What is the greatest threat to the world environment? It is ‘global warming’ or “the hole in the ozone layer” (remember that thing?). Is it cars or suburban sprawl? Oil? Fracking? George W. Bush?
No, friends, the greatest threat to the environment is environmentalists themselves. Actually they should be called enLIARmentalists because they lie about almost everything. They even lie about the very nature of environmentalism itself, which is not about the environment at all. It is about shifting wealth, political power and jobs to the socialist left.
And if environmentalists throw millions of people out of work in the process of getting money, jobs and power for themselves, which they are doing, they don’t care. If they harm the environment and the economy in the process, which they are doing, they don’t care.
If they have to lie to get that money, power and jobs, that is fine to them. For instance they have lied about ‘global warming’ for years now as we froze in the coldest Winter in the last century in much of the Eastern US in 2014. Or they say over and over that “solar energy is free”, but that is utterly false. Solar energy is wildly expensive and requires huge taxpayer subsidies. The average solar energy installation for a home with a $1,500 annual electric bill is $35,000. And most of that cost is mitigated through tax credits, i.e., you as a taxpayer, who does not have solar panels, subsidize your neighbor’s electric bill by subsidizing his solar panels.
The great civil rights struggle of our time is to fight the billionaires and the other super-rich elites like Al Gore who fund the environmental movement. We need to rise up on behalf of the hard-working people of America against the Eco-Robber Barons like Gore and George Soros and Mark Zuckerberg so that we can have jobs, prosperity and a clean environment for all.
So what is the greatest single threat to the global environment? It is one word…. inefficiency. And if we continue to do things inefficiently we will ruin the environment. Think about it this way: If you could grow all of your food efficiently on one acre of land, that is one thing. But if you grew it inefficiently on 3 acres of land that would require three times as much labor, money, energy and resources. This would be bad not only for the economy but for the environment too.
And if you multiply that inefficiency by every person you see clearly that inefficiency is the greatest threat of all to both the economy and the environment. Yet environmentalists promote inefficiency every minute of every day. Here are 28 separate ways that they do so, along with the conservative response because we conservatives are the real environmentalists.
*Environmentalists are denying us the most efficient means ever of producing electricity – nuclear power. To replace nuclear power the United States is burning 1.2 BILLION tons of coal every single year, and 7 TRILLION cubic feet of natural gas every single year to generate electricity. This alone is the most significant and unnecessary assault on our environment in the mining/extraction, transportation and burning of these nonrenewable resources. To haul all that coal, freight trains travel thousands of miles to deliver the coal and then to return the same distance empty. This uses huge amounts of fuel unnecessarily, as much as 2 billion gallons per year of diesel fuel. So we can thank environmentalists for making us burn all that coal, natural gas and diesel fuel.
Here is the conservative response: Build 800 nuclear reactors at 1,000 megawatts each to insure our electricity supply for the next 100 years. These 800 reactors will replace all of our coal and natural gas power plants. Nuclear power is millions of times more efficient than coal or natural gas, and has never killed a single American. Not a single person was harmed in “the worst nuclear accident in American history” at Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 despite the media hysteria. President Jimmy Carter went right inside the TMI plant and he is still alive in 2014. Nuclear power will save the burning of all of that coal and natural gas, as well as all of the energy to extract it and transport it. Meanwhile the extraction, transportation and processing of uranium for nuclear power requires only a miniscule fraction of the energy required for coal and natural gas.
*Environmentalists claim that they stand for energy efficiency and that nobody else does. Here is the conservative response: False. This is the opposite of the truth. Our capitalist economy has produced natural efficiency such that we create twice as much wealth per unit of energy input as we did in the 1950s. This increase in efficiency was not mandated by the government or by environmentalists. It happened naturally because we all want to do more work with less energy input, and because it is common sense to do so since energy costs money. And it happened because creative people are always thinking up new ways to do things better, including more efficient ways. Meanwhile environmental activism has suggested marginal routes to energy efficiency (caulk your windows, insulate your home, change your light bulbs, increase the air pressure in your car tires etc.)
Consider the steam locomotives that ruled American railroads for more than a century. They were considered efficient in their day because there was no alternative, but really they were inefficient. They created a lot of air pollution and were labor-intensive and expensive to operate. Then when free-market technology and European/American ingenuity produced the hugely efficient and much cleaner diesel-electric locomotive the steam engine disappeared quickly. It did not fade away because of environmentalist pressure or government rules; it disappeared because smart white Euro/American men created an efficient replacement that became widely available in the free market.
If environmentalists controlled our technology there would be no diesel engine. Environmentalists are ignorant intellectual bureaucrats who have created zero new technologies to make the world a better place. They are backward eggheads who are technologically dumb. They can always find a crisis but never can solve one. Even their primitive windmills rely on the process of spinning a copper generator that was developed in the late 19th century by Croatian-born scientist Nikola Tesla who developed his idea for generating electricity while working in innovative, capitalist America.
*How about automobile fuel efficiency? That’s where the ecologists help us, right? Wrong. Statistical studies have shown that the better fuel mileage that cars get, the more miles we drive, and that increased fuel-efficiency standards actually INCREASE overall fuel consumption. As another example, think about air conditioning. In the early days air conditioning was expensive to make and consumed a lot of electricity and so overall electrical consumption for air conditioning was low. But now that air conditioners have become cheaper to make (are more efficient to manufacture) and use much less electricity (are more energy-efficient) tens of millions more people use AC and overall electrical consumption for air conditioning has skyrocketed.
Here is the conservative response: Let auto makers and car buyers set whatever fuel-efficiency standards they want.
*Environmentalists advocate windmills and solar panels which are extremely inefficient and expensive. That is why they rely on big taxpayer subsidies. Giant windmills are despoiling our mountaintops and wilderness areas and killing millions of birds, including rare eagles.
Here is the conservative response: End the tax credits for ‘green’ energy and remove the windmills like they are finally doing even in some places in Europe. The inefficiency of ‘green’ power already is harming the economy as well as the ecology with windmills and solar panels everywhere while producing virtually no energy at all and draining away precious capital for efficient energy production. Let’s save the mountaintops and wilderness by stopping wind power.
*Solar panels that generate electricity contain toxic elements like chromium, arsenic, cadmium telluride, hexafluoroethane, lead and polyvinyl fluoride. They are not the “clean” energy source that you think they are. Disposing of millions of solar panels after they are worn out is going to be an expensive toxic crisis. Here is the conservative response: End taxpayer funding of “dirty” solar panels. Require that solar panels be treated like toxic waste when they are disposed of, in order to protect the environment. Demand that wealthy environmental groups pick up the tab for that expensive disposal since they advocated the solar panels in the first place.
*What about the massive forest fires that we see in the Western United States every Summer? These are caused directly by ‘green’ policies that keep loggers out of these forests. As forests build up naturally and trap more and more dead wood for fuel, the forests are subject to these massive fires that put huge amounts of pollutants into the air. For no cost whatsoever to taxpayers, loggers can execute smart forest management plans to thin trees and create “fire breaks” to control fires. But environmentalists won’t allow it.
Here is the conservative response: Allow private logging companies to “manage” the forest and reduce fire risks.
*Environmentalists want us to stop polluting the air, don’t they? Nope. Consider the “green” alcohol fuel called ethanol, which is made by distilling vast quantities of corn into alcohol. Here is just one of dozens of analyses of ethanol, this one from the American Enterprise Institute (aei.org): “Ethanol, blended with gasoline, actually turns out to increase the formation of potent greenhouse gases more than gasoline does by itself. As far back as 1997, the U.S. Government Accountability Office determined that the ethanol production process produces relatively more nitrous oxide and other potent greenhouse gases than does gasoline. In contrast, the greenhouse gases released during the conventional gasoline fuel cycle contain relatively more of the less potent type, namely, carbon dioxide.” AEI then lists other negative enviro impacts, like the fact that ethanol production requires 140 gallons of water for every gallon of ethanol produced while petroleum refining uses 2.5 gallons.
Here is the conservative response. End the production of ethanol. It not only requires huge taxpayer subsidies and hurts the environment, the taxpayer and the economy, but it pushes up food prices for everyone by taking large amounts of land and corn out of the food-supply chain, pushing up the price of feed for animals, increasing prices for meat and milk.
*But certainly environmentalists help us to clean up the pollution that the corporations have caused, don’t they? Sorry, friends, but no; they in many cases make it worse and here is a clear example. At the town of Fort Edward, New York, about 180 miles north of New York City on the Hudson River, General Electric for decades dumped a chemical compound called PCBs into the river. This dumping was not prohibited by any laws. “Environmentalists” along with the state of New York now are forcing GE to clean up the PCBs from the river bed in a very expensive dredging operation costing hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet while alarmist enviro studies show PCBs to be harmful (what else would you expect?) many other studies have shown PCBs to be harmless. And knowing how much environmentalists lie, distort and exaggerate about everything we cannot believe their studies. So critics of the dredging, including Nikitas3.com, are pointing out that stirring up the PCBs is just spreading them down the river. So if the PCBs are dangerous, why spread them? On the other hand, if they are harmless why go to all of the expense? This is how “environmentalists” actually harm the environment, and hurt the economy too by forcing expensive cleanups that in many cases are not even necessary.
Here is the conservative response: Leave the PCBs in the river bed where they lie basically inert. And expose the enviro lies about the danger of everything from PCBs to nuclear power to dioxin to DDT.
*But we sure can count on environmentalists to advocate newer and cleaner industrial technology, can’t we? Again, no. At the town of Hudson, New York, 130 miles north of New York City, a Canadian firm called St. Lawrence Cement sought for years to build a new cement production plant to replace its older plants in the region. That area is rich in limestone, which is essential to cement production. But environmentalists stopped the new plant from being built even though it would have been much cleaner and more energy-efficient than the old ones. This is happening all over America. Here is the conservative response: Allow American industries to upgrade their facilities to state-of-the-art status, to reduce pollution and create efficiency. Nikitas3.com has warned that the obstructing of the St. Lawrence plant was not done in the name of the “environment” anyway. It was done to bully and thwart a private profit-making industrial firm. This will actually harm the environment by driving cement production to countries with more lax environmental rules.
*Environmentalists routinely oppose genetically-modified foods, modern agricultural practices, bio-engineered crops and large-scale farms or corporate farms, all of which produce large amounts of food very efficiently on the smallest amount of land using the least amount of resources and energy. Meanwhile environmentalists generally support grossly inefficient and expensive “organic” farms which waste massive amounts of time, energy, labor and money. Here is the conservative response: Use all modern agricultural techniques to provide the most food for the most people at the least environmental and economic cost.
*So-called “environmentalists” certainly care about our ‘endangered species’, don’t they? Answer: No. Windmills are killing millions of birds, including hundreds of endangered eagles, and Obama has made sure that windmill owners and manufacturers are not held to account for this. Here are two sentences from theblaze.com from December 6, 2013: “WASHINGTON (TheBlaze/AP) – The Obama administration announced Friday that it will allow certain companies to kill or maim bald and golden eagles for up to 30 years without the fear of prosecution. The new rule is designed to address environmental consequences that some say have hindered attempts to grow the “green” energy industry: the dozens of bald and golden eagles being killed each year by the giant, spinning blades of wind turbines.” Here is the conservative response: Either enforce these endangered species laws evenly, or not at all. And if these laws are applied to oil companies and everyone else, then we must apply them to windmills too.
*Environmentalists now are seeking to completely halt the construction of new underground pipelines that are needed to safely transport our crude oil, gasoline, heating oil and natural gas. Yet the 2013 Lac Megantic oil train disaster in Canada, and other recent railroad explosions, are showing once again that that pipelines are a better, safer and more ecologically sound alternative. Also, if pipelines are blocked and more and more oil and natural gas are moved on trains, this crowds the rails and makes freight trains less efficient in moving other goods that then end up on our highways, wasting fuel and causing more pollution.
Here is the conservative response: Continue to build pipelines for the efficient transport of fuel. Environmentalists repeatedly warned of disaster on the 800-mile Alaska pipeline yet the biggest oil spill there in almost 40 years of operation was human sabotage. The Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989 would have been prevented if oil had moved through a pipeline from Alaska to the Lower 48, rather than being transloaded onto ships. But environmentalists oppose pipelines.
*How about the way that these ecologists watch birds and follow whales in their kayaks and take photos of every type of “endangered” animal. How would you feel if you had somebody watching you all the time and following you and taking your picture? It would make you crazy, wouldn’t it? Here is the conservative response: Leave the animals alone. Environmentalists are making the animals neurotic… just like environmentalists themselves are.
*Environmentalists advocate Euro-type high-speed passenger trains to “save energy”. In California a proposed high-speed train is expected to cost $68 billion to move people between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The only problem is that the proposed train route is 520 miles in order to serve out-of-the-way population centers while the direct distance by highway between the two cities is 382 miles and the distance by air is 350 miles. So why should the state of California spend all that taxpayer cash (and actually it will end up being many times that because of corruption) to cover all of that extra distance? It should not. It would be a huge waste of both money and energy to build such a boondoggle. Yet most environmentalists still want it. ‘
Here is the conservative response: No high-speed trains. We can move people between cities in cars, and on buses and on airplanes with no subsidy, as we do today. Trains are extremely energy-inefficient and expensive and will move few people as Amtrak moves very few people, even many fewer than intercity buses (Greyhound, Trailways etc.). Meanwhile the blasting of new corridors for these high-speed trains through the countryside and through cities, suburbs and towns would be very destructive to the environment. Nikitas3.com also advocates high-speed helicopter transport (50 to 100 passengers each) between cities that can provide fast, cheap transit that can take off and land close to city centers without expensive rail systems in between.
*Environmentalists always advocate public mass transit. Yet in most cases today public transit is grossly inefficient in time, cost, labor and even fuel. Because unless one of those public-transit buses or trolleys is carrying at least a minimum number of passengers, it actually is wasting fuel compared to moving the same number of passengers by car. This is happening in my town in Massachusetts where the 30-seat buses often run with 3 or 4 passengers or sometimes less. And now that public transit buses are operating more hours and stretching farther and farther into rural areas around towns and small cities all over the country, they are burning up more and more fuel for few riders. This is very inefficient and wastes labor, taxpayer money and energy, all of which are bad for the environment.
Think about the mass transit system that may exist in your town. There are many cases where you can go by car from your house to your destination 4 miles away in 7 minutes, as I can. But a bus trip might have to go 8 miles and take 40 minutes. That wastes fuel, labor and time. Rail-based transit systems like trolleys are even more wasteful because they are much heavier than buses and much more expensive to build and maintain. I have calculated that one train system to move passengers from my town to a connection with New York City commuter trains could use 50 times as much fuel as driving. Here is the conservative response: Scale mass transit systems way back, or eliminate them, to save money, energy and time. Mass transit is increasingly irrelevant and very expensive to operate since public mass transit companies are government agencies with overpaid workforces and big bureaucracies.
*Millions of very fervent environmentalists live in rural areas where they are heavily dependent on their cars to get around. They need to drive long distances in their everyday lives. This wastes vast amounts of the energy that these environmentalists are seeking to thwart through obstruction of oil drilling, and refinery and pipeline construction. Here is the conservative response: If environmentalists deliberately use large amount of gasoline in their chosen lifestyle then they should not complain about the negative enviro impact of oil and natural gas and gasoline and pipelines. They should alter their own lifestyle first. Live by example.
*Environmentalists in America today are closely allied with the Democrat party and the labor unions. Union activism, strikes, violence and outrageous wage demands have combined to kill thousands of businesses large and small, and have destroyed entire industries (like the steel industry and the freight railroads) and millions of jobs, particularly in the northern Industrial Belt of America from Illinois to Maine. This has led to the abandonment of tens of thousands of industrial buildings and the decay of millions of homes in thousands of once-prosperous villages, towns and cities (like Detroit) that now are losing population and being abandoned. This is all a huge blight on the environment. Here is the conservative response: Expose the connection between environmentalists and labor unions. Ban labor unions and allow free enterprise to flourish. This will help to prevent even more environmental damage, and would have prevented much of this damage from happening already.
*American newspapers are overwhelmingly liberal and support environmentalism in every way, from their selective reporting to their editorials. Yet the production of paper for newspapers, and the printing, distribution and disposal of newspapers are some of the most polluting industries in all of American industry, not only in deforestation for the paper itself, but in air pollution, bleaching of paper, production of ink, and even in newspaper recycling, which consumes large amounts of energy and creates tens of millions of gallons of inky sludge every year when ink is removed during recycling. Here is the conservative response: Require all newspapers in America that support environmentalism to pay a tax on every copy printed to pay for their environmental damage.
*For decades environmentalists have been advocating the electric car, which is an extremely inefficient way to travel that wastes lots of energy. Because cars are “the wrong use” for refined electricity which should be preserved for uses for which there is no alternative like refrigerators, computers, light bulbs, etc. Here is the conservative response: Ban the electric car and use the efficient internal combustion engine. It is much better for the environment.
*Environmentalists have been promoting expensive compact fluorescent light bulbs, which are highly toxic inside. Here is the conservative response: Use traditional light bulbs. They are better for the environment.
*EnLIARmentalists like Al Gore have relentlessly criticized the automobile with its internal combustion engine. They say that it is wasteful. Here is the conservative response: The automobile gets you directly from Point A to Point B. That saves energy, money and time, which are all positive things for the environment and for the economy. Mass transit systems often go far out of the way to get you to the same destination as in the California example above, or they run with low or very low passenger loads like Amtrak often does and like many public transit systems do, wasting large amounts of energy. This is very inefficient and harms the environment. On the other hand, every time a car moves it is carrying at least the driver who needs to go somewhere.
*For years now enLIARmentalists have been vocally disparaging plastic packaging for food as somehow wasteful and bad for the ecology. Here is the conservative response: Plastic packaging for food has been one of the most effective means of reducing food spoilage. This reduction is a huge asset to the environment and to the economy; great amounts of energy are saved when food is well preserved for the market. Plastic packaging has been developed, produced and refined by our efficient capitalist economy over the decades-long objection of the environmentalists.
*Environmentalists gleefully participate in “healthy” outdoor activities like mountaineering. And while 3,000 people have been reported to have reached the summit of Mount Everest, the world’s highest peak, there are reputed to be 200 dead bodies along the trail to the summit from people who have died trying to get there. Meanwhile the climbers’ camps and trails to the summit have become littered with an estimated 50 TONS of garbage like discarded food packages, ropes, tents, sleeping bags, oxygen cylinders, camp stoves, fuel cartridges and every other kind of mountaineering equipment. It is being called “the world’s highest garbage dump”. Here is the conservative response: Get these polluting environmentalists to clean up their mess on Mount Everest and then ban climbing there. Keep these fanatics out of the “wilderness” if that is truly what they cherish. These “nature lovers” obviously don’t love nature at all, as Nikitas3.com has indicated many, many times. Just imagine the international hysteria if an oil company left 50 tons of garbage on Everest. But when these snob backpackers do it, it apparently is no problem.
*Environmentalists themselves guzzle huge amounts of discretionary energy to travel to Alaska to go backpacking, to get to Mount Everest, to ski in Colorado, to hang-glide in Oregon, to watch birds in Ecuador, to attend all of their end-of-the-world conferences, and in their everyday lives etc. Because a huge percentage of these so-called “environmentalists” are really upper-income, energy-guzzling pleasure seekers. Meanwhile these alarmists warn the rest of us about using our cars to get to work, and about ‘global warming’ and about everything else that they don’t like… like “fracking” for natural gas and oil – which they consume by the barrel. Here is the conservative response: Use energy wisely and efficiently. And if you use a lot of energy like these fraudster environmentalists do then don’t complain about wasteful energy use or ‘global warming’.
*How about the ‘human environment’? Do environmentalists harm humans, whom they claim they are trying to protect? Of course they harm people, very badly. Just look at how studies show that tens of millions of children in the advanced industrialized nations of the US and Europe are depressed and scared about the future. Because these environmentalists feed them a steady diet of end-of-the-world rhetoric like “global warming” and “the world is running out of oil”. This does tremendous damage to these kids, which is one of the ways that environmentalists control the world – by destroying the will of the people. Here is the conservative response: Stop the “warming” lies and leave the children alone. Stop this apocalyptic rhetoric, which is echoed in the left-wing media. This is exploiting children in the most brazen way, in addition to the fact that it is a lie.
*Wouldn’t it be great for the environment to eliminate thousands of big, smelly, disgusting landfills all across America and to never build another one? Of course! Only problem is that the “environmentalists” won’t allow it. Here is the conservative response: Eliminate recycling, which is an inefficient and expensive system that wastes time, labor, energy, money and resources. All garbage in America, including paper, newspaper, cardboard and plastic, should be burned to generate electricity. It is the most direct and efficient way to dispose of garbage and produces valuable electricity in return. If you don’t know how this works, look it up on the internet. This will eliminate all future landfills because all garbage that currently is left over after inefficient recycling – which is a huge amount – now goes into landfills. Nikitas3.com says: Burn it all. Every last bit. Nikitas3.com estimated that burning garbage to generate electricity will save the burning of 100 million tons of coal in power plants, and 150 million gallons of diesel fuel to transport that coal from mines to power plants.
Meanwhile recycling itself is an expensive, energy-consuming hoax promoted by enLIARmentalists to give themselves money, jobs and political power. Think about the rivers of hot water that Americans use to clean up their plastic for recycling. This uses massive amounts of energy to heat that water. Again, we should burn all garbage including newspaper and plastic in incinerators to generate energy, like the plant in my town that generates hot water for a nearby paper company. If we eliminated recycling and landfills in America and burned all garbage in incinerators to make electricity then we would be accomplishing three significant things – A) getting rid of garbage, and B) reducing the need for environmentally-dirty landfills while C) generating enough electricity to replace more than 90 big coal-burning power plants. This all would be a huge plus for the environment… if only environmentalists would allow it.
*And finally, for those living under the illusion that environmentalists care about “the wilderness”, think again. The environmental movement is in the process of blanketing vast swaths of wilderness and mountaintops with solar panels and windmills. This is just the beginning. There is one single new solar power plant in California that covers 5 square miles. Here is the conservative response: Fortunately even some environmentalists are joining us conservatives in seeing the fraud of solar and wind power. We demand a halt to the harming of the wilderness with windmills and solar panels.
(Please bookmark this website. And please recommend this site to all of your friends via Facebook and any other means. Let’s make Nikitas3.com the #1 conservative site by word of mouth. And if you would like to contribute to Nikitas3.com, please click the link at the upper right where it says “support this site”. Thank you, Nikitas)