We had population growth, fluoride in the drinking water, DDT, famine, global cooling, acid rain, ozone holes, and now global warming. The environmentalists have a history of trying to scare us to obtain power, and frankly, some attention. With the use-by date on the global warming scare approaching, maybe they’ve now decided to bring out the next one. Yes, if we selfish and parasitic humans do not renounce our industrialised lifestyles, we may see a loss of biodiversity. Oh no(!)
Look at the websites of major environmental organizations and you might be persuaded that climate change is the only real environmental issue we face. A majority of American environmentalists have adopted climate change as their main cause, and it’s easy to understand why: when scientists agree that our planet is likely to be 5° to 10° F hotter by year 2100, that’ll get your attention.
What could be worse than the IPCC’s worst case scenario?
Climate change is a serious issue, but a couple of recent studies remind us that it may not be the biggest threat to life on Earth as we know it. It may in fact be essentially a symptom of a broader problem, one which hasn’t gotten nearly as much attention from either green groups or the environmentally oriented press. What’s the issue? Loss of biodiversity, also known as extinction. And ignoring it to focus on climate change can have dire consequences, especially in the California desert.
Oh, that’s right. The climate doesn’t change without our input and species don’t go extinct if we don’t push them. It all makes perfect sense.
Over the last few years an increasing number of scientists have suggested that the planet’s collapsing biological diversity may well be the largest and most intractable environmental problem we face. As threatening as climate change may be, it could be mitigated substantially by making a few wrenching but nonetheless straightforward changes in the way we do our business. (The fact that we lack the political will to make even those changes says more about our collective shortsightedness than about the nature of the problem itself.)
Perhaps scaring them with dying desert animals will make those simpletons bend over and accept your green religion.
Even if we transform our society to a carbon-neutral one, as long as our numbers continue to swell and our demand for comforts continues, other species will pay the ultimate price. As we convert more and more of the planet to resources for our own use, we deprive other species of the habitat they need to survive.
Right here is the admission that they place the needs of animals over people.
Something changed in the intervening 20 years, though. Check out this Google ‘Ngram” charting the relative frequencies of the phrases “climate change” and “biodiversity” in English-language books from 1990 to 2008. Both phrases were mentioned with increasing frequency in the early 1990s, with “biodiversity” pulling ahead in the months after UNCED. Then, in 2005 — a few months before the release of An Inconvenient Truth — “climate change” started getting more attention, and mentions of biodiversity actually began to decrease for the first time since the 1980s.
Greenies are talking about it more? That means it must be a problem.
I’ve heard all this biodiversity propaganda before. The eco-loons will point out the potential ‘beneficial uses’ of each organism, to make us want to conserve every single species possible. Of course, they fail to realise that anything which make an organism valuable to humanity, makes it worth money. Therefore, those greedy corporations will try to make money off them. Greenies lament the destruction of the Amazon and point out that most of our medicines come from the rain forest. The solution to this problem is of course to ensure the protection of property rights, which will provide incentives to look after the land. But, this idea doesn’t appeal to environmentalists.
I’m all for preserving different species of organisms where practical, but the costs (if any)and benefits of economic growth have to be weighed up. With economic growth, comes technological advancement which also has ‘beneficial uses’. One such area is genetic modification, which has the potential to offset the loss in genetic diversity that comes with declining biodiversity. Oh, hang on. No, they don’t want us to go with that one either.
(Via: Climate Depot)