The anti humanism of radical environmentalism is sometimes explicit–and more often, implicit. The panic du jour is species extinction–which we’ve discussed here at SHS before. But the leading NGOs show their radical hands in an article in today’s Washington Post, which reports on plans that would put the developing world into permanent dependency and fully one quarter of the usable land off limits to substantial human development. From the story:
While many industrialized countries have undertaken conservation efforts at home and helped fund this work overseas, “the reality is we’re still exporting degradation across the world” by taking food and other resources from the developing world, according to co-author Nicholas K. Dulvy.
Selling agricultural products allows poor people in developing countries to earn a living! Add in the desire to keep them from developing their own resources–and somehow making up for it by redistributing wealth, as promoted by activists on this issue and global warming hysterics–would be to make the currently poor permanently destitute–and on international welfare instead of becoming self sufficient.
Worse, the environmental radicals wants to essentially close 25% of the land from significant development:
Environmental groups are pushing for a goal of protecting 25 percent of all land on earth and 15 percent of the sea by 2020. At the moment, roughly 14 percent of terrestrial areas and less than 1 percent of the ocean enjoy some degree of environmental safeguards.
And actually, even that estimate is too small, according to Conservation International, one of the major promotions of the environmental panic. From its Web site:
According to the analysis, protecting 25 percent of the lands and 15 percent of the oceans is still a preliminary and conservative estimate. It takes into account the needs to address only carbon storage, but when other important ecosystem services – like water supply, crop pollination and fisheries – are added, the numbers will be higher. Also, in regions highly impacted by environmental degradation, protected areas are likely to be the only intact natural environments that will remain.
The good news is that these UN conferences are mostly all talk. The last convention wasn’t followed, and now they are even more ambitious in their goals. And whatever nutty agreements come out of this conference, if any, it will be DOA–at least in the USA.
Yes, of course we should manage resources–including fauna and flora–and set aside areas to remain wild. But putting 25% or more of the land under the aegis of radical environmentalists? Not. A. Chance. The answer to what ails the world isn’t more human poverty, but more human wealth.
October 27th, 2010 | 11:55 am
40% of space in cities is for autos. We waste space. While I do not trust those who are proposing this, we can look at China and other totalitarian countries who, in the pursuit of wealth, make a huge environmental mess. It is the lefties who have the money to build their little vacation homes in the mountains and do not want everyone else to follow them. Setting aside public land for all to use, devoid of destructive development, is a good thing. I am biased because I grew up next to a National Forest. We were on welfare but not poor because I had that forest to play in.
October 27th, 2010 | 1:42 pm
Wes,
Why do you persist in calling those with whom you disagree names? Radicals, hysterics, promoters of environmental panic? And “anti-human”?? What could be further from the truth? Your fetish for the continued destruction of the Earth (our only home, by the way) is the most “anti-human” of all. Human activites are impacting the climate and the ecosystems in ways that will harm our ability to survive on Earth (our only home). How do you expect 10 billion humans to live in 2100 with even only 75% of Earth stripped of vegetation , atmospheric CO2 at 600 ppm (“normal” ~ 280 ppm) and the mean temperature 10F higher than now.
Obviously you think 25% of land is too much to set aside, in fact, it’s radical! The article said currently 14% of land has environmental protection. Are you saying 14% is OK but 25% is radical or hysterical? What is the perfect amount?
Atmospheric CO2 is increasing rapidly. Atmospheric O2 is decreasing. Part of the reason is the destruction of the world’s forests. Where do you think the oxygen we breathe comes from? Not from magic, nor did some god give us a blanket of oxygen to breathe. Plants on the land and in the oceans allow sunlight to split water into oxygen, using the energy to convert carbon dioxide into simple carbohydrates. This is where oxygen (O2) comes from. This is the key to life on Earth.
Humans have accelerated the conversion of these carbohydrates (which were converted to petroleum and coal over hundreds of millions of years) to carbon dioxide at an alarming rate. At the same time, burning fossil fuels consumes oxygen. More CO2 and less O2 is not good for humans in the long run.
Your plan for poisoning the oceans and developing the land so that all humans (I suspect you are most interested in a tiny subset) can be “wealthy” is shortsighted.
Your writings on the environment are either ignorant and naive or are intentionally cruel and motivated by religious or economic incentives. I prefer to be radical.
October 27th, 2010 | 2:44 pm
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by blogs of the world, Wesley J. Smith. Wesley J. Smith said: Radical Environmentalism: Should 25% of Land be Off Limits? » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog http://bit.ly/dxxBd6 [...]
October 28th, 2010 | 2:51 pm
“Why do you persist in calling those with whom you disagree names? Radicals, hysterics, promoters of environmental panic? And “anti-human”?? What could be further from the truth?”
. . .
“Your fetish for the continued destruction of the Earth (our only home, by the way) is the most “anti-human” of all.”
. . .
“Your plan for poisoning the oceans and developing the land so that all humans (I suspect you are most interested in a tiny subset) can be “wealthy” is shortsighted.
Your writings on the environment are either ignorant and naive or are intentionally cruel and motivated by religious or economic incentives. I prefer to be radical.”
So this doesn’t count as “calling names”. Hoo-kay.
October 28th, 2010 | 7:50 pm
SparcVark,
Do you find my slight exaggerations unfair and offensive?
October 30th, 2010 | 1:18 pm
No, but I find your ability to complain about “name-calling” and call those who disagree with you names *in the same comment* amusing.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact