Going Green In The Name of Tyranny

Posted: Jul 18, 2014 12:01 AM

It’s undeniable that most, if not all, Americans want to preserve and protect the environment.

No one truly wants to live in squalor or breathe in dirty air. No one truly intends to destroy nature or kill all wildlife. No one truly desires to harm the planet.

Modern-day environmentalism is perceived as a benign, “hip” cause. All the celebrities are doing it, so it must be great—right? On the surface “going green” seems harmless. We’re told that “going green” will absolve us for our supposed transgressions against the environment. Certainly Mother Earth will forgive us for developing our beautiful planet while creating opportunities for prosperity and social advancement!

What could possibly be wrong with the green lifestyle?

Green on the outside yet red on the inside, modern-day environmentalism is an anti-life, anti-fun, and anti-progress movement. Peel away the “protect the planet” façade to discover its eco-socialist core. Heritage Foundation’s Stephen Moore beautifully summarizes the goal of today’s environmentalist movement:

The dirty little secret of the modern environmental movement is that it has become a luxury good for the uber-rich. Its policies—from carbon taxes, to renewable energy standards, to crushing regulations on coal plants—would impose high costs on the people who can least afford to pay the green tab.

Support offshore drilling or commercial fishing? Shamu and other marine life will be killed off! Reject the idea of “climate change” and its alleged anthropogenic nature? Apparently, it’s grounds for being arrested. Like eating Krispy Kreme Donuts? Forget it—their company is largely responsible for deforestation. Think the world isn’t overpopulated? Wrong—population control is needed to reduce poverty.

In February 2014, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore—a Canadian ecologist and business consultant who served as a member of the group from 1971-86—testified before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee. He noted how the Left hijacked environmentalism and said, “After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.”

The largest enabler of eco-socialism is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is more affectionately known as the Employment Prevention Agency. Born out of executive order signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 20, 1970, the EPA was originally created to promote conservation and protect the health of Americans. Today, that is not the case. When it’s not instructing employees to stop defecating in hallways, spending millions on conferences, or tinkering with lost emails, the EPA is engaged in a full-fledged war on jobs, oil, fishing, and hunting, among many things.

Heartland Institute’s Jay Lehr, who encouraged the creation of the EPA, notes the department’s radical shift from its original purpose:

Activist groups realized the agency could be used to alter our government by coming down heavily on all human activities regardless of their impact on the environment. From approximately 1981 onward, EPA rules and regulations became less about science-based environmental protection and more about advancing extraneous ideological agendas.

In August 2010, the Center for Biological Diversity and four other organizations petitioned the EPA to ban all lead in fishing tackle and ammunition under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), because lead is supposedly evil. Groups like Keep America Fishing and National Shooting Sports Foundation immediately voiced concern and pressured the EPA to not pursue a ban on lead tackle and ammunition. Why? Environmentalist groups resorted to fearmongering and lied about lead’s effects. A November 2008 study from the U.S. Centers for Disease concluded that “some individuals who eat a great deal of wild game may have lower blood lead levels than some other individuals who eat little or no wild game but who have other sources of lead exposure.” Had corresponding legislation been considered, industries beyond hunting and fishing—namely law enforcement, military, and target shooting—would have been adversely affected.

Additionally, the EPA has repeatedly tried to label water as a pollutant. They were successfully defeated in January 2013 when a case filed by the Virginia Department and Transportation and Fairfax County sued the EPA for overstepping its bounds in trying to regulate stormwater that flows into Fairfax County’s Accotink Creek.

What can be done to curb the tide of eco-socialism without hurting the environment?

First and foremost, the EPA should be abolished or at least overhauled. It has too much wrest over our lives and doesn’t have small business interests in mind. Secondly, alternative views on “climate change” need to be encouraged and welcomed. Studies confirm that the “climate change” theory is largely exaggerated and that change in climate can’t be solely attributed to humans. Thirdly, sustainable conservation through fishing and hunting should also be discussed. Those of us who fish and hunt desire to conserve our surroundings. Whenever we invest in licenses, gear, guns, or supplies, proceeds help support conservation efforts.

Radical environmentalism is a consequence of big government policies. Rather than helping the environment, government is harming the environment with its burdensome tax code, its restrictive policies, and its embrace of Marxism. Instead, free-market environmentalism is the best alternative. Why? It suggests private property rights, free enterprise, and limited government solutions best preserve and help protect the environment.

Green is the new red, and it must be crushed.