Today’s environmental activists are so hostile to capitalism that they end up killing animals they want to protect.
Growth, trade, economic well-being and yes, fossil fuels are the best protection we have from a nature that isn’t nice – so in the name of sustainability, let’s have more of those things.
The rhetoric for a “climate change catastrophe” has been around for decades. When warming didn’t happen, the rhetoric changed to threats of freezing, which morphed back to warming.
Voice of Capitalism
Our weekly email newsletter.
We respect your privacy. Unsubscribe anytime.
Climate change is real. It’s a problem, but I doubt that it’s “an existential threat.” Saying that makes alarmists mad.
Bjorn Lomborg’s “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet”
Bjorn Lomborg’s “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet” is a true alarm—a call for a re-thinking of climate policy entirely.
For years, people like Naomi Klein, the author of This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, have said that their goal is to destroy capitalism ‒ and climate change just happens to be the best tool and best argument she has found.
For years, they and environmentalists increased the risk of big fires by opposing the thinning of forests. Megafires could have been avoided if forests had just been better managed.
Three Books on Solving The Climate Crisis: False Alarm, Apocalypse Never and Green Market Revolution
Joakim Book contrasts and compares Bjorn Lomborg’s “False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet”, Michael Shellenberger’s “Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All”, and Christopher Barnard and Kai Weiss’ edited book “Green Market Revolution: How Market Environmentalism Can Protect Nature and Save the World.”
Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.
The environmentalists had a field day during the corona pandemic. The anti-human policies they have called for, protested for, disrupted societies and other people’s lives for, were suddenly implemented en masse, albeit on a temporary basis. Think of it as a trial for green policies.
The Modern Warm Period from the late-19th to the early 21st centuries, is only trivially man-made and not pernicious, but rather, is overwhelmingly natural and fully benign.
Politicians “looking for something to do” like banning plastic bags routinely do more harm than good.
Are green jobs the bipartisan silver bullet they’re cracked up to be or are they instead a bipartisan mirage?
The fundamental goal of environmentalism is not clean air and clean water; rather, it is the demolition of technological/industrial civilization. Environmentalism’s goal is not the advancement of human health, human happiness, and human life; rather, it is a subhuman world where “nature” is worshipped like the totem of some primitive religion.
How human progress, and the use of fossil fuels, has made our environment cleaner and healthier.
Does the data validate those who say humans are causing the earth to catastrophically warm?
Is it true that 97% of climate scientists agree that climate change is real?
Let poor countries grow rich, and in due course they will, too, look after their forests.
Instead of succumbing to the eternal alarmism that should undermine ecologists’ credibility, we should accept that maybe – just maybe – the world is getting better. And much-reviled capitalist markets are, in no small feat, to thank for that.
Who counts as green? Whose debt should be subsidized?
An efficiency-minded environmentalist could object that this trip shouldn’t be made, a Marxist-leaning commentator that this was an example of the horrible waste and misallocation of the capitalist system.
A Socialist “Green New Deal” Will Destroy It
What angers most people about climate alarmists is their doublethink, cognitive dissonance, and ability to rationalize their own behavior.
Wouldn’t an actual sacrifice involve the protestors living with the severely diminished energy usage that they are demanding?