The Best Thing About a National Government...

...is that, in Government, the Greens are ignored. From the article:

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said New Zealand should be showing leadership and focus on targets not on the rules around farming and forests.

"Our actions to exclude our largest pollution sources, can only lead to other countries seeking to do the same," Dr Norman said.

"If this happens we will undermine the talks and we will be targeted as a global climate criminal. Tourism Minister John Key will oversee a great leap backwards in our tourism industry."

So, according to Russel Norman, it's perfectly alright to try and cripple New Zealand's greatest money-making industry in the name of a completely arbitrary environmental goal, which is out of our control anyway, and whose only purpose anyway is to destroy human industry and capitalism?

And it's all kind of ironic: New Zealand's emission's are 26% above 1990 levels, compared to the great satan's (US) emissions of 14%. NZ has been, over the nine years of the Clark government, emitting more than the US above 1990 levels. The Clark Government has been one of the greatest proponents of the climate change regime, yet we've done less to get our emissions down than that all-evil US.

Which tells you how much of a farce Kyoto really is.

Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme

Earlier today, I listened to a debate on the Fox News Channel over a proposed Bill in the US Senate over a potential Carbon Emissions Trading Scheme in the US.

Here's why I'm not supporting it: According to this debate, the trading scheme is expected to cost the US taxpayer US$45,000,000,000,000 (45 trillion USD) over its lifetime.

Scary enough, huh?

The Right to Protest?

Recently in Social Studies, my class has been assigned a book called "How Many Lightbulbs does It Take to Change a Planet: 95 Ways to Save Planet Earth". The Idea is that we would chose one of the 95 different topics on all manners of leftist ideas about climate change, take notes and do a PowerPoint presentation about it.

One of the ideas in the book is "Protect the Right to Protest". Alright, but this is what the left, through its self-anointed moral supremacy over climate change, has been stifling. If you speak up against the IPCC, the climate change "consensus" or Al Gore, you are thrown out of the climate change debate in days, if not hours. Suddenly, you have all these environmental "scientists" pouncing on you, saying that you're wrong and giving no particular reason, only data that has been spewed up a million times. For proof, look at what happened to the Great Global Warming Swindle -and that's one of the nicer examples.

The right to protest hasn't been stifled directly in the political arena -indeed, it's the politcal arena that the left wants to avoid over opposition to climate change. The left, in all its talk of "tolerance" and "cultural/political/economic diversity", has to maintain a clean, public image of what it is, and what it stands for. To its credit, it has been pretty successful. You're unlikely to see quotes like this on the front cover of a newspaper:

"We have wished... for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us back into the stone age..."

or that:

"You think Hiroshima was bad, let me tell you mister, Hiroshima wasn't bad enough!"*

Admittedly, those two quotes were said a while ago. But if you were to tell any random earth-hugger on the street about those quotes, they'd just shake their head and call you a nutter. There are many more quotes like the two above, but you'd be lucky to find anyone who knows about them.

Consider this fact: the environmental movement has successfully manufactured their ideology around a natural, scientific phenomenon: human-induced climate change. To most people within and supportive of the environmental movement, it's not about the control or the end of industry, it isn't about human quality of life -it's about global warming, or climate change. These people see scientific climate change as a primary -they don't consider anything else in the ideology as a possible primary. For them, it's alright to sacrifice human industry, technology, wealth, comfort, etc to Gaia -because climate change is a primary. Even if that did nothing to the climate, it's still the primary.

It's that idea that has left possible unbiased environmentalists completely open to bombardment by the environmental movement and its theories on climate change.

Also, as it is supposedly based on scientific fact, the supposed primary of climate change is seen as an absolute -for instance, man's mind is an absolute (although his using it is not), reality is an absolute. This is how the environmental movement has made the scientists who are skeptical of climate change seem absolutely crazy. Climate change is neither a primary nor an absolute, but the marketability of it as such has been used to devastating effect.

So, the right to protest against envirofascists? Surely, it exists in the political realm. But the rather simple idea of climate change has been manipulated so much in the philosophical realm that it's crazy to challenge the idea of anthropogenic global warming. To outsiders, you're protesting against an absolute (no matter how many studies say otherwise). The environmental movement keeps its credibility by making climate change its primary -not the end of industry and commerce, and relegating productive man back into the slums.

And as I've said many times before, isn't the idea of us all pitching in to make a collective effort for the good of the planet and future generations just lovely? Perhaps not for us selfish Objectivists, or anyone else who can look behind all the environmental rhetoric, but for the common Joe New Zealander, who has already been brought up with such principles during NZ's socialist era, they sound great. After all, we will all die if we don't -climate change, according to what Joe's heard so many times before, is an absolute.

The only thing getting in the way -productive, selfish man. The man who produces instead of sacrifices himself for the "common good". Sounds like a certain book!

But this is even worse. If you think sacrifice on the altar of the "need" of other people was bad, this is sacrifice on the altar of the environment -the truly unthinking.

Luckily, as Libertarians, we have the chance to hit at (or to protest at) where it hurts. The left for decades, long before the environmental movement arrived, has been going on about the need "tolerance" and "diversity" -which developed into the ideal of "protecting the right to protest". These principles developed as a way to get leftist rhetoric into the classrooms and onto the TV screens, but they have tripped up over themselves. After all, at school, you're not going to get a flogging anymore for expressing an opinion -the teachers have to grin and bear it, at worst. After all, it is in the name of "tolerance" and "diversity" -and when opinions can be put to people so bluntly, no leftist will try to stop you.

So it's on this different set of ideals -originally enlightened ideals from the enlightenment, before having a post-modern spin put on them- that we need to protest to combat leftist ideals. Ironically, what were, and still are some of the most attractive ideals of the left can be used against them. Not just in environmentalism, but everywhere.

*Both quotes from The Free Radical no. 73, page 27.

Waste of Time Wastes Pittsburgh's Carbon

The Bali talks on climate change, which have failed to achieve anything for anyone whatsoever are finally over. And the best part about it was that they managed to emit as much carbon as the entire US city of Pittsburgh for a month, with over 300,000 people and a metropolitan area ten times the size, on the first day!

But with all these climate change conferences which go nowhere, it's simply an exercise in trying to look big and powerful. Even though many climate scientists, presidents and even the Pope are questioning the whole global warming consensus, motives and science, they're conveniently being ignored in the MSM to make it as if the talks are worth anything.

The only country that showed some sense at these talks was the US, because they're the only country with major influence in this issue that can't be conveniently ignored. They made the point against the climate change farce that industrial development, critical especially in the developing world which seems to be running around with Europe and the UN like a headless chicken on climate change.

And, of course, there was inconvenient Al Gore, being embarrassed at his country's sensibility. This is the same Al Gore who consistently refuses to debate climate change with anyone who disagrees with him. The funny thing about Al Gore on this issue is that it's very obvious that all his talk is merely just a political stunt, to be brought to the political forefront again after his defeat to Bush in the 2000 US election.

Finally now, after several days of having to endure blatant lies thrown at them, the people of Bali can go back to living normally without all this inconvenient hype over nothing.

Government Brainwashing in New Curriculum

Free, rational, critical thinking is a fleeting concept in today's world. And it looks like it's about to get a whole lot rarer, thanks to the NZ government's new curriculum.

The newly released curriculum has called for more focus on global warming and climate change (and, of course, the human impact); an emphasis on how much more important Maori people are than us; and of course, that notorious "tweaty" of Waitangi.

This new curriculum isn't about a dedication to true, politically neutral education in our schools. Instead, it is a PC cover-up for the government's true aspirations in our schools-the shaping of young and impressionable minds for the sole purpose of keeping the government in power, and furthering Leftist ideals in New Zealand. It's not about shaping Kiwi minds into the doctors and engineers, writers and artists, businessmen and intelligensia, "movers and shakers", of tomorrow. For instance, lets take the classic example of climate change. Instead of leaving it to the proper realm of politically neutral science, it is brought to the forefront-with all the more emphasis on human causes such as business, industry and technological development, which inevitably leads to, in their later years, these children falsely laying the blame on capitalism-and the want to slit industry by the throat, and lead us back into the Middle Ages.

No, this is not an exaggeration. This is the governments real want-control, control control over people's lives.

Another example is the emphasis on the "tweaty". The Treaty of Waitangi is the primary reason, among many, that keeps race relations so far behind in NZ. Rather than having one single Kiwi culture, where everyone makes their own contribution, the Treaty and the whole concept of race relations sorts NZ into two categories: them and us. It's the same basic problem that surrounds any ideology based on human traits, as opposed to humanity as a whole. The Treaty is used to make people today apologize for what happened 200 years ago. We have to apoloize for events that were completely out of our control-because of someone that is also out of our control-our skin colour!

Here's an idea for the curriculum: go back to tried and true methods. Abolish all the PC crap. Focus on knowledge, and its application-not just whizzing us through school in the hope that drunken teenagers will educate themselves. Bring back proper discipline-and then children will really learn!

An Inconvenient Truth

The Nobel Peace Prize has made clear its political intentions in giving the Nobel Peace Prize to Inconvenient Al Gore recently. The driving forces behind the Peace Prize have stopped genuinely giving the prize to people who advocate and fight for actual peace, but instead have given in to feel-good environmentalism.

What they fail to realize is, after the hundreds of thousands of millions of contradictions and lies in his works are gone through, that it is very clearly a political stunt on his behalf-for political reasons-for instance I've seen a link on PC's blog that says that over half of all scientists disagree with the AGW "consensus". A lot more people than are portrayed are actually above the nonsense that is environmentalism. The fact that not a lot, lot more debate is portrayed amongst climate scientists and meteorologists is the fact that now, millions of jobs and billions of dollars depend on AGW being true and happening.

The two reasons why environmentalism is still with us, frankly, are: money and power. It's just a damn shame that most-perhaps 95% of environmentalists, except for the ones in high positions, fail to realize so.

Feel-Good Environmentalism

The majority of the Environmentalists, despite the real underlying motives of the movement (specifically, the end of industrial civilization and in some cases man itself), are not actually anti-man and anti-industrialism per se. One of the main reasons why Environmentalism is so popular, but is rarely discussed in political circles, is that it is a feel-good system.

The reason for the whole feel-goodism of Environmentalism is that people are falsely made to believe that the movement is actually something good. For many young university ideologues, for instance, what could be better than going out and saving the whales?

But the feel-good Environmentalists fail to see beyond that. They think that, because it feels good, it must be good, even though basic knowledge teaches us otherwise. Drugs, for instance, feel good, but the effects are not necessarily so. To a serial killer, murder can also feel good-but murder is hardly a good thing. This is what many Leftists fail to realize-and, as thus, set the scene for tyranny and hardship. The best example of Leftist feel-goodism leading to such an outcome would be Cuba. Even today, Leftists ignore Cuba's problems, instead just blaming them on-and what else would you expect-the US embargo (despite the fact that Cuba trades with every other nation).

The feel-good aspect of Environmentalism comes from the fact that Environmentalism, like the whole of the Left in general, is about appealing to emotion rather than reason. This is why so many Leftist revolutionaries are young and extremely idealistic. They are immune to the ugly reality that lies beyond all the "I'm saving the environment!" nonsense. Once again, these young Environmentalists think that because it feels good, it must be good. And I suppose that's why so many young people take drugs.

This indoctrination, combined with the utter failure to look at Environmentalism rationally before joining up (most people do so because it's "the thing" or an act of rebellion) is similar to the tactics used in Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. What could be cooler than joining in a revolution against the evil Capitalists?

Objectivism and Libertarianism use the opposite appeal. Instead, they appeal to reason. Instead of getting idiotic teenagers to rebel against the evil Capitalists, they get those teenagers-me, for example (despite the fact that I'm not an idiot)-to look at the improvements by the West in living standards during the past two centuries, and to look at the underlying philosophy behind those increases. It's obvious which system caused those increases.

Finally, after 110 million dead under Communism, far more under Socialism, and the other collectivist and statist terrors throughout history, the lesson is getting through. From the Forbes Magazine article Atlas Shrugs Again:

"Today's left doesn't have anything positive to offer to young people. When they were socialists, there was at least something they were fighting for, and they believed in a right and a wrong. Today's leftist agenda is negative and nihilistic--focused on stopping industrialization, capitalism and even Western civilization. But young people want positive values. That's why religion is so strong today, because many view it as the only thing that promises a brighter future."

What Yaron Brook at the ARI doesn't say is that the reason the Left paints such a nihilistic portrait of the future is why Environmentalism is so strong. To any random man on the street, it's about doing your part for the Environment. So what he says, albeit true for a lot of the Left, doesn't apply to feel-good Environmentalism. To most young people, especially considering the Leftism that is feed into you almost daily at school, it's about saving the environment-not about ending Western Civilization. Feel-good Environmentalism is responsible for the irrational Environmentalist witchhunts, and for the "live Earth" concerts and protests every other day, but that's a completely different story.

If we are to succeed in bringing down Environmentalism and the reality of it-not what most people think it is, we need to target the feel-goodism that has made it so successful.

White House Surrenders

US President George W Bush has been pleading to Lefties around the world, putting an image out that "we're with you!", for the obvious reasons (GWB isn't the most liked man in the world) instead of putting a rational thought in about the issue.

George Bush hosted a big international conference with delegates from most parts of the world turning up to hear his call of surrender, and even said that industrial society is the cause of AGW. Still, it's not enough for the controlling UN and Europe, despite setting aims to cut carbon emissons to half the present day levels by 2050, which was suggested by the Japanese. How that is meant to work in sync with development in the Third World, I don't know. Maybe they can just keep on starving for another century?

Once again, no rational thought has come out from this tide of feel-good environmentalism.

Simply Beyond Words

I might have to change my view on the Libertarian non-aggression principle after 600 Swiss leftist idiots (and that really is a polite way to put them) stripped themselves down to nothing in front of the Aletsch glacier in Switzerland in a campaign against climate change, somehow trying, as PC puts it, "attempting to move mountains full of ice by means of just their genitalia and their convictions".

Put simply, the whole thing is an appeal to emotion as opposed to reason. If looked into properly, anyone who participated in this event would rightfully be a laughing stock for the rest of their life. Unfortunately, the all-too-large majority of humanity today and throughout history are completely ignorant of the hell on Earth environmentalism wishes to bring down on us, and many teenage and young adult idiots have no sense of reason at all (reason generally kicks in late, at about thirty). The only exceptions I can think of in NZ are all in the Libertarianz party, or are supporters.

Perhaps one thing that libertarians and objectivists have yet to touch on about the environmental movement is the fact that most environmentalists, especially the high-up ones, do absolutely nothing to protect the actual environment. It is instead about making the general public feel guilty about their actions, and from that point "giving in" to the movement.

All to reminiscent of Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot. But, of course, "real communism hasn't been tried" (This is a very common argument amongst members of the left. Yet strangely no one mentions the environmental catastrophe the USSR went through before break-up).

News story: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/18/2008810.htm

Businessman Stands Up for his Rational Self-Interest

From the New York Sun:

"The New York Coal Trade Association, headquartered in New York City, recently held its 94th annual banquet and meeting at the New York Hilton. One of the guest speakers was Bob Murray, founder and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation and probably one of the few CEOs brave enough to challenge the militant climate control movement that threatens the future of America's economy."

Bob Murray, a former miner who during his mining years was involved in two accidents, said that Al Gore is "far more dangerous than his Global Warming". By fighting the irrational environmental movement, he says that he's "standing up for the little guy that no one cares about".

Mr Murray mortgaged his home to start up his Mining Company, which currently has about 3,000 employees. If the new envirofascist legislation currently before the American Senate passes, a good deal of those employees could lose their jobs. Mr Murray also spoke about the devastating effects of the 1990 ammendment to the "Clean Air" Act. He talked of the terrible damage wrought on Ohio towns because of that legislation, because of the loss of much of the coal industry. During the years from 1990-2005, no less than 118 mines shut down in Ohio thanks to the legislation, and 36,000 miners lost their jobs.

Bob Murray also believes that the Global Warming debate is one sided and exaggerated. Currently, 52% of America is powered by Coal, and that's because most of the towns and cities powered by Coal can afford little else, and most of them are in America's interior, which makes getting access to other, cleaner resources all the harder.

A final word from me: most people do believe that coal does degrade te environment. However, many poor Americans can't afford any other alternative. Instead, why doesn't America up the production of it's poorer citizens and poorer regions by providing a freer economy, and thus more incentives to produce wealth?

And why doesn't America strengthen Property Rights to use a protection against pollution of every kind?

Global Warming, Martian style

Luckily for us global-warming critics, new evidence of melting polar ice caps on Mars is suggesting that the phenomenom known as Global Warming (or more the hype of it) may actually be caused by solar activities, as opposed to human activities.

Two probes sent to Mars, Global Surveyor and Odyssey reported in 2005 that ice had been melting at the Martian polar ice caps for three consectutive years. At the Pulkovo Astronomical Society in St Petersburg, Russia, scientist Habibullo Abdussamatov says that the data collected from the probes is proof that the sun, not human activities, is responsible for the majority of warming on earth. By studying the data, Mr Abdussamatov says that he can see an emerging pattern in the climate data for both planets.

Mr Abdussamatov said "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance."

Mr Abdussamatov's theory of solar-related global warming hasn't impressed other scientists though. Colin Wilson, at Oxford University, said "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion. And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."

The conventional theory on global warming on Mars is that planetary wobbles, instead of solar activities, is reponsible for any climate change there. Earth and Mars tilt different ways, and most climate scientists and astronomers think it is merely a coincidence that both planets are between ice ages at the moment.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Mr Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

So, his theory has a long way to go before being seriously considered by the world's top climate scientists and the IPCC, but hopefully it will do well. After all, there could be potentially thousands of factors to do with global warming-humans being just one of them.

The original article can be viewed here.

"Carbon Neutral?"

Last night on three news, Richard Branson (Libertarian or so the Advocates for Self Government believe) said this about New Zealand:

"I believe it would be great if New Zealand were to become the first 'carbon neutral' nation in the world..."

Well, Richard, let me tell you what government-forced "carbon neutrality" really means:

1) The complete overhaul of industry and commerce;
2) The dismantling of important infrastructure like roads, railways, powerlines, oil pipes, airports and seaports;
3) The ban of any new development and construction; and
4) A complete return to the stone age.

There is no realistic way, unlike what the greens want you to believe, to become carbon neutral without sacrificing your prosperity. Your wealth. Your happiness. Yours, and everybody elses, as well.

Animals aren't intelligent creatures. Wild animals wouldn't know if humans suddenly decided to "rejoin nature" and their quality of life certainly wouldn't improve. They don't have the concept of contrasting values, or any value for that matter. Humans do.

As said by "Chips Whitesugar" on Whinging in New Zealand:

"If everyone in New Zealand dropped dead tomorrow, the change in the rate of greenhouse gas production would be negligible, hardly worth all the hand wringing going on within the 'environmental' concerns within NZ ... NZ shouldn't cripple itself economically to gain a moral high ground on this issue. That would be stoopid."

So Richard, do you believe NZers should sacrifice their prosperity, their wealth and their happiness for creatures that would gain nothing if we did so? Being a multinational company CEO and multibillionaire, would you sacrifice your prosperity, your wealth and your happiness for creatures that would gain nothing if you did so?

Wellington's coldest december on record

Last month, the average temperature for Wellington was a pathetic 12.9 degrees celsius (oC), when we''re meant to be in summer. Last year, the december average was a more reasonable 17.4oC, and the mean for Wellington is 15.3oC.

Funny that, the coldest december on record when the world is meant to be at it's hottest for hundreds, if not thousands, of years.

The disastrous long-term effects of "sustainability"

Throughout the past few decades, we have seen an environmental movement build up such a hatred of mankind that can easily be coupled with Al-Qaeda (just look at the environmentalist quotes I posted on my previous post on the subject). Although on the surface this movement actually looks rather sane and no major threat to man. But, even the "sane" environmentalists propose something which will be disatrous to mankind: sustainability.

For starters, lets look at the RMA. The RMA, as has been put by the Libertarianz, has "nationalized all land but in name". Apart from the effects on property rights the RMA has had which are disatrous in themselves, today I am looking at the technological and business side of the RMA and similar "sustainable" legislation.

The RMA, as described on Wikipedia, is this:

"The RMA requires the application for a resource consent for any activities that relate to resource use. As part of a resource consent an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE), a report on the Environmental Impact Assessment is required".

Basically, if you want you do so much as build a doghouse on your property, you need to waste time-and money-waiting for the government to decide if it's alright.

However, a dog house is only a simple building, and will have no environmental impact whatsoever. Lets make the project larger. Lets make it a new hotel, like the Hilton planned for Wellington.

A hotel will be a boost to Wellington's tourism industry as it will provide more accommodation for more tourists. As it is a boost for Wellington's tourist industry, it will be a boost for the government, and local attractions, as more visitors can flock here. All around, it will be beneficial for Wellington, even if some people don't like the look of it (which could be changed otherwise).

However, the Hilton hotel took 14 years to get resource consent. 14 years. The leading advocate of the project died before those 14 years were up.

Waiting 14 years to get resorce censent for a new, low-rise hotel is a disgrace. After that, there are the years needed to build it, which could be at least two or three.

As many will agree, New Zealand's infrastructure is ageing. We are behind many other OECD nations in upgrading our infrastructure, and the resource management act is only going to magnify the problem.

25 or so years from now, we can presume from current trends that New Zealand is going to continue passing new "sustainable" legislation. When we actually have to upgrade important infrastructure, like dams, and have the money, it may be too late. The RMA would have already caused many blackouts, like the ones witnessed in the South Island. We are experiencing those blackouts today.

Why? Because the RMA is preventing us from building new dams, or at least upgrading current ones, to make NZ's infrastructure better. Although there are other factors, the RMA is the biggest culprit. Taking less than half 14 years to wait for a dam to be built is a disgrace, and a big problem.

The solution is, not just in New Zealand but increasingly around the world, to roll-back "sustainable" legislation and start building new infrastructure to last at least two generations.

It is natural for human populations to grow. If we don't provide the infrastructure and develop the technology necessary for the needs of the 21st Century, especially as nations in Asia and, recently, South America continue to develop, and the human population increases, we will indeed be facing economic and political crisis, just as the Stern Report said.

That's not very "sustainable" is it?

Sources: Wikipedia-Resource Management Act

The Environmental Movement; what it means to me

We have all heard of the Environmental Movement. It means different things to everyone; to someone it may mean the simple protection of the environment; to others, it may mean the burning of SUVs and condos.

So, here and now, I'm discussing about what the Environmental Movement means to me.

Environmentalism has been in full-flight for at least three decades now. What have we seen? Rather than a better environment, we have seen the polar opposite from the "Environmentalists"; we have seen man's environment deteriorate.

Indeed, before the environmental movement started, Russians were seeing the terrible effects of "collective ownership" in the USSR. Many Russians had to regularly endure terrible pollution from factories built well below the standards of the average American factory.

The pollution in the USSR was a result of two things, the lack of property rights (thus no incentive to make the land clean and tidy) and the lack of the incentive to produce cleaner factories (competition didn't exist, so nobody cared about environmentally friendly products like we do in the West).

So, I suppose we have to thank the USSR for showing us that Communism is the solution. The removal of competition and property rights only has a negative effect on the environment.

However, many so-called "Environmentalists" pay very little attention to this. Instead, they pay attention to the far cleaner products of the Capitalist world.
Another strange thing about the "Environmentalists" is that, in the 1970s, many of them were saying that the world was cooling down, and that the Earth could be facing an Ice-Age. It seems that they have changed their story, probably because they were proven wrong in their attempt to end Capitalism.

Although, on a more worrying basis, they seem to want us extinct:

"I would wish to return as a killer virus to lower human population levels" (Prince Philip of England, World Wildlife Fund leader, speaking before the United Nations on March 30, 1990, Ibid.).

"Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along" (David Graber, research biologist with the National Park Service, The Christian News, June 15, 1992).

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs." --Univ. of Calif. professor Kenneth Watt (Cited by Gary Benoit, "The Greatest Sham on Earth," The New American, Mar. 26, 1990).

"The smallest form of life, even an ant or a clam, is equal to a human being." --Ingrid Newkirk, founder of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals; quoted by Charles Oliver, "Liberation Zoology," Reason, June 1990).

"There really is no rational reason for saying a human being has special rights. ... A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy" (Ingrid Newkirk, PETA founder, Reader's Digest, June 1990).

"We advocate biodiversity for biodiversity’s sake. It may take our extinction to set things straight."
—David Foreman, Earth First!

"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."
—Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

A bit worrying, isn't it? Those weren't made up; they're completely real.

So, by now you should've realised that the environmental movement, to me and hopefully to you, is more than a move to protect the environment, it is a move to rid man of the world. It is a man-hating move, one that sees men as the same as lice.

To that end, I propose a solution for the environment: the restoration of property rights coupled with free-market competition. As of now, we see many regulations on businesses, which restrict their limits to provide clean technology. It is self evident that there is a market for environmentally friendly products, so deregulating the market so that that market and the businesses competing within it will flourish, and therefore the enviornment will as well.

Property rights will help protect valuable land because it is exactly that. Valuable, pristine land is worth far more than non-valuable land, so therefore it would be in the interests of the propietor to keep it that way, so he/she can make big profits come selling time. The same works for water as well.

Animals would flourish as well. To, once again, make big profits come selling time, the propietor would breed the animal so there's more of it, meaning animals could come out of near extinction.

Anyway, that's my rant on the Environmental movement, I hope you've got a few more ideas about it now.