Why Is Climate Change The Number One Boogeyman

By Frosty Wooldridge

As the last American taboo continues prancing along without question or debate, Canadian Tim Murray asks cogent questions for the ultimate reality check.  The conversation continues to evade the core problem for climate change and all other environmental breakdowns.  All major radio and TV networks won’t touch the subject.  While they continue in denial, reality will not avoid them.

The first paragraph stems from Dave Cohen’s “The Sixth Extinction.” After Cohen’s statement, Murray adds his sage understanding of the real problems facing humanity in the 21^st century.

 

Cohen said, “April 20, 1998. The American Museum of Natural History announced today results of a nationwide survey titled Biodiversity in the Next Millennium, developed by the Museum in conjunction with Louis Harris and Associates, Inc. The survey reveals that seven out of ten biologists believe that we are in the midst of a mass extinction of living things, and that this loss of species will pose a major threat to human existence in the next century. Among the findings revealed by the survey, scientists identified the maintenance of biodiversity – the variety of plant and animal species and their habitats – as critical to human well-being; they rate biodiversity loss as a more serious environmental problem than the depletion of the ozone layer, global warming, or pollution and contamination.

“The majority (70%) polled think that during the next thirty years as many as one-fifth of all species alive today will become extinct, and one third think that as many as half of all species on the Earth will die out in that time.”

[Murray’s note: This was 11 years ago. if 20% of all species alive in 1998 were predicted to go extinct in the next 30 years, I would say we're running right on, if not ahead of, schedule.]

“In 1998, most biologists thought biodiversity loss was a more serious environmental problem than global warming,” said Murray. “Nobody seems to have asked these underfunded biologists for their opinion since then, or asked them how things are going. No wonder. In 2009, all the politically-correct news focuses on the threats to human welfare posed by anthropogenic climate change. In response, Energy Secretary Steven Chu wants to further screw around with Nature to make 4th generation biofuels so we can all drive to Wal-Mart.

“Apparently, biologists don’t study a subject—all life on Earth and all the interdependent ecosystems upon which that life depends—that people deem important. What is the primary driver of The Sixth Extinction? This is taken from Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from the world of amphibians.”

Human activities are associated directly or indirectly with nearly every aspect of the current extinction spasm. The sheer magnitude of the human population has profound implications because of the demands placed on the environment. Population growth, which has increased so dramatically since industrialization, is connected to nearly every aspect of the current extinction event.

“Climate change merely adds to the extinction problem we’ve already created because we’re not willing to put the brakes on our exponentially increasing population,” said Murray. “Dr. Chu wants to create genetically engineered monocultures, a form of geoengineering, to keep growth going. Thus some proposed “solutions” to global warming will just make an already bad situation worse. We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

##
———————————————————————————————————————

Murray asks:  So I return to the question I posed way back in March of 2007:
Why is AGW the Number One Boogeyman of the environmental movement?
Why is it thought to be more imminently dangerous than the loss of biodiversity services and Peak Oil?  Why Why Why?

Here are some off the cuff answers:

Climate change is a cause celebre perfectly fitted to the Green Left open borders agenda. Atmospheric pollution of any kind by definition requires international cooperation, because the atmosphere does not respect human political demarcations. Many eco-socialists and greens have therefore argued that making noise about tightening borders sends out unfriendly signals to the governments of nations who send us migrants—legal and illegal—-and these are the governments whose cooperation we need. In other words, better not admonish your neighbors for trespassing on your property because you might need them to sign a petition against speeding motorists.

 On the other hand, those who would assign a great importance to population growth as a major factor of our environmental problems threaten this international focus, because in North America and Australia—-both heavy carbon emitters——mass immigration drives population growth, Therefore it is imperative to Green Inc. to hype climate change and denigrate those who would ring the alarm bells about population growth.

The other reason can be summed up in one word. “Money”.  Just as the environmental orgs find it more financially rewarding to raise funds for the protection of a majestic Rocky Mountain Caribou or a Great Spirit Bear than to try to raise funds to save ‘creepy crawlies’ which play a critical role in healthy ecosystems, there is nothing like the image of drowning polar bears and collapsing ice shelves to attract donations.

##