One day, we will have to tell our children the truth about the environmental movement.
We will have to say:
When I was younger, we allowed a massive, unlawful cartel to control the world price of oil and damage our economy. Even though the cartel set the world market price for oil by curtailing its production whenever the price got too low for their tastes, we blamed others for the price.
We blamed the SUV owners, saying their excessive consumption drove up demand and created high prices. We blamed BP, Citgo, Shell, and Exxon for making a profit, even though their profits were only about four to eight cents on each gallon of gasoline. We ignored other things that drove up the price, like the many federal, state, and local gasoline taxes, to focus mainly on the corporations that refined and transported our fuel at meager levels of profit, and we taxed the oil companies heavily because we felt they made too much profit.
When the price reached $4.00, it was the realization of the pre-2000 dream of environmentalists, who wanted to see the price of gasoline go so high that people would stop buying it. $4.00 was a common price listed as the "no way" point back when gas was $0.99/gallon.
We refused to do anything about the price of oil and gasoline because we were following a mandate from the environmental movement that we had to eliminate our use of fossil fuels. We didn't drill for the oil we had to force the world market to correct its price, and we didn't pursue non-food crop-based fuels, such as hemp. We drove up the price of corn that could feed people in order to make ethanol, even though growing, refining, and transporting the stuff used more energy than it created, and even though it required high amounts of fertilizer and pesticide.
And because we refused to do anything about the price of oil, we followed the environmental movement's advice to conserve energy by changing our light fixtures from incandescent bulbs to fluorescent tubes, even though the compact tubes brought mercury or similar toxins into our homes and created a massive problem in proper disposal of the spent lamps.
And we gave away our freedom to climate control our homes, letting someone at a remote location control the thermostats in our houses so we wouldn't use as much electricity.
Loss of freedom and damage to the economy are the results of the policies put forth by the environmental movement. Eventually, we're going to have to be honest about this and tell our children that this is what it was doing to us. Why can't we be honest about it now and find a better solution?
Look around. Think through what the policies advocated by the environmental movement will eventually do to our nation. Then look around at the political candidates and see which ones have a record most closely aligned with the environmental movement. You can be sure that they favor policies that will have these effects:
- Higher fuel prices - Burning anything (except an SUV, it seems) is bad in the eyes of the environmental movement.
- Hamstrung economic growth - Taxing the oil companies (which are most likely in your mutual fund) hurts investors, which limits the amount of money available to start businesses, which limits the number of jobs that are created, which hinders the economic growth.
- Higher food prices - One of the environmental movement's sacred cows in this country right now is ethanol made from corn or sugar cane, even though most other nations have abandoned ethanol as more resource-intensive than petroleum. Candidates favoring ethanol from food crops favor higher food prices, which means more hungry poor in the USA.
- Less freedom - The environmental movement wants to tell you that you can't choose to spend your hard-earned money on electricity to cool or heat your home to the temperature that makes you comfortable. Candidates who support the environmental movement don't support your right of self-determination in small things... what makes you think they'll support it in large things? Maybe you've heard of the concept of faithfulness with little being an indication of worthiness to manage much?
- Hare-brained solutions and computer models that don't match facts and logic - Compact fluorescent tubes use less energy than incandescent bulbs, but they contain toxic chemicals: not a sensible solution. Candidates supporting the environmental movement follow the theory of massive man-made global warming, even though the science doesn't back the theory (maybe you read a few news articles about the drop in temperatures over the last year that wiped out a century's temperature rises, to name only one of many problems with the theory)... and even though following the theory requires steps hurtful to our God-given rights.
The environmental movement has failed us, and it is time to abandon it. We need to focus on being good stewards of the resources God has given us and stop blindly following this navel-gazing warm fuzzies movement. Environmentalism is fatally flawed. Stewardship is sound both ecologically and economically, as well as theologically and logically.
We must do a better job of taking care of God's green earth -- but we won't do that by joining the environmental movement in poorly-considered plans based on questionable science.
Consider this when you choose a political candidate this November. Think about what you'll tell your children.
We will have to say:
When I was younger, we allowed a massive, unlawful cartel to control the world price of oil and damage our economy. Even though the cartel set the world market price for oil by curtailing its production whenever the price got too low for their tastes, we blamed others for the price.
We blamed the SUV owners, saying their excessive consumption drove up demand and created high prices. We blamed BP, Citgo, Shell, and Exxon for making a profit, even though their profits were only about four to eight cents on each gallon of gasoline. We ignored other things that drove up the price, like the many federal, state, and local gasoline taxes, to focus mainly on the corporations that refined and transported our fuel at meager levels of profit, and we taxed the oil companies heavily because we felt they made too much profit.
When the price reached $4.00, it was the realization of the pre-2000 dream of environmentalists, who wanted to see the price of gasoline go so high that people would stop buying it. $4.00 was a common price listed as the "no way" point back when gas was $0.99/gallon.
We refused to do anything about the price of oil and gasoline because we were following a mandate from the environmental movement that we had to eliminate our use of fossil fuels. We didn't drill for the oil we had to force the world market to correct its price, and we didn't pursue non-food crop-based fuels, such as hemp. We drove up the price of corn that could feed people in order to make ethanol, even though growing, refining, and transporting the stuff used more energy than it created, and even though it required high amounts of fertilizer and pesticide.
And because we refused to do anything about the price of oil, we followed the environmental movement's advice to conserve energy by changing our light fixtures from incandescent bulbs to fluorescent tubes, even though the compact tubes brought mercury or similar toxins into our homes and created a massive problem in proper disposal of the spent lamps.
And we gave away our freedom to climate control our homes, letting someone at a remote location control the thermostats in our houses so we wouldn't use as much electricity.
Loss of freedom and damage to the economy are the results of the policies put forth by the environmental movement. Eventually, we're going to have to be honest about this and tell our children that this is what it was doing to us. Why can't we be honest about it now and find a better solution?
Look around. Think through what the policies advocated by the environmental movement will eventually do to our nation. Then look around at the political candidates and see which ones have a record most closely aligned with the environmental movement. You can be sure that they favor policies that will have these effects:
- Higher fuel prices - Burning anything (except an SUV, it seems) is bad in the eyes of the environmental movement.
- Hamstrung economic growth - Taxing the oil companies (which are most likely in your mutual fund) hurts investors, which limits the amount of money available to start businesses, which limits the number of jobs that are created, which hinders the economic growth.
- Higher food prices - One of the environmental movement's sacred cows in this country right now is ethanol made from corn or sugar cane, even though most other nations have abandoned ethanol as more resource-intensive than petroleum. Candidates favoring ethanol from food crops favor higher food prices, which means more hungry poor in the USA.
- Less freedom - The environmental movement wants to tell you that you can't choose to spend your hard-earned money on electricity to cool or heat your home to the temperature that makes you comfortable. Candidates who support the environmental movement don't support your right of self-determination in small things... what makes you think they'll support it in large things? Maybe you've heard of the concept of faithfulness with little being an indication of worthiness to manage much?
- Hare-brained solutions and computer models that don't match facts and logic - Compact fluorescent tubes use less energy than incandescent bulbs, but they contain toxic chemicals: not a sensible solution. Candidates supporting the environmental movement follow the theory of massive man-made global warming, even though the science doesn't back the theory (maybe you read a few news articles about the drop in temperatures over the last year that wiped out a century's temperature rises, to name only one of many problems with the theory)... and even though following the theory requires steps hurtful to our God-given rights.
The environmental movement has failed us, and it is time to abandon it. We need to focus on being good stewards of the resources God has given us and stop blindly following this navel-gazing warm fuzzies movement. Environmentalism is fatally flawed. Stewardship is sound both ecologically and economically, as well as theologically and logically.
We must do a better job of taking care of God's green earth -- but we won't do that by joining the environmental movement in poorly-considered plans based on questionable science.
Consider this when you choose a political candidate this November. Think about what you'll tell your children.
Leave a comment