Green Power: Black Death

Green Power: Black Death
Eco-Imperialism: Green Power, Black Death

The author of this book is Paul Driessen. And just who is Paul Driessen?
Driessen received his bachelor's degree in geology and field ecology from Lawrence University, JD from the University of Denver College of Law, and accreditation in public relations from the Public Relations Society of America.

Driessen is currently a senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and a senior fellow with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation.

During a 25 year career, that included staff tenures with the Department of the Interior and an energy trade association, he has spoken and written frequently on energy and environmental policy, global climate change, corporate social responsibility and other topics. He has also written articles and professional papers on marine life associated with oil platforms off the coasts of California and Louisiana - and produced a video documentary on the subject.

A geologist interested in climate change? What will they think of next?

Paul has some interesting friends. One of them, Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace has this to say about the book.

"The environmental movement I helped found has lost its objectivity, morality and humanity. The pain and suffering it is inflicting on families in developing countries must no longer be tolerated. This is the first book I've seen that tells the truth and lays it on the line. It's a must-read for anyone who cares about people, progress and our planet."
Another Friend of Paul is Niger Innis. Who is Niger Innis?
Niger Innis currently serves as the National Spokesman for the Congress of Racial Equality. He works closely with the National Chairman and represents CORE across the country. He is a MSNBC contributor on the 24-hour news network providing insight and analysis on the day's news events.
And what does Niger have to say about the war on the poor waged by "back to the stone age" environmentalists?
Liberal politicians and environmental activists continue to say we must switch to "green" energy. Oil, gas, coal and nuclear must go, they insist.

Informed voters support conservation and alternative energy. But they know fossil and nuclear fuels created health and living standards unprecedented in history.

Over two-thirds of American voters support increased onshore and offshore drilling. They know world energy demand is surging, while US production is prohibited and declining. They realize anti-drilling policies don't just cause unemployment and cost us trillions in lost lease bonus, royalty and tax revenues.

Those policies also wage an immoral war on poor families. They destroy jobs, erode civil rights gains, and force minority and elderly households to choose between food, fuel, rent and medicine.

Since 2006, the cost of driving a 25-mpg car 10,000 miles has risen $600. Heating and air-conditioning costs - and the price of everything we eat, wear and do - continue to soar. While higher income families spend a nickel of every dollar on energy, families at the bottom of our economic scale spend up to half of their incomes on gasoline, heating and cooling.

This is intolerable and unnecessary. We have centuries' worth of oil, gas, oil shale, coal and uranium - and we can develop them without harming the environment.

But environmental radicals in and out of Congress refuse to let us do so. They want to force us to switch to renewables, even though there is a yawning chasm between 0.5% of US energy produced by wind and solar power - and 93% produced with hydrocarbon and nuclear power.

The eventual switch to alternative energy is obviously decades away. Meanwhile, we are sending up to $700 billion a year to Russia , Iran , Venezuela , Saudi Arabia and other countries - in the midst of our worst economic crisis in memory.

People are justifiably angry that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi refused to allow a debate or vote on ending congressional drilling bans. The only "energy" bills she supports would open few areas, while adding more taxes, regulations, lawsuits, delays, price hikes, and renewable-energy mandates and subsidies. They will produce little or no new energy.

Here is a review of the book by A Customer on the Amazon page linked above.
Before reading this exceptional primer on the negative effects of modern environmentalism, I was clueless of the far-reaching costs that group's policies have had on the Third World. Driesen documents at length the effect radical environmentalism has had on Africa's struggling poor, who want nothing more than to benefit from the same energy sources and standard of living the First World takes for granted. He shows how DDT saved thousands of lives in Africa by protecting families from malaria, while radical Greens fought to eliminate the benign chemical because of a theoretical risk it posed to birds. When families were restricted from using the chemical on their huts in Africa, malaria deaths shot through the roof. Driesen lays the blame for those thousands of deaths at the doorstep of the Sierra Club and other like-minded groups who would rather maintain a politically correct notion of what good environmentalism is rather than save actual lives.

Driesen goes on to show how environmentalists keep the Third World populations in poverty by fighting against the use of traditional, affordable sources of energy like coal and fossil fuels. Instead, Greens think other sources like wind and solar should be the only option for these people, disregarding the fact that the technology is no where near advanced enough to provide the energy needs these populations need to pull themselves out of poverty. Ironically, it would take over 10,000 acres of windmills to generate the same amount of electricity a 2-3 acre fossil fuel plant produces. So much for "saving the land."

Driesen does not endorse using fossil fuels forever and ever amen. In fact, he wants nothing more than for the world to develop and invest in alternative energy because he knows as well as everyone else the day will come when we have no other choice. He simply believes (and rightly so) that, in the mean time, the problems of the Third World are real and not theoretical like so many Green "concerns", and that First World governments should not be intimidated by radical Greens and NGOs in their efforts to employ free-trade and responsible investment in these areas. One of the books biggest themes is how unfair it is that NGOs are not held to the same standards of accountability and transparency they constantly demand from for-profit corporations.

Paul and Willie Soon have written a piece with a publication date of June 7, 2009.
Sub-Saharan Africa remains one of Earth's most impoverished regions. Over 90% of its people still lack electricity, running water, proper sanitation and decent housing. Malaria, malnutrition, tuberculosis, HIV/AIDS and intestinal diseases kill millions every year. Life expectancy is appalling, and falling.

And yet UN officials, European politicians, environmentalist groups and even African authorities insist that global warming is the gravest threat facing the continent. They claim there is no longer any debate over human-caused global warming - but ignore thousands of scientists who say human CO2 emissions are not the primary cause of climate changes, there is no evidence that future warming will be catastrophic, and computer models do not provide valid projections or "scenarios" for the future.

[Global] Warming alarmists use the "specter of climate change" to justify inhumane policies and shift the blame for problems that could be solved with the very technologies they oppose.

Past colonialism sought to develop mining, forestry and agriculture, and bring better government and healthcare practices to Africa . Eco-colonialism keeps Africans "traditional" and "indigenous," by insisting that modern technologies are harmful and not "sustainable" in Africa.

Let me see if I get this? A healthy prosperous Africa is unsustainable, but millions of African children dying every year can be continued indefinitely. You know, if the Austrian Corporal had proposed such a thing we would call these policies genocidal. But wrap it all it green swaddling and it is "saving the earth". You have to wonder what the greenies have against the poor and people of color? Is it possible they are practicers of covert racism?

Cross Posted at Power and Control

posted by Simon on 06.10.09 at 08:11 AM


Thank you for the heads up.

OregonGuy   ·  June 10, 2009 12:22 PM

Great post.
Bjorn Lomborg in "The Skeptical Environment" points out that billions spend now on the global warming "crisis" will do little, and may only lower temperatures a few degrees in the next few decades- say 95 degrees versus 97 degrees - a dubious and less than impressive accomplishment. In the meantime, the same billions spent can be used NOW to cut disease infection, bring clean water to African villages, boost crop yields etc etc..

The choice of "environmentalists" is clear. They would much prefer poor Third World peoples to starve and to die, than to allocate scarce resources more effectively to their aid. They prefer to feel noble, praising themselves and preening themselves on their supposedly greater wisdom, enlightenment, and moral worth, than to save lives. That is the crux of the matter. Self-congratulation as the basis for social policy, as Tom Sowell says so aptly.

Enrique Cardova   ·  June 13, 2009 4:59 PM

Post a comment

April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30


Search the Site


Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link


Recent Entries


Site Credits