Never confuse conservation with environmentalism. The former promotes images of Teddy Roosevelt establishing national parks (actual parks, that is, not calling something a park when it clearly isn’t just to prevent development); Planting trees, proper stewardship, all that good stuff.
Environmentalism, on the other hand, has become part cult, a substitute religion where “the planet” takes the place of God, and part ulterior motive to redistribute wealth and justify social engineering.
Story number one:
Professor Ian Plimer, a geologist from Adelaide University, argues that a recent rise in temperature around the world is caused by solar cycles and other “extra terrestrial” forces.
He said carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, widely blamed for global warming, is a natural phenomenon caused by volcanoes erupting.
“We cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes,” he said. “It is a normal element cycled around in the earth and my science, which is looking back in time, is saying we have had a planet that has been a green, warm wet planet 80 per cent of the time. We have had huge climate change in the past and to think the very slight variations we measure today are the result of our life – we really have to put ice blocks in our drinks.”
Never mind, professor. Your elected leaders are too hell-bent on creating another device for taxation and wealth redistribution, consequences to the global economy be damned:
[Associated Press] AMSTERDAM (AP) – The Dutch government plans to bring the polluter-pays principle into the home garage.
Rather than an annual road tax for their cars, drivers will soon pay a few cents for every kilometer (mile) on the road, in a plan aimed at breaking chronic traffic jams and cutting carbon emissions, the Cabinet decided Friday.
The GPS monitoring system could be a test case for other countries weighing options for easing crowded roads. Some cities like London have created congestion charges to control traffic in downtown areas, but only Singapore has a similar scheme for charging according to the amount of travel.
And:
[UK Telegraph] Lord Smith of Finsbury believes that implementing individual carbon allowances for every person will be the most effective way of meeting the targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions.
It would involve people being issued with a unique number which they would hand over when purchasing products that contribute to their carbon footprint, such as fuel, airline tickets and electricity.
Like with a bank account, a statement would be sent out each month to help people keep track of what they are using.
If their “carbon account” hits zero, they would have to pay to get more credits.
What’s next, taxing people every time they pass gas? You laugh but European governments have already tried that on farmer’s cattle, but rescinded due to outrage of farmers — not of the ridiculousness of scientific concept, mind you, just over the amount of money they’d lose.
It’s become so Orwellian that Environmentalists use lawsuits to prevent illegal immigration and the protection of our border!
If you don’t think Democrats wouldn’t dare attempt this here. Think again. People used to scoff at the notion that government rationing panels would determine the amount, quality or timeline of you health care, and yet our very Congress and president are currently debating whether the IRS could tax and penalize through prison time those persons who don’t have health care.
As I’ve said before, about 250 years ago men named Washington, Adams and Paine picked up rifles for far less violations against their liberty.