern I can highlight it but I also have to point out the limitations in my knowledge in predicting what may or may not happen, lest I spread a sense of unjustified panic which in the end may lead to an overreaction and cause more damage than the presumed ill I focused on. This latter counterproductive development has been the result of environmentalists' campaigns numerous times.
Risk assessment is a difficult field. Very often, by trying to prevent or combat a hazard, we end up producing a new, undesirable and unforeseen problem. In children's playgrounds, for instance, there's been an attempt to reduce the harm from kids' falls from swings with the application of plastic sheets on the ground that would soften the impact of the fall. It was later discovered that parents were hurting themselves by slipping on these coverings when rushing to assist their fallen children.
Population is an area where excessive and misdirected worries have misfired. The great environmentalist agenda, even in its ante-litteram days of 19th-century Malthusianism, has always been that of keeping down, or ideally reducing, the human population on earth. Global conferences on the theme were held, and the anti-population propaganda spread.
But the peoples who adopted a "planned" approach to birthrates have been those of developed countries which did and do not have a poverty problem in a serious sense and did not need to control their populations, and which now are simply ageing and depopulating, groups at risk of extinction.
The poor parts of the world kept growing and multiplicationg, but the good news is that the trend has been in reality different from that predicted by Thomas Robert Malthus: there is now more food per capita, despite the huge rise in number of inhabitants of our planet, than ever.
Furthermore, environmentalism is a political ideology, and as such it gives precedence to certain cultural and political assumptions which are part of its baggage over orotection of the environment and its inhabitants.
A crystal clear example of this is the following. When it was discovered that human contraceptive pills and abortifacient pills were responsible for the pollution of waters causing vast harm to the reproductive system of fish, in particular causing “intersex”, namely a condition in which freshwater fish of one sex all over the developed world also display sexual characteristics of the other sex, the environmentalists have never wanted to tackle the issue, claiming that the “pill” was too important and its benefits far outweighed any damage to the environment, including animals in it. This is ideology, specifically the pet ideology of the Left and “sexual liberation”. The environment and animals are not a real concern for many “environmentalists”, but only an instrument to promote their political agendas.
Intersexuality has repeatedly occurred, for example on the Potomac River downstream from Washington D.C., where male large-mouth bass developed eggs in their sex organs and couldn’t reproduce, and in the Boulder Creek’s trout in Denver, Colorado.
Entire fish populations have collapsed due to the feminisation of fish caused by their exposure to women’s contraceptives’ synthetic oestrogens flushed through developed countries’ sewage systems into rivers, streams and lakes, reaching in some cases a near extinction of a fish species from a particular habitat.
Europe is affected, as well as North America, and among others a scientist from the University of Exeter, A. Filby, has studied the phenomenon.
If you haven’t heard much about it is not because this is not a human-made environmental catastrophe and tragedy, but because the environmentalist movement is happy with this situation as it is.
The problem, present since the early 2000s, hasn’t gone away, as late reports show that scientists found a shocking 60 to 100 percent of all the male smallmouth bass they examined in 19 national wildlife refuges in the U.S. Northeast had female egg cells growing in their testes.
Finally, I said that environmentalism is a political ideology but I haven't explained of which hue. Their hue is red. Environmentalism is a part of that gigantic umbrella movement of the Left developed especially in the 20th century, when it has acquired domination of Western politics, academia, media and popular culture regardless of who is in government, that includes socialism, unionism, cultural Marxism, feminism, homosexual and LGBT activism, black activism, multiculturalism, and others. There is a saying: environementalists are like water melons, green outisde and red inside.
From wrong premises you get wrong conclusions, both theoretically and practically.
Enza Ferreri is an Italian web author, Philosophy graduate and former journalist living in London.
RELATED ARTICLES: Wind Turbines Wind turbines disadvantages & advantages | Climate Change Skeptics The public don't believe in the official theory of man-made global warming & the number of skeptics is rising in UK, USA & elsewhere | Scientific Consensus Scientific consensus is an authoritarian principle foreign to science in that it stifles the oxygen of science, debate | Is Ought The is–ought gap, stating that from is we cannot logically deduce ought & from science we cannot deduce ethics, is violated in global warming debates by greens & the IPCC carrying science's authority into policy & value choices