Deconstructing Environmentalists
By Greth Godwynn and Jack Thunbergson
If you’ve been alive on planet Earth at any point during the last six decades, you’ll be painfully aware that the world is coming to a brutal end in precisely 5, 10, 20 or even 50 years time (starting whenever ‘now’ happens to be), and that it’s entirely your fault. ‘Carbon Net Zero’ is the latest buzzword doing the rounds, replacing ‘Global Warming/Cooling’ and your ‘Carbon Footprint’, but it all amounts to the same thing.
And of course, many words have been put to paper attempting to debunk these claims, such as – none of the predictions have come true, that climate has always changed and we’re arrogant for believing we could have caused it, that records and measurements until very recently have been horrendously inaccurate and things in this or that particular vein.
And please don’t get me started on the whole distinction between climate and weather, which is always at the convenience of the unenvironmentalist. Unseasonably cold? That’s weather. Unseasonably hot? That’s climate – or the other way around, since it’s hard to keep up.
How much weight these criticisms carry is beyond the scope of this article, so we will need to provisionally accept at face value that climate IS changing for the worse, and that we, as a species, ARE collectively responsible for it.
And the reason we’re accepting this as written, is because the people I want to talk about believe this – And these people are whackjobs.
If you’ve ever heard of the Stop Oil protestors blocking roads, laying down in front of cars, supergluing themselves to things that super glue can’t actually stick to and generally risking really sound (and justified) beatings and arrests, then you may have wondered what could compel a person to be that stupid.
And throwing soup at paintings… What’s that even about?!?
The answer, of course, is that they are true believers. The message is too important for them to sit still about. It is, to them, the single most pressing issue on the planet, and anyone who isn’t doing everything they can to tackle it has their priorities seriously skewed and needs to be shown the error of their ways.
This is just the tip of the iceberg though because, like most true believers, they’re not entirely open about what it is they actually believe – a cynic might even say that they don’t exactly know. And in the case of environmentalists, including most of the moderates, what they believe in is so heinous and so unthinkable, that it practically drips off the pages of the Communist Manifesto (probably—I haven’t read it…)
“But Seth, they’re juist tryin tae save the planet! Whit’s wrang wi that?”
Yeah, and we’ve all heard their favourite gotcha…
“Whit if we’re wrang? Whit if we mak the warld a better place for naethin?!”
Obviously these sound like perfectly good arguments, on the surface, but as with all “woke” agendas, the evil is hiding in the more subjective definitions of words like ‘improve’ and ‘progress’. And believe me, what these imbeciles think of as improvement is quite far removed from what regular folk like you or I—me leastways—think.
Have you ever heard of Cecilia Giménez? How about the Ecce Homo, a fresco from 1930 by Spanish painter Elías García Martínez depicting Jesus crowned with thorns. It was in a sorry state of disrepair, and Giménez, an 80 year old woman with no business ever owning art supplies, decided to restore it. I will let the results speak for themselves, but needless to say, in her mind she was improving it. The point being, her idea of an improvement was not consistent with that of anybody else. Perhaps, with all things considered, she should have just thrown a can of farmhouse-tomato at it and joined the ranks of the enlightened? She might actually have done less damage that way.
Now I’m an allegedly reasonable man about these things. Unnecessarily polluting rivers and burning down forests is probably something evil corporations like Nestle should try and cut back on. That sort of environmental conservation is generally considered a good thing, but let’s talk about the end game here. What is it that environmentalists wish to achieve?
We can broadly break it down into two distinct end-goals:
1. Provide a more optimal environment for human life/life in general to flourish, and
2. Remove all of our filthy footprints from the world, like we’d never even existed—but we’ll settle for the extinction of the human species, and if any animals suffer as a result of our absence, then that’s too bad.
“Och come oan, Seth, naebody wants the second yin,”
I hear you saying. (How did you even get my number by the way?)
The problem is that most environmentalists do in fact believe that number 2 is the highest goal of their activism, and it’s not hard to prove. The clues are in the proposed approaches to tackling it.
Almost every policy level approach to ‘saving the environment’ is absolutely detrimental to goal 1, and 100% consistent with goal 2. Let’s look at some examples:
• Ban on Insecticides Without Viable Alternatives
Without effective pest control, crop yields collapse, and diseases like malaria spread more widely. Both food security and public health suffer, especially in developing regions that need those protections most. In short, a lot of people are going to have a very bad day.
• Zero-Human Footprint Conservation
Banning sustainable land use such as small-scale farming harms local populations and encourages illegal deforestation or resource extraction elsewhere. Disconnecting human development from nature prevents balanced rural expansion, cutting off access to food and economic opportunities. Result: many people are going to die.
• Strict Anti-GMO Sentiment
Banning GMOs limits food production efficiency, crop resilience to natural climate change, and nutritional enhancements. This directly undermines the ability to support growing populations, particularly in developing nations. Basically, people will die in massive numbers, starting with the poorest among us.
• Opposition to Nuclear Power
Rejecting both nuclear energy and common sense increases reliance on fossil fuels or intermittent renewables such as solar and wind that cannot yet provide stable baseload power at scale. Without abundant, clean, and reliable energy, industrial agriculture, water purification, and medical systems will fall to shit, and people will start dropping like flies – like they did in Spain.
• Opposition to fossil fuels
Fossil fuels currently supply 80% of the world’s power, so kiss goodbye to modern agriculture, transportation and infrastructure. Even the food that can be made cannot be long-term stored or taken anywhere, and your EV will not help you. As for heating, forget it. If fossil fuels were banned worldwide tomorrow, then without food or power, around 20% of the world would be dead within a month, and 50% of the remainder would not survive their first winter. It would be the greatest human extinction-level event in recorded history.
“But Seth, naebody wants a complete ban on fossil fuels owernicht!”
Au contraire, that’s exactly what Stop Oil protestors want, and if you presented them with the above information, how do you think they would respond?
“The warld’s owercramml’t as it is; wid that really be sic a bad thing?”
We all know what they would probably say and I suspect you already had a pretty good idea about it yourself, didn’t you? Let’s not pretend otherwise.
In fact, even the more moderate sounding environmentalists push the whole “world needs less people” angle constantly, and nobody ever questions it. When they say people should ‘have fewer children,’ they’re not talking about sustainable birth control habits. To have less, you must first have more.
So next time you hear politicians and activists pushing for “carbon net zero,” remember that they’re not just talking about industrial emissions, they’re talking about the elimination of the entire human species, starting with the poorest and most ethnically diverse, and working up from there.
The carbon they want to rid the world of is you.
Many thanks for reading this article. We hope it was interesting, informative and entertaining. Follow us on social media or share our content on your own pages. It helps us grow so we can create more free content for you.