Environmentalism and Human Sacrifice


Last week, Bjorn Lomborg, the widely published Danish professor and director of one of the world’s leading environmental think tanks, the Copenhagen Consensus Center, published an article about the Philippines’ decision, after 12 years, to allow genetically modified (GM) rice — “golden rice” — to be grown and consumed in that country.

The reason for the delay was environmentalist opposition to GM rice; and the reason for the change in Philippine policy was that 4.4 million Filipino children suffer from vitamin A deficiency. That deficiency, Lomborg writes, “according to the World Health Organization, causes 250,000 to 500,000 children to go blind each year. Of these, half die within a year.”

During the 12-year delay, Lomborg continues, “About eight million children worldwide died from vitamin A deficiency.”

“Golden rice” contains vitamin A, making it by far the most effective and cheapest way to get vitamin A into Third World children.

So who would oppose something that could save millions of children’s lives and millions of other children from blindness?

The answer is people who are more devoted to nature than to human life.

And who might such people be?

They are called environmentalists.

These are the people who coerced nations worldwide into banning DDT. It is generally estimated this ban has led to the deaths of about 50 million human beings, overwhelmingly African children, from malaria. DDT kills the mosquito that spreads malaria to human beings.

US News and World Report writer Carrie Lukas reported in 2010, “Fortunately, in September 2006, the World Health Organization announced a change in policy: It now recommends DDT for indoor use to fight malaria. The organization’s Dr. Anarfi Asamoa-Baah explained, ‘The scientific and programmatic evidence clearly supports this reassessment. Indoor residual spraying (IRS) is useful to quickly reduce the number of infections caused by malaria-carrying mosquitoes. IRS has proven to be just as cost effective as other malaria prevention measures and DDT presents no health risk when used properly.’”

Though Lukas blames environmentalists for tens of millions of deaths, she nevertheless describes environmentalists as “undoubtedly well-intentioned.”

I offer two assessments of this judgment.

First, in life it is almost always irrelevant whether or not an individual or a movement is well intentioned.

It is difficult to name a movement that has committed great evil whose members woke up each day asking, “What evil can I commit today?” Nearly all of them think they’re well intentioned. Good intentions don’t mean a thing.

Second, while environmentalists believe they have good intentions, I do not believe their intentions are good.

Concern for the natural environment is certainly laudable and every normal person shares it. But the organized environmentalist movement — Lomborg specifically cites Greenpeace, Naomi Klein and the New York Times — is led by fanatics. The movement’s value system is morally askew. It places a pristine natural world above the well-being of human beings.

The environmentalist movement’s responsibility for the deaths of tens of millions of poor children in the Third World is the most egregious example. But there are less egregious examples of the movement’s lack of concern for people.

Take the Keystone XL pipeline, the pipeline the Canadian government wants built in the US in order to send Canadian crude to American refineries. It would be a 1,179-mile, 36-inch-diameter crude oil pipeline, beginning in Alberta, and ending in Nebraska. The pipeline will be able to transport about 830,000 barrels of oil per day to Gulf Coast and Midwest refineries, reducing American dependence on oil from Venezuela — Iran’s base in the Western Hemisphere — and the Middle East by up to 40 percent. It will also provide Americans with many thousands of well-paying jobs.

Approving this pipeline is a moral and economic necessity.

The American economy needs the pipeline — even big labor wants it; it vastly reduces American dependency on countries that wish to hurt us; it helps our ally and biggest trading partner, Canada; and if America doesn’t use that oil, China will.

But the Obama administration may (again) veto the Keystone XL pipeline — for one reason: environmentalist fanaticism.

The employment of thousands of Americans, the well-being of the American economy and American national security – all of these concerns are secondary to the environmentalist movement’s view of nature uber alles.

There are many fine people who are concerned with the environment. Indeed, we should all be. But the movement known as environmentalism is not only a false religion, it is one that allows human sacrifice.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Cat K

    Thanks. Great article.

  • tagalog

    The sacrifice of human life to satisfy an agenda that has its grounding in some idea of striking a blow for perfection has been quite common among atheists and leftists for a century. What was the final worldwide tally that The Black Book of Communism arrived at some years ago, 80,000,000 to 120,000,000 in the 20th Century?

    And that was before anybody took a close look at the murder rate for the Great Leap Forward in Red China.

  • IgnoringtheHype

    As one person, commenting on the GM topic, stated "Ehen Luddites Kill". Which sums up Greenpeace, Naomi Klein et al.

    An excellent book on the subject is "Eco-Fascists: How Radical Conservationists are Destroying Our National Heritage" by Elizabeth Nickson.

    It lays out how their game plan,a game plan they will more than likely try to use for Keystone, how they try to impliment it, the major players involved, which are many of the the same that fight GM food, and how communities can and are fighting back and winning.

    • pyeatte

      Greenpeace has gone so far over to the whacky extreme left that their official founder, Patrick Moore, quit the organization a number of years ago because of the irrational and extremist policies adopted by it.

  • Spider

    The is where the KGB Trained closet com-mies of the 1960s went when they realized they couldn't get elected or get the radical socialist changes and wealth stealing that they wanted so they joined the enviromentalist movement. They turned all the so called earth friendly grops into radical enviro Nazzi groups to sabotage businesses in western countries. They reasoned that this would wreak havoc on our their economies then they could say "see capitolism doesn't work" etc etc. And all you closet com-mie Democrats out there know this is true don't you?

  • Loyal Achates

    Sorry Dennis, but is there any evidence you can find that environmental activists actually prevented GMO rice from reaching, or being grown, the Philippines? What are other possible solutions for improving nutrition for poor children there? Why is a country where the Catholic Church – one of the wealthiest charitable organizations in the world – is so powerful still suffering such endemic poverty in the first place?

    Saying 'environmentalists killed these children' is flat untrue.

    • Mary Sue

      Um dude, I know firsthand about enviro-whackos that rail against GMO foods. We have them in spades up here in Canada and I wish to god they'd shut up.

      Last I heard, the Catholic Church doesn't grow food, dig mines, go fishing…

  • jakespoon

    A rat is a cat is a dog is a boy to these amoral sphincters. I promise you THEY don't live where malaria will kill them,or where they can't go to the local vegan(pompous vegetarians) market and pick up "organically grown" produce. I'm serious,their names should be known and used whenever an outbreak of a disease or famine that could have been prevented by technology could have prevented. Stigmatize these bastards.

    • jakespoon

      Thank you for the*******, I lost myself for a second.

    • EarlyBird

      Jake, what I love is your dig at "local vegan (pompous vegetarians)" which is proof that you are pimarily animated by the culture war against lefties. How absurd.

      • jakespoon

        Nothing against vegetarians, Just the pompous ones,and as far as the culture war against the lefties,never met one I liked. And know what, they don't like me,and that's fine. but the culture war was started by lefties,so fly away birdie.

        • EarlyBird

          Actually Jake 'n' Bake, I started a mostly vegetarian diet a few months ago and have never felt better. I also live in Los Angeles. So, I'm sure that makes me a devil in your odd little world.

          • jakespoon

            Actually,I don't care what you eat,if you get my point. And you're braggin' about living in L.A. Been there ,couldn't wait to leave.

          • EarlyBird

            Not bragging. I just think that it's fun to play the Devil in some people's culture war fantasies. This is where I'm supposed to imagine you living in the back woods in a double wide with cars on blocks out front and a Confederate flag flying from a tree.

          • jakespoon

            I could give two hairs in a dead rats ass what you imagine,about me or anything else.How about that?

          • EarlyBird

            Good. You shouldn't.

          • pyeatte

            There is still a big difference between a "mostly" vegetarian diet and a purely vegan one.

          • EarlyBird

            I couldn't handle a vegan diet. It's way too hard core. I suspect we humans do need a little bit of meat now and then. But, being a typical Westerner, I was finding I was fat, had too much cholesterol, etc., so I started going pretty hardcore vegetarian, though with fish and the occasional egg and such, and feel great.

          • PDK

            How are your eyes, how many of your children have died.

          • Mary Sue

            make sure you get enough B12 or you will go (even more) bats*** insane.

          • EarlyBird

            Don't be like that, Mary Sue!

  • cxt

    jakespoon

    Good idea……we should use their names the way people name hurricanes.

    As in Famine Seger which killed X number of children.

    On the other hand they might take a sort of enjoyment from it,

  • EarlyBird

    I've never understood the objection to genetically modified crops. Aren't basically all crops ever cultivated by man "genetically modified"?

    I too support the Keystone XL pipeline, but not because it is environmentally harmless, but that I believe the good outweighs the bad.

    But you'll notice that Prager doesn't even mention why those opposed to it are opposed to it: the actual oil being sent through the pipeline is derived from a very environmentally destructive method, and the oil itself is a very crude and dirty-burning type of oil. They are also concerned about ruptures along that pipeline which would result in environmental disasters along its path.

    Now, either these concerns are valid or not. Either the benefits of the pipeline outweigh the possible downsides. But Prager just writes the off as environmental "fanatics."

    • Lady_Dr

      THis 'concerns' are not valid. There are LOTS of pipelines thru these very same areas, there is little chance of leaks (I mean virtually no chance – I mean this isn't exactly earthquake territory), and the purpose of refining it is to well, refine it. So all of your objections are invalid.

      • EarlyBird

        Doctor, you are misinformed.

        It is not just earthquakes that make pipelines break. Elements and corrosion, accidents, lack of maintenance. etc. can make them do that. It's happened plenty of times for reasons not related to earthquakes.

        There are different levels of oil refinement, and certain types of crude do not lend themselves to and are not intended for, the higher ("cleaner") levels of refinement, including that crude which would go through the XL pipeline.

        We can accept these risks and facts about the XL pipeline and still be for it, as I am, but let's not deny reality.

    • jakespoon

      They aren't concerned about the other couple of thousand pipelines that run through the middle of the country?

      • EarlyBird

        I think they are, but they exist alread and there's nothign they can do about them. This one they're hoping to prevent.

        • pyeatte

          But there is no logical reason to prevent another pipeline especially a very modern one that is desperately needed.

          • EarlyBird

            That's why I am for this pipeline, as I have stated. It's not that I don't see any downsides, it's just that the upsides outweigh the downsides.

            Sadly, our politics has become so polarized that people can't seem to make logical cost-benefit analyses anymore.

    • tagalog

      Recently, genetically modified crops have been found to be not a danger to other, unmodified crops, nor have they been found to constitute a danger to human health.

      • EarlyBird

        Yeah, I don't understand the concern.

  • Clara S

    Again, a reasonable point of view from Mr. Prager. One question remains…..what to do with the disease that is known as 'environmentalism'?

    • EarlyBird

      Yeah, okay. Caring about not poisoning ourselves to death is a "disease." Not that you're a fanatic or anything.

  • Lady_Dr

    WRONG – "But the Obama administration may (again) veto the Keystone XL pipeline — for one reason: environmentalist fanaticism." Actually there is another reason. Obama WANTS to bankrupt the country which he hates, and wants to support Venezuela and these Middle East oil suppliers. He may not be a Communism or a Muslim but there is no doubt he has no problem with them. To him we are the enemy.

    • EarlyBird

      AND he grinds Jewish babies up in his breakfast cereal every morning!

    • IsleOracle

      When Obama is against something its about the MONEY. Uses the useful (Green) idiots for cover. Remember who he donated $18 Billion to for oil recovery off the coast of Brazil? Remember whose rail system is currently transporting the Canadian oil to the refineries? Soros and Buffett. Two BIG time Obama supporters. Soros developed MoveOn.org. So, it must be that the Canadian oil producers aren't paying enough to Obama (via his cronies) yet to get the pipeline up. Don't pay attention to the misdirection – its always about MONEY.

  • Obomination

    The Obama administration offered to trade carbon dioxide taxes for allowing the pipeline. Whatever gains the pipeline would give the economy would be offset by his tax and spend policies.

  • Loyal Achates

    I love it. Anyone who fell off a ladder in China during the Great Leap Forward is a Victim of Communism (and by association with American liberals who had nothing to do with it) but people dying of malnutrition in the Philippines, which is a former American colony, deeply Christian, and has been capitalist for at least 75 years, is in some undefined way the fault of environmentalists – as if anti-GMO activists had any pull in the WTO, or the US government, or the Philippine government! Gimme a break.

    • EarlyBird

      Given that the US has all sorts of GMO derived crops and an obesity, rather than a starvation, problem, you're not making sense. In other words, if the US had its way, the Filipinos would be fat and eating GMO crops, US imperialism in the Phillipines or not.

      Prager's notion is that "libruls!" are killing off Filipino kids because they are obsessed with GMO crops is questionable, as most of his contentions are.

      • Loyal Achates

        Just because the US consumes GMO doesn't necessarily mean we encourage other people to do so…there are endless political or economic reasons we might not want them to grow this or that crop.

        'Golden rice' cannot be bought in any country. Why is that? Prager can't say. For one thing, he doesn't know and won't be bothered to find out. Neither can he discuss any other factors contributing to poor health in the Phils because his obsessive hatred of liberals causes him to blame them without cause.