You are here

Save The Creepy-Crawlies? Where Is The Money In That?

Are the campaign priorities of environmental organizations driven by the dictates of science or the dictates of finance? Is environmentalism a movement---or a business? Whose sustainability are the green NGOs in business to foster----the environment's, or theirs?

"Very few of us are bothered about creepy-crawlies, which is doubtless why there has been so little awareness of the staggering decline in insect numbers which has emerged, in recent years, as a disturbing environmental phenomenon, indeed, as one of the defining ecological features of our age and an alarming pointer to the future. But they don't only creep and crawl; these are "the little things that run the world", playing key roles in myriad ecosystems, and their disappearance has profound dangers..." Michael McCarthy of the Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/nature_studies/nature-studies-by-michael-mccarthy-the-21st-century-bodes-ill-for-nonhuman-species-2196

The question is, why aren't the mainstream environmental organizations directing attention to this issue? Answer---IT IS NOT A FUNDING TOOL.

Imagine a Sierra Club campaign to save the creepy-crawlies. I can see the poster now---a leatherjacket fighting for its life as it writhes in pain after a thoughtless Tea-bagger sprayed his lawn with weed killer. Mounting a campaign to save the majestic "Rocky Mountain Cariboo" , or better yet, the magnificiently beautiful "Great Spirit Bear", on the other hand, is a proven winner---money just rolls in and the bureaucracy lives to fight another day. Insects don't fly----at least as a hook in pulling public heart-strings and purse-strings.

The same principle applies to the issue of population growth, and especially to immigration as its key driver. Why touch it when so many politically correct green yuppies might get antsy and walk away, or a corporate donor like the Royal Bank of Canada or TD bank might just stop giving? Better to focus on climate change and pictures of drowning polar bears, and pretend that good planning ("smart growth") will nullify any negative ecological impacts of population growth. But if green NGOs truly believe that climate change is a consequence of human activity, how can they be cavalier about the growing number of humans in that part of the globe where per capita greenhouse gas emissions are the highest (--or second highest, if Australians want to claim that title)? The imperatives of finance clearly dictates the priorities of environmental campaigns, not science.

Green Inc. must be seen for what it is. A business. A testament to Robert Michels "Iron Law of Oligarchy": any revolutionary organization or institution that dedicates itself to fundamental change and in the process grows a bureaucracy to achieve it, will come to pursue policies which serve the bureaucracy even if they run counter to the original aims of the movemnent.

Tim Murray
January 29/ 2011

AttachmentSize
Image icon bug-wall-tiny.jpg5.29 KB
Image icon bug-wall.jpg11.09 KB
Image icon bug-wall-1.jpg14.84 KB

Comments

As Jesus condemned the Pharisees of His day - the religious leaders - for their hypocrisy and their enjoyment of the deference of the public. Many "green" groups can be similarly accused. Pharisees would "strain out the gnats and swallow the camels". Matthew 23:24 In other words, they dissected the minute details of the laws of Moses, and caused hardships for the people by imposing impossible demands on everyday life, but at the same time ignored the "camels" - the woeful boulders of their wrong-doings such as ignoring their adherence to justice and mercy and faith. In other words, they make a big to-do out of the little things and let the big things escape.

The climate change and environmental groups are easily as guilty. While they market the need for recycling, of reducing personal greenhouse gas emissions, of planting trees, riding bicycles, taking public transport, compost bins, florescent light globes - all good things in themselves - if they are going to mitigate anthropogenic climate change, we need to stop ignoring the elephant (or camel) in the room! Global population blow-out!

ABC Online said on November 12 last year the Japanese government had announced that Japan’s greenhouse gas emissions hit a record high in the year ending March 2008. This is despite their declining population.

Cuba’s example makes this same point, but for the inverse reason. From 1990 to 2004, the Cuban population grew by about 1 million or 8.5%. For the same period, total carbon dioxide emissions fell from 32 million tones to 25.8 million tones; a 19.4%.

These tenuous examples mean the negative correlation between population growth and greenhouse gas emissions? It ignores another serious related environmental problem, which is that resources are being used up at an unsustainable rate. More than 70% of the world's population growth between 2010 and 2050 will occur in 24 of the world's poorest countries. This will mean more asylum seeders and economic immigration, and increased food aid demands.

Australia, as one of the world's worse for consumption level and greenhouse gas emissions, also has the highest population growth rate in the developed world.

The brilliant earth systems scientist James Lovelock claimed that “those who fail to see that population growth and climate change are two sides of the same coin are either ignorant or hiding from the truth. These two huge environmental problems are inseparable and to discuss one while ignoring the other is irrational.”

Subject was: For A United Front

Thanks, anonymous contributor for pasting the Australia First Party Provisional Management Committee statement of 10th January 2011. As the Australia First Party does not seem to have a workable web-site at the moment, we have published the statement here, together with comments. Normally, it would be preferred if such lengthy documents could be put on the site of the Australia First Party with links from this site. Further comments are welcome.

Bandicoot. Interesting. I have long referred to the environmental establishment as "The Green Pharisees" and their fixation of 'green living habits' as "straining out the ghnat but swallowing the camel" of runaway population growth. Moreover, the most damning characteristic of these Pharisees, both in Christ's time and ours, is their hypocrisy. Glad someone else sees it in precisely those terms. Tim M.

Anonymous,
Now, now. We can't talk about patriotism now. That is something that the smart set and the rootless cosmopilitans of the New Class regard as quaint at best and 'xenophobic, racist and nativist' at worst. In fact, two generations have now be taught to believe that like Socrates, they are not 'Athenians' but 'citizens of the world'. So to demonstrate that kind of global citizenship, we need to keep our doors wide open so that the world can help itself to our candy store. To turn them away would send out the wrong signals. We need their cooperation to fight global warming. And haven't the Green-Left told you? The 'workers' have no country. They belong to the working class of the world with whom they are enjoined to unite with. Loving the land that you were born in, gee, isn't that what the Nazis promoted? And as we all know, anything that the Nazis did or believed automatically makes it wrong. Reductio ad Hitlerum.
Tim

Dating back to 1868, US citizenship was provided to almost all babies born in the United States. (The children of foreign diplomats are excluded). In the terminology of proponents of tighter immigration rules, children born to illegal immigrants are "anchor babies," meant to ensure legal status for their parents and prevent their deportation.

The phrase adds a toxic element to the immigration debate but it is misleading. Until such children reach the age of 21, they cannot sponsor their parents for legal immigration status. That has not stopped an anti-anchor baby movement from gathering momentum.

Among developed western nations, as defined by the World Bank, only Canada and the United States still grant automatic citizenship at birth to anyone born on their soil.

Earlier this month at Washington, D.C.'s National Press Club the State Legislators for Legal Immigration, a coalition of legislators from 40 states, unveiled its strategy to end the policy of giving automatic citizenship to all children born in the United States regardless of their parents' immigration status.

According to Sen. David Vitter, R-La., and Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ken- "For too long, our nation has seen an influx of illegal aliens entering our country at an escalating rate, and chain migration is a major contributor to this rapid increase – which is only compounded when the children of illegal aliens born in the U.S. are granted automatic citizenship".

The result of that is that anchor babies immediately acquire the right to full benefits, everything from welfare to cheese, which increases the costs to the states.

The basis for birthright citizenship is the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution, which says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.”

Time to change the 14th Amendment!

Subject was: From Inky Stephensen - 1939 Issue of 50 Points for Australia

AUSTRALIAN CULTURE: Point 2, “for Australian culture; against imitativeness,” implies an obligation upon all Australian individuals, whether as private citizens or as components of the Government, to foster the growth of a distinctive National Australian culture in Australia, as a means of preventing intellectual and biological decline; for a nation without pride in its own traditions could not endure: and it is the distinctiveness of culture and custom which differentiates one nation from another, and thus creates National Unity, National Consciousness, the pre-requisite of National Survival. Lacking a distinctive Australian culture, Australians are nondescripts: and the utmost to which they could aspire would be to excel in imitation. By seeking to conform with cultural habits originated elsewhere, Australians brand themselves as uncreative mediocrities, despised by those they imitate. The opportunity to establish and maintain a distinctive Australian National Culture is thus the opportunity to establish and maintain a distinctive Australian Nation. If this opportunity is declined or shirked, the Australian community will vanish from history, without trace.

Editorial comment: Thanks for this. Related links I obtained from a crude 'Google' search include:

P. R. Stephensen by Kerry Bolton

'Their Ultimate Absorption': Assimilation in 1930s Australia by John Chesterman and Heather Douglas

Eras Journal - Georgina Fitzpatrick, Inky Stephensen's internment ... (PDF)

PERCY REGINALD STEPHENSEN (PDF)