Posted by
Greg England on Monday, April 21, 2008 12:17:17 AM
Environmentalists are always banging on about rising CO2 levels and associated rising sea levels.
"Millions of people will perish if we don't do something now" they say.
"Fine" I say, accepting their premise. "Let's build lots of nuclear power stations"
The conversation draws to a close.
Why is that? Surely, if your one big project is to save human life through reducing manmade CO2, you should be jumping for joy because the problem already has a solution: Nuclear Power. Yet the greens ignore this option, and instead make stupid suggestions that are designed to make my blood pressure rise:
- Change your light bulbs
- Take shorter showers
- Take the bus to work
- Build lots of windmills
I have heard some conservatives suggest that global warming is a scam, designed to validate failed liberal policies by introducing an artificial world wide crisis that can only be solved through direct government intervention.
Yet the truth is far, far more sinister than that.
By denying humanity the benefits of the technology that could secure all their future energy needs, environmentalists are disclosing their true agenda, which is:
'Save the planet ... but screw you!'
In their universe, they are happy to sacrifice the futures of millions of people on the anti-nuclear altar, because nothing matters more than pristine nature. In fact it's already happening. Rising oil prices. Land that should be used for growing food crops, given over to useless biofuels.
But at least we are saving the planet (and we are creating an artificial population/food crisis in the process, to be 'solved' by a future generation of enviro-wackos).
Post blog note:
It would be like having a worldwide AIDS crisis, and having PETA step in at the last minute to prevent the use of a life saving vaccinne because it had been tested on animals. Now I don't like vivisection any more than you do. But here's a thought experiment for you, worthy of a future blog:
If you develop a cancer drug for dogs ... is it wrong to test it on animals?