So David Suzuki’s next ‘Nature Challenge’ is apparently challenging students to determine if there isn’t some “legal way of throwing our so-called leaders into jail because what they’re doing [about climate change] is a criminal act”, to quote the National Post (Feb 7, 2008).
It appears that a religious fervor for protecting nature has transformed Canada’s leading environmentalist into an emotional bully intolerant of anyone, including other scientists, who don’t see things his way.
Over the years, I’ve heard and read statements by David Suzuki that are too often misleading or incorrect, especially about climate. He, and many like him, claims natural events are unnatural thus guaranteeing that they appear right. What he conveniently overlooks, and may have learned had he remained a scientist rather than becoming an activist, is that nature and climate frequently change dramatically and in very short time periods.
Suzuki gets away with this misinterpretation by fully exploiting the false authority of his claimed and cultivated position as a scientist and environmentalist. He does this despite the fact that he deliberately abandoned his university research position in the 1980s and has no more qualifications as an environmentalist than many of us.
Indeed, it is arrogant for people such as Suzuki to claim that they are environmentalists as if it were some sort of exclusive club, inferring they care and the rest of us don’t. It is more likely he, and those who work with him, are pushing a political agenda to create the world they want. H. L. Mencken, one of the most influential American writers of the early 20th century, said, “The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
And what kind of rule would these enviroMentalists like to see for us?
Well, Samizdata gives us an inkling.
Rob Johnston has produced a very interesting essay on the true soulmates of Green Politics in Britain
- Forbid the purchase of corner shops by migrants
- Stop people from inner cities moving to the countryside to protect traditional lifestyles
- Grant British citizenship only to children born here
- Boycott food grown by black farmers and subsidise crops grown by whites
- Restrict tourism and immigration from outside Europe
- Prohibit embryo research
- Stop lorry movements on the Lord’s Day
- Require State approval for national sports teams to compete overseas
- Disconnect Britain from the European electricity grid
- Establish a "new order" between nations to resolve the world economic crisis
These are the policies of one of Britain’s most influential political parties: a party that has steadily increased its vote over the last decade; a party that appeals overwhelmingly to whites; and a party that shares significant objectives with neo-fascists and religious fundamentalists.
Perhaps—the BNP? Despite its attempts to appear modern and inclusive and the soothing talk in its 2005 General Election Manifesto, of "genuine ethnic and cultural diversity"  [PDF].
Or UKIP? It harbours some pretty backward-looking individuals—but would they stop Britain buying electricity from France if necessary?
Or, maybe, the Conservatives? Could that be a list of recommendations from one of Dave’s lesser-known policy groups—chaired by the ghost of Enoch Powell—quietly shredded to avoid "re-contaminating the Brand"?
Actually, affiliates of the progressive consensus may be surprised to learn that all the reactionary policies in the first paragraph are from the Green Party’s Manifesto for a Sustainable Society (MfSS) or were adopted at the party’s Autumn Conference in Liverpool over the weekend of September 13-16, 2007  [PDF].
As the Samizdata writer puts it,
Vote Green—go blackshirt.
Thank you to the poor little Greek boy, who emailed me the link.
And to anyone who votes Green: I hope that you are fucking ashamed of yourself.