Over the years, this website and its Contributors have been regularly raked over the coals for supposed sins of the American Right, or of the Grand Old Party. Some of it is fair enough, as Internet sniping goes. But most of it amounts to some variety of concern-trolling, projection, or bigotry.
Chief among these regular arraignments are those handed down from the Court of the Environment. You see, since the writers at What’s Wrong with the World are clearly Right-wingers, they must be unforgivably skeptical of, among other things: (a) catastrophic man-made climate change; (b) green tech subsidies and encouragements; (c) the necessity to reduce the human population of world; (d) the projected peak oil calamity. Since they generally oppose high minded and well-intentioned efforts to use government to alleviate these problems, they must be guilty of the most awful compromise or even connivance with Big Business, in its design to deplete and contaminate the earth for profit.
As a matter of fact we are all skeptical of these things, but it is only unforgivable if being cognizant of fact and reality is an unforgivable sin. Because fact and reality cut hard against the Court of the Environment's premises.
Every last one of these propositions invites healthy skepticism of its rational basis.
When every latest weather calamity is instantly integrated into the sanctimony of climate change rhetoric, when either X or not-X can be attributed to the same cause (Colorado in a single season went from “permanent drought” to “historic floods,” both due, it was alleged by these activists, to the omniscient power of anthropogenic climate change), we can safely say that science has given way to politics and utopia. There are perfectly rational grounds for skepticism of climate science; and of the agitation of politics that has made this science its gospel, we can unreservedly say it has earned our mistrust. The models are not all cooperating either.
When nearly every scheme for “green” power costs considerably more than its boosters initially claim or fails to provide the promised jobs and revenue, we observe the exploitation of the gullible by high-minded cynics. The level of corruption that a truly enterprising free press might expose, digging through the recycling, green tech, and alt-fuel policies of this country, could be something remarkable to behold.
Here’s another fact for the Court of the Environment to consider. Moving world oil production from despotisms like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela, to liberal democracies like America and Canada, means improvement for both (a) North American prosperity and (b) the earth's climate. Despotisms indulge and coddle horribly inefficient, unclean state monopolies; North America enjoys fruitful innovation alongside careful regulatory scrutiny.
In a word, the fracking and tight oil revolution is highly likely to be a boon for the environment, by effecting a worldwide shift toward cleaner fuel.
The best thing going in American political economy, is also among the more fashionable of anti-capitalist causes. The oil production transformations that will likely improve our world, economically and environmentally, are being dishonestly denounced and impeded, as a Leftist point of principle.
Meanwhile a Leftist in good standing can confess his coercive abortionist mentality, the mandated slaughter of the next generation, and hardly cause a media ripple, not long before China itself began loosening the screws (only a little) on that low and murderous cause. Leftists and other doomsayers of overpopulation are, more comprehensively that any faction in the world, truly living in the past. They are the most brassbound of reactionaries on human procreation.
Some of these debased souls feel they can expiate the anti-human evil of their “darker moments” by endorsing the social-democratic politics of hope and change. Hatred of humanity is made whole by pious affirmation of the bureaucratic process by which capital is compassionately extracted by strangers, and then idealistically redistributed by strangers to other needy strangers. This substitutionary atonement is rather lacking in drama or logic.
And of course the final morbid irony: No policy is more certain to extinguish social democracy, with its vast structures of generational wealth transfer, than mandated abortion. The welfare state is utterly dependent on human procreation: the full flowering of man’s reproductive cycle, where the younger generations are endowed by their elders with sufficient discipline, instruction and virtue, that they might lead productive lives of their own, depositing a portion of their earnings for the care and security of the perishing generations.
A sexual libertine confessing bloodlust toward the unborn, we might say, is the social-democratic analogue to Lenin’s capitalist selling the rope by which he will be hanged. Lawless sexuality, treating other humans as sexual toilets, enervates that education in virtue, self-denial, and learning, without which a productive life becomes impossible. As we have seen all too often, it leaves the younger generations sunk in lassitude, despair, bewilderment, ennui: poorly equipped for the productive lives that our welfare entitlements presuppose. There is a certain demonic logic in the furtive desire to let the abortionist finish them off.
Now of course, at W4 we favor murder prosecutions for all abortionists, utterly irrespective of the class of human being they undertake to snuff out; and we execrate those cynical conservatives who secretly tolerate the abortion regime on eugenic grounds. But we also suspect that when prominent libertines speak of “too many goddam people in the world,” they don’t have in mind prosperous white homosexuals from Chicago. Not even the President’s odious science adviser, we suppose, advocates forced abortions of environmentalists or coercive sterilizations of Harvard climate science professors. Eugenics long supplied a respectable veneer to some truly base and despicable prejudices. And when that veneer wore thin, many of these villains departed, with remarkable alacrity, for the cozy refinements of environmentalism, in order to recover their respectability.
Which brings us back to our main point: how thoroughly environmentalism has earned the suspicion of thoughtful and decent men; and how hollow rings the sanctimony of environmentalist rhetoric.
To conclude the defense of our hearty skepticism these modish causes, we will now adduce some additional liberal sources; and insist that any challenging commenter read through all of them. Readers should be aware that we’re happy to make an example of anyone who, disdaining to do his homework, imagines that shortcuts to snark are advisable.
Via Meadia: Life After Blue: America needs to stop eating its young.
The Atlantic: What if we never run out of oil?
Commenters are again urged to do their homework.
And then, having read all these articles, the bold commenter may go ahead and make whatever counterclaim he likes.
But the ignorant sanctimony of Leftists (and some paleos) on this subject is not going to be tolerated anymore. As Jonah Goldberg has astutely observed (eight paleoconservatives just fell out of their chairs), the moral case for health care reform is not an empirical case for Obamacare. Likewise, the moral case for proper stewardship of the earth is not an empirical case for the impostures, fiascos, prevarications, or iniquities inflicted on us by the agit-prop of Leftist environmentalism.
To disambiguate the matter further: commenters, whether of long-standing or of the drive-by class, are served notice that W4 feels itself under no obligation to waste time with arraignments from the Court of the Environment.