I have followed the apocalyptic claims and the legislated mandates of the
environmental movement since the 1970s and the single unifying factor has been
the lies told to achieve various elements of the Green agenda.

Since 1970, April 22 has been celebrated as Earth Day. It is generally regarded
as the date of the birth of the modern environmental movement.

There are several common attributes of environmentalism. High on the list is
its barely hidden contempt for the human race, the view that the world’s
population has to be drastically reduced and that our consumption of everything
from energy resources to agricultural and livestock production threatens the
planet.

The food riots occurring around the world are the direct result of
environmental mandates for biofuels, based on claims of global warming, but the
Earth is cooling, not warming.

Earth Day had its antecedents in the United Nations that has long maintained an
international environmental program. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change has generated the current climate alarmism whose
“science”, based on flawed computer models, has been totally
discredited as often as not by the scientists it pretends to represent.

The incessant Green protests of everything and anything that might advance the
welfare of the human race, from nuclear power to the Green Revolution that has
insured sufficient food for the current and future population of the Earth, is
the third element. These protests, too, are based on deliberate distortions of
science and fact.

Fear mongering has always been the movement’s instrument of choice to influence
public opinion and policy. A simple case in point was the reversal of an
extensive campaign in the 1970s warning of a coming Ice Age to one that began
in the 1980s about “global warming.”

Early Greens spread lies across a vast spectrum of issues, invariably causing
incalculable harm. An example was Rachel Carson’s claims about DDT that
resulted in its ban. Millions have since died for lack of the protection it
affords against malaria and other insect-borne diseases. A full-scale attack on
all pesticides and herbicides, critical to disease control and the world’s food
supply, continues.

In 1968 Paul Ehrlich’s book, “The Population Bomb”, included the
claim that “the battle to feed all of humanity is over.” He later
claimed the Green Revolution, based on the modification of crops to resist
drought and predation, would fail. Wrong again. The linking of population and
food consumption is a consistent environmental theme.

The claim that greenhouse gas emissions must be drastically reduced is an
attack on all forms of industrialization, i.e., corporations and the
globalization that require the use of energy resources such as coal, natural
gas, and oil. Energy is the single reason for America’s and the world’s economic
growth and the enhancement of life through all manner of technologies involving
transportation, communication, and agricultural advances.

By blocking access to energy such as the ban on oil extraction in ANWR or off
the coasts of the United States, by lobbying against the building of coal-fired
and nuclear electricity generation plants, by arguing for inefficient, highly
subsidized solar and wind alternatives, Greens are creating a national energy
crisis. How insane is it to ban the purchase of incandescent light bulbs?

There is no scientific justification for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Carbon dioxide represents a miniscule 0.038% of the Earth’s atmosphere and
increases in CO2 always follow climate change. It does not initiate it. The
Greens are lying.

The increasing food riots occurring worldwide are a direct result of the way
the price of corn and soy has been artificially driven upward by environmental
demands for “biofuels.” When Congress set in motion the mandate that
countless bushels of corn be diverted as a food source for humans and livestock
to the production of ethanol, it started a cascade of food shortages worldwide
that were further exacerbated by weather related crop failures.

Environmentalists have spread lies about all manner of food consumption. Eating
beef is high on their list of grievances. Not incidentally, corn is a major
feedstock for beef and other animals that are part of our daily diet. The
Associated Press recently reported that “Worldwide demand for corn to feed
livestock and to make biofuel is putting enormous pressure on global
supply.” From prehistoric times to the present, meat has been one of
mankind’s most invaluable sources of our health.

Along with the nation’s politicians, the nation’s print and broadcast media and
our educational system have accepted environmental claims without skepticism or
review. Since its release, children have been required to watch Al Gore’s
duplicitous documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”, and today’s
textbooks are replete with environmental falsehoods. On Earth Day, the media is
flooded with Green propaganda.

Earth Day would be a good day to begin to take back the Earth from those who
would deceive us and harm us.

Guest columns do not necessarily reflect the views of Accuracy in Media or its staff.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author

Alan Caruba
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Alan Caruba writes a weekly column, "Warning Signs", posted on the Internet site of The National Anxiety Center. His book, "Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy", is published by Merrill Press.

2 Comments for Earth Day Is A Holiday For Liars

Lee Welter

Thanks for supporting sanity and human values!

The statement “…increases in CO2 always follow climate change….” would be more correct if worded slightly differently:  “…changes in CO2 always follow climate change….” OR “…increases in atmospheric CO2 always follow temperature increases….”

Nobody has directly responded to the question: which is better, global warming or global cooling?

Another good article on this topic is Jim Peron’s “Where Have All the Marxists Gone?”—http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4530

friendly to the environment

We know for sure that human activity is influencing the global environment, even if we don’t know by how much. We might still get away with it: the sceptics could be right, and the majority of the world’s scientists wrong. It would be a lucky break. But how lucky do you feel?