Environment, We Hardly Knew Ye

As I have speculated previously, those with memories beyond a garden slug will come to be dumbfounded by the number of heretofore sacred liberal positions that liberals will eventually jettison. First the white working class was traded out out for their hardly working black counterparts. The white middle class shortly followed. Anti-corporatism has quietly been evacuated. And very soon baby boomer SS and Medicare recipients will learn that the ubiquitous slur “old white people” is simply a rhetorical prelude to transitioning funds to more vibrant welfare and Medicaid beneficiaries. All their prior votes for democrats soon to be long forgotten–none were so easily manipulated.

Though today’s pivot is the environment. Long the pristine habitat of any holy liberal. Anti-Gnostic has a good piece up on the subject. The hirsute Sierra Club founder, John Muir, had one fatal flaw that is now calling into question his relevancy to the left. Can you guess what that might be?

John Muir is the patron saint of environmentalism, an epic figure whose writings of mystical enlightenment attained during lone treks in California’s wilderness glorified individualism, saved Yosemite and helped establish the national park system..

As the first president of the Sierra Club, Muir shaped enduring perceptions about how the wild world should be prioritized, protected and managed.

But now some critics are arguing that the world has changed so much in the century since his death that Muir has gone the way of wheelwrights.

He is no longer relevant..

Critics also see a correlation between the emotional, biblical language of Muir’s writings and the demographic makeup of national park visitors and the ranks of the largest environmental organizations — mainly aging, white Americans.

Yet “the conservation movement reflects the legacy of John Muir, and its influence on a certain demographic — older and white — and that’s a problem,” Christensen said.

He is joined in that view by D.J. Waldie, an author and expert on Southern California culture.

“We have to reimagine our relationships with nature to accommodate modern, increasingly diverse communities that see the world differently than white Anglo-Saxon Protestants like Muir did in the late 19th century,” Waldie said.

Was that perhaps a bit too subtle for any readers? Let’s make it more succinct: whites are a “problem.” And the left has an answer.

Though before coming to that resolution, it’s interesting to note how these liberal positions get peeled off as each comes into contact with the movement’s core purpose. In this instance, a pseudo advocacy has formed in the wake of abandonment. For Warming Change is nothing but sentimental posturing. It is the purview of cowardly and unserious people who want to protect the environment in a theoretical sense, but are certainly unwilling to take on the roles of terrestrial advocacy that would bring them into direct conflict with non-whites. And so they shunt themselves into a meaningless cosmic warrior stance: Defending Andromeda’s pristine quasars! as directly outside their window accumulates a 12 ft drift of burrito wrappers.

Of course, China and India are environmental catastrophes. Though, through the magic of border transmutation, Chinese and Indians become conscientious stewards in the West.

We could speak similar in volumes of Africa.

Raw sewage and industrial waste dumped into Lake Victoria.
Into the ocean and onto beaches
Not to forget it simply running openly in the streets.
Air pollution

Africa is suffering deforestation at twice the world rate, according to the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Some sources claim that deforestation has already wiped out roughly 90% of West Africa’s original forests. Deforestation is accelerating in Central Africa. According to the FAO, Africa lost the highest percentage of tropical forests of any continent during the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000s. According to the figures from the FAO (1997), only 22.8% of West Africa’s moist forests remain, much of this degraded. Nigeria has lost 81% of its old-growth forests in just 15 years. Massive deforestation threatens food security in some African countries. One factor contributing to the continent’s high rates of deforestation is the dependence of 90% of its population on wood as fuel for heating and cooking.

Though perhaps most poignantly, there is the great fauna of that continent. The huge cats, giraffes, elephants, zebras, and rhinoceroses. Will it be some solace to liberals when all of these live on only in aging Discovery channel wildlife specials? What exactly do we imagine two billion Africans are going to eat, when one billion of them can’t begin to feed themselves? I thought the video below was delightful as a melancholy answer to that question.

When that earnest good-hearted boy has hopefully escaped with his life, do we imagine that starving Africans will fill the role as masseurs to those magnificent lions? I find it painful to envision the almost certain alternative.

An African country that is particularly progressive in this regard is the hellscape of Angola. Writing in his book, The Last Train to Zona Verde, author Paul Theroux observed the following:

The look of Angola was not just the ugly little town and the slum of shacks but also the ruin of a brutalized landscape, of the stumps of deforestation and the fields littered with burned- out tanks, of rivers and streams that seemed poisoned— black and toxic. And not the slightest glimpse of any animal but a cow or a cringing dog.

In most parts of the southern African bush you at least saw small antelopes or gazelles tittuping in the distance on slender legs. The impala was everywhere, and it was almost impossible to imagine a stretch of savanna without the movement of such creatures. And wherever there were villages, there were always scavengers, hyenas or intrusive baboons. But no wild animals existed in the whole of Angola.

One effect of the decades- long civil war here was that the animals that had not been eaten by starving people had been blown up by old land mines. The extermination of wild game had been complete. Now and then cows in pastures were shredded by exploding mines, and so were children playing and people taking shortcuts through fields. A country without wild animals seems inconceivable, because many animals in Africa, antelopes especially, are prolific, reproducing in such large numbers they are able to establish sustainable herds in the unlikeliest places. But the long war had wasted them, the hungry Angolans had eaten them, eaten the hippos, even the crocs, and if there were snakes, I did not see any. Oddly, the bird life was thin too. Even where the landscape was not picked apart, where some trees had been spared, the absence of animals— and the presence of squatting, oppressed, if not defeated- looking, humans— made these places in zona verde seem mournful, violated, with an After- the- Fall atmosphere.

Something inexplicably deleted from them had sapped their vitality. In the land without animals, humans were more conspicuous and seemed to exist in greater variety, many of them, in their destitution, taking the place of wildlife, living at the edges of settlements in low simple shelters that were like the twiggy brakes that some animals huddled against.

And what do so-called environmentalists say of this actual, physical environmental disaster?

Greenhouse gasses!

And that is Africa’s two billion soul future. A place of indescribably lush landscapes, fertile soil, and wondrous wildlife ultimately rendered a wasteland of stumps, black streams and animal bones. Perhaps our only consolation is that if the environmentalists get their way, America and Europe will ultimately follow.


13 thoughts on “Environment, We Hardly Knew Ye

  1. This is the inevitable future of Africa. It survives, and proliferates, on handouts. All it will take is one crop failure in America, and the handouts will stop. The people will starve.

    The one thing Africa apparently doesn’t lack is guns, and bullets. The white rhino is already extinct, hunted for its horn for use as an aphrodisiac. Viagra couldn’t save it. When the hunt for food becomes serious, all wildlife will be eaten. After that – or rather, concurrently – they will eat each other. Problem solved. Pity about the wildlife, though.

    I have said before, the only hope for the wildlife of Africa is a massive project to collect and save in freezers sperm and eggs, so that a viable population can be reestablished from zoo specimens after the apocalypse. It’s not going to get done, though.

    In the meantime, we need to prevent that nightmare scenario of two billion starving Africans becoming reality. Resist any impulse to contribute to charities in Africa (apart from my own pet project, the [consider] The Children Foundation. I would link to their publicity material, but the last time I did that, I caught some flak from people who followed the link. Seemed Google placed some pornographic ads on the page, which I was unaware of, since I use Adblock Plus).

    Stop feeding the animals. You’re only making them dependent.

    • When I was a child, and we learned about children starving in Africa, and on television there was adverts with starving african children, I would say to my father, please can we send money to the African babies? My father always would say no, charity is starting at home. I considered it a very selfish sentiment.

      When the Egypt crisis started, I believe 2011? I started to do some volunteer work at a local charity with the focus of getting donations of clothes, medical supplies and money for the babies and children suffering in Egypt. We had many many donations of clothes and medical supplies, but somehow I still did not feel we were helping in a big enough way to make impact.
      Then the economic crisis in Cyprus started, and before that everyone was mostly ok. I knew “poorer” people but certaintly did not know any hungry people, because the government and Church helps. Then I started heareing of women needing shoes and clothes for their children, in my own community, because they could not afford these things. And even though it was far from the scale of Africa deprivation, it still opened my eyes to help needed in our communities. I always assumed we were affluent, before that. But I thought ok, now it is better to do something to help OUR community. Like this, http://cyprus-mail.com/2014/02/25/13000-families-below-the-poverty-line/ , surely we need to help those next to us before we can take the step to help other countries also?

      Last year, some of my maternal family visited Ghana, and said there were horrified. Because you can see big houses with rich people, next to shacks. The disparity between the rich and poor is so great, it is heart breaking.
      So it begs the question, why they are not helping their own people? I do not want anyone to be hungry or in need, especialy not children,God have mercy, but in giving so much overseas, we sometimes forget there is need much more close to home. It sounds so cold to say, as I would love to them be happy and fed. God bless them. What can be done? It makes me consider this quote from Mother Teresa.

      “It is easy to love the people far away. It is not always easy to love those close to us. It is easier to give a cup of rice to relieve hunger than to relieve the loneliness and pain of someone unloved in our own home. Bring love into your home for this is where our love for each other must start.”
      ― Mother Teresa .

  2. All this makes sense, but does China figure in here somehow? I have fledgling impressions (certainly maybe wrong) they are claiming the dark continent as their future plantation.

    • Yes, China will almost certainly have a large say in the matter. And I suppose much of that say will be determined by whether they intend to colonize the place or merely strip mine it. If the latter, then they will probably draw military cordons around their areas of operation, and let nature do her work outside them.

      Though in either course I find it very difficult to believe they will assume the lunatic white zeal to facilitate African multiplication.

  3. I thought American readers in particular might enjoy learning how some of the sweat of their brows is distributed. Here another excerpt from Theroux’s Zona Verde.

    As we had only one more day together, I asked Oliver over dinner about the Millennial Challenge Corporation. Passing the lodges at Etosha— they were large and sprawling and some could accommodate hundreds of tourists— he had mentioned that they were being upgraded. “The staff quarters are going to be moved over there,” he had said as he drove around the rundown workers’ housing. “This is all going to be cleaned up.” Oliver knew the plans and the people involved, and he’d said that one of his tourism projects in the country was being funded with Millennial Challenge money.

    The Millennial Challenge Corporation had been started in 2004 during the Bush administration, a consequence of the frustration of people who saw USAID and other agencies pouring money into countries with no tangible results and little oversight. The money either disappeared into the pockets of local politicians or financed projects that were never finished. Anyone who has spent even a short time in a Third World country has seen this waste of money and the futility of a great deal of foreign aid. Africa is the happy hunting ground of donors, also of people seeking funds. The classic African failed state is composed of a busy capital city where politicians on large salaries hold court and drive big cars; dense and hopeless slums surrounding the capital; and the great empty hinterland, ignored by the government and more or less managed by foreign charities, which in many cases are big businesses run by highly paid executives.

    In 2007, Oliver, with his Peace Corps zeal, had started working for the Millennial Challenge Corporation in the area of “project appraisal.” The following year he became deputy director in Namibia, and in 2011 was appointed the resident country director. “How much are you giving to Namibia?” I asked. “A little over three hundred million— but let me explain,” he said, because hearing the large number I had started to snort. “The grant is administered in stages over five years, in what we call a compact. And before a country qualifies for a compact it has to pass the eligibility requirements. It takes two years for a country to go through the process. This isn’t handing over money, the way it was done in the past. It’s a rigorous process.” “What sort of requirements, apart from ‘We need money’?” I had my notebook out and was writing down his replies. “There’s three categories we measure them by. Ruling justly. Economic freedom. And investing in people. If these don’t exist, no money. Each of the categories is broken down into seventeen indicators— like land rights, civil liberties, control of corruption, freedom of information— and they have to be low- or middle- income countries. Botswana doesn’t qualify, because they already have money. After the coup in Madagascar in 2009 their compact was terminated.” “So a country simply applies, and hopes to qualify?” “We can help a country to qualify by giving a threshold grant— fifteen or twenty million. They’d use this to sort out their policies. That creates a pathway to getting a compact that ranges from two hundred to five hundred million. Like I say, Namibia qualified for three hundred million.” “What’s the limit?” “Tanzania got seven hundred million for roads and energy and some other projects. That’s spread over five years. They’re now three years into it, and it’s working out.” “Almost three quarters of a billion for Tanzania! They don’t even like us!”

    “Remember when George Bush visited Tanzania in 2008?” Oliver said. “It was a very successful visit. He made promises to them.” “I also remember the 1960s when the Tanzanians claimed they were Maoists. They got the Chinese to build them the Tan- Zam Railway, which is now falling apart,” I said. “Anyway, who gets the money? I mean, are American companies hired to do the work— say, on roads?” “A U.S. company successfully competed for the energy project in Tanzania. I think I can say that we’re achieving U.S. development and foreign policy objectives.” I mentioned that I had read in a Namibian newspaper that a Chinese company in the country, financed by American aid money, had underpaid and cheated its Namibian employees. “You saw that, eh?” Oliver said. It had been a front- page headline. “Chinese government firms once qualified for this money, but that’s not the case anymore.” But he added that less than 10 percent of Namibia’s grant went to American companies. Most of the money went to Namibian or South African firms. “So we’re giving money to foreign companies to do the work. And we used to give it to the Chinese?” “It’s an open bidding process,” he said. “And we do audits. There’s no evidence that contractors are misappropriating the funds.” Slightly exasperated by my questions, he said, “You wouldn’t believe how much time we spend in monitoring these grants and double- checking.” “Still, it’s a ton of money.” “But there’s constant evaluation of performance. We don’t take people’s word for it, or list numbers as USAID once did— meaningless numbers. We invest money in monitoring, in making sure the money is used the right way, looking at the target, and the performance against that target.” And, he said, sometimes a Millennial Challenge compact is in place and something changes that queers a development deal. Malawi was a recent example. Its government signed on to a $300 million compact for investment in the energy sector, but not long after the signing there was a demonstration in Malawi’s capital against the government’s human rights abuses. Nineteen demonstrators were shot dead by the army and many were injured. “So we put an operational hold on the compact,” Oliver said. “And then the Malawians hosted Sudan’s al- Bashir, who is wanted by the International Criminal Court.” “And what happened?” “The MCC questioned Malawi’s commitment to the principles.” “So no money?” “No money.”

    “That’s how it should be.” But I was not sure what “investment in the energy sector” meant— perhaps speeding the flow of foreign oil, or subsidizing it, or creating alternative sources. One of the problems with the whole discussion was the vagueness of the terms. Even the millions seemed like abstractions. I remembered the tourist herds at the Etosha lodges and Oliver’s showing us the places to be upgraded. Were U.S. funds invested in Namibia’s tourism industry? “Yes.” And Oliver elaborated by saying that the tourism project allotment was $67 million, which was for the improvement and management of Etosha National Park and to help in marketing Namibian tourism. The intention was to promote Namibia as a splendid, game- rich, tourist- worthy destination. Some of the money was allotted to develop an interactive website for the Namibia Tourism Board. It was also used to help Namibia in the areas of conservation, ecotourism, and poverty reduction in households within conservancy areas.

    All of this was well intentioned in terms of development— even if vague in description— and laudable in the efforts made to ensure the funds weren’t stolen or wasted. If the money was misused, the grant would be cut off. But money for tourism? Many tourist destinations in the United States, which get nothing from the U.S. government for infrastructure or websites or training, would have been glad to get the $67 million grant Namibia had been awarded. Places I knew well got no money from the government to prop up tourism—Hawaii got nothing, Cape Cod got nothing, but they struggled along. Maine’s tourist industry was still in serious trouble in the aftermath of the 2008 economic slump, with high unemployment, high gas prices, and a lack of awareness outside New England of the delights of Downeast Maine, one of the noblest and best- preserved seacoasts on earth. Were the hard- pressed residents of Maine, many of whom worked in the state’s hotels and restaurants, contributing to the improvement of the Namibian tourist industry, helping to lure the herds to Etosha and the Skeleton Coast?

    “Let’s say I happen to be a Maine lobsterman,” I said. “I get up at four- thirty every morning, go out in my boat, and haul hundreds of traps. Some days, fuel is so expensive and there are so few lobsters that I lose money. But I keep hauling, and steering my boat in circles. I pay my stern man. I pay my taxes. I’m wet and cold most of the time.” Oliver was smiling, knowing what was coming. “What would you say to my friend Alvin Rackcliff of Wheeler Bay, in Midcoast Maine, about the use of his tax money to attract tourists to Namibia?” “I’d say we’re trying to help create countries that are stable,” Oliver said as I scribbled. “I don’t think Alvin would care too much about that. He’d say”— as Alvin said to me once— “human life means nothing in Africa.” “It’s less than one percent of the total U.S. budget,” Oliver said. “It’s still a lot of money. Alvin is heavily taxed and works very hard and he’s pretty old. But he needs to keep working.”

    “Aid builds good relationships,” Oliver said.

    Then after trillions(?) in multigenerational domestic uplift and transfer payments, along with the loss of white freedom of association, thousands of our people slaughtered, and the formation of an implacably pro-black government bureaucracy…well white Americans must now have an absolutely sparkling relationship with the blacks in their midst. I’ll remind those presently cowering in Ferguson.

  4. I just read that the African lion population has declined 80% in just the last thirty years. Strange how little the “environmentalists” discuss this. Do lions go to heaven? For only if they do will the vagaries of Warming Change be a concern to them.

    Most likely the great fauna will simply vanish without comment. And of course it will be whites defending them to the last breath of both.

    • You’re joking I hope. Almost all “animal rights” orgs are fronts for atheists. (I think the Humane Society might actually try to protect animals.) PETA otoh supposedly kills 90% of animals in its possession. The Chinese drive the global market for animal body parts using them for “teas.” When a chinaman looks at a cat or dog he can’t decide whether to pet it or eat it. They have “cat farms” and transport hundreds at a time for slaughter. There are no birds left in China besides sparrows. Deadly silence everywhere. Western “progressives” have wet dreams about china as a model in their secret desire for a police state. A perfect environmental nightmare for the future would be Islam and China ascendent while a declining West hysterically scapegoats creatures that can’t vote for more free stuff.

  5. I’m not talking about organizations. What’s the Sierra Club care about the environment? Im talking about those lonesome few people who do actually care. That’s who will exhale their last breath in defense of these animals.

    Is the guy below a front? Who knows, possibly. But there are without question those who are not.

  6. Once again, illustrating that the idea that the Left actually cares about anything but power is absurd. Lions are the least of it. Gays, blacks, browns, women, any member of the left’s grand coalition will be shocked at how quickly their leaders will throw them under the bus when necessary. They are cold and bloody bastards, and they love nothing…

  7. Your take on global warming is total bullshit. Read some of the scientific literature posted by Guy McPherson at NatureBatsLast before blowing off more hot air. What’s going on in Greenland is just as important as what’s going on in Angola, and they are inseparable from each other.

  8. Brilliantly and poignantly you expose the colossal delusion of the left that they are the environmentalists. Predictably, conservatives have been woefully inadequate in formulating an argument. Liberals shore up the youth vote by stating the holy phrase “I believe in global warming.” Conservatives counter with “I don’t” instead of pointing out or even realizing their potential.
    The stated goal of globalism might as well be reducing the planet to a miserable wasteland leveling off at about 20 Billion people, a few animals and zero forests.
    Also wars (Even Obama’s wars!) are so bad for the environment. I have yet to see it mentioned. Yes, indeed, the left has jettisoned its sacred positions; all that remains is pronoun management and bathrooms.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s