As a horde of billionaires flying 400 private jets convened recently for a "climate summit", it seems like a good time for this post.
Many of what I think are my better posts begin with a conversation with my wife. We get to talking about something and that gets the mind working and I start to scribble online. That is the case with this post, which probably sucks but whatever.
From it's inception, the "environmental" or "Green" movement has been a stealthy vessel for the neo-Bolshevik movement. Along with other movements like feminism, "civil rights", "progressive" Christianity and the alphabet soup of degeneracy movement, environmentalism is a political Trojan horse. You don't want polluted streams and acid rain, do you? Of course not, that is why you have to support reparations!
As is the case with all of the leftist movement under the umbrella of Bolshevism manifested as cultural Marxism, most of the adherents have given zero thought to the ramifications of their stated position. Try to explain to these turnips that paying people to stay at home would lead to people refusing to work and show them the statistics showing how desperate employers are to hire people and they still don't get it.
Ironically, the people who claim to be the most ardent environmentalists also seem to be the least likely to ever go outside or have any interaction with the natural world. To them "The Environment" is a entirely a foreign concept that only exists in theory. It is hard to argue that you are familiar with the outdoors when you are a pasty, morbidly obese person who doesn't own a pair of boots or practical jacket. Nature is a giant religious relic that mustn't be touched or interacted with, only spoken of in hushed and reverent voices.
What is worse, the idea of caring about the natural world and seeking to preserve a remnant for our children and posterity has been completely hijacked by this neo-Bolshevik "environmentalism" movement. That has made virtually all conversations about the preservation of the natural world turned into the false Left-Right dichotomy as the Right has for the most part completely ceded the conversation to the Left. When it comes to "the environment", the argument is the Left calling for progressively crazier and more futile restrictions while the Right pushes back against any regulations. At least that is how it appears in the public square.
In the real world the story is quite different.
Teddy Roosevelt, the 26th U.S. President, was a famous conservationist. He was largely responsible for the incredible national park system in America. He also loved to kill anything that walked, flew or crawled.
Many of TRs policies were "progressive" and have had a net negative impact on America but the guy loved nature and he loved shooting what was in nature. He shot elephants and leopards but he did more for the natural world than all of the tofu eating freaks combined.
This is a common theme.
Ducks Unlimited was started in 1937 and focuses on wetlands and waterfowl conservation efforts. Most of the people involved with DU are interested in preserving wetlands because they like to shoot ducks and geese but also because they love the outdoors. The efforts of DU helps non-game wildlife just as much as waterfowl.
The Ruffed Grouse Society, a group I supported in the past as someone who hunted grouse and woodcock, has been around since 1961. Their efforts are mostly in upland forests, engaging in actual management practices. The areas you find grouse and woodcock tend to be newer growth woods. Walk in an old, mature forest and you won't see much in the way of wildlife but in these growing, younger forests you will run into all sorts of critters: grouse, deer, turkey, squirrels, rabbits, song birds.
There are groups like this for every game species. Pheasants Forever, the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Trout Unlimited. All created by people who love the pursuit of their favorite game and who love spending time outdoors. People who really love to hunt and fish are not in it just for the kill, but also because they love the animals. Sitting in a deer stand you will often see lots of deer you aren't going to shoot, maybe coyotes or turkeys, birds, etc. You see some amazing spectacles just by being outside and hidden. The man I am named after was a woodsman like few others and as he grew older he still went bird hunting with us but never shot any birds. He just loved walking in the woods. He never got lost and his loping pace could cover ground like you wouldn't believe. He ran his own successful business for many years but what he loved more than anything was being "Up North" in Michigan and out in the woods.
Each and every one of these groups does more in a year to preserve actual wildlife and wilderness than any of the huge 501(c)(3) "environmental" groups does in a decade, and with much smaller budgets. For every duck harvested, 1000 more live thanks to the work of DU.
Something else worth recognizing. For all of the criticism leveled at the West for our outsized emissions (although not compared to China and India), conservation work is mostly funded by and carried out by Westerners. It is rather like humanitarian work, when something shitty happens in the world, it is American and Europeans who respond to the call.
One of the most significant problems in the "environmentalist" movement is that is is steeped in the same racialist garbage that the rest of the cultural Marxist left is marinating in. That means that non-White countries that are enormous polluters, again like China and India, are insulated from most criticism while the countries full of White people who worry about recycling and pollution are endlessly harangued by elites and creepy teens.
This racial hierarchy also means that other issues are ignored. One of the most critical examples is the exploding population in Africa.
My standard humanitarian response....
An ugly but still true fact: much of the humanitarian and mission work carried out and funded by White evangelicals and Catholics in the third world is making the situation in those countries just a whole bunch worse.
At the same time, White people are told that they need to eschew having families "for the environment", despite every European country having below replacement birthrates (except among their fecund black and brown "migrant" population).
Notice it is a giant White baby. The UK has a birthrate of 11.77 births/1,000 population and ranks 164th in the world. Compare that to nations like Niger (47.28), Uganda (41.60), Congo (40.53) and Somalia (38.25). No one talks about those because pointing out that the population of Africa is exploding, which will lead to millions of "migrants" fleeing to Europe, replacing the White European population with Africans who don't give a shit about the environment, is racist or something.
Replacing White people who are concerned with the environment with blacks and browns that don't is a genius move. Immigration relieves population pressure in the Third World and has an enormous impact on the environment. Ever seen pictures of the border crossings and the trash strewn all over? Or pictures from places like Haiti with literal rivers of garbage?
The same dipshits holding "Immigrants Welcome!" signs are also endlessly yapping about "climate change", never once making the connection between exploding populations and the need to feed those populations.
Matt Yglesias, a writer for Vox, has been advocating pushing for an expansion of the U.S. population to the one billion person mark, tripling our current population. Since Whites are barely at (or below) replacement levels of reproduction and no one apart from /ourguys/ is advocating for increasing White birth rates, that would require mass importation of people from the poorest, lowest average IQ nations in the world. The argument is that the U.S. has just too much open space and nature.
Sure it kind of looks like there is a lot of empty space in the U.S.. Why not fill it with Somalis?!
The real question we must ask is this: what is the actual carrying capacity of the North American continent?
Carrying capacity is often a term used for livestock but it applies in a broad sense to humans as well. How many people can a piece of land support, even a piece of land as enormous as the U.S.?
This is a complicated question because almost no one in the U.S. is self-sufficient. Most of us buy most of our food and other necessities at stores, meaning we need roads to travel on to get to the store and those stores need roads and trucks to bring them stuff. Our electricity and heat has to come from somewhere else and be transferred to our homes.
In other words, there is more to carrying capacity than how many high-rise apartment buildings we can build and how much high-fructose corn syrup based products we can produce.
Water is one of the most critical aspects, one we don't think much about in the Midwest. Most of the wide open space in the third of the country that makes up the Great Plains and Mountain West are very arid and water rights are already a contentious issue. There is a lot of fresh water in America but it isn't evenly distributed as it is. You might have noticed that America is a pretty big place. Getting water to people in places it isn't readily available isn't an easy task, nor cheap one, nor a.....environmentally sound one.
Out here in the country, in the upper Midwest, we just pump the water we need house by house from wells and dispose of it in septic systems. It is simple and self-contained. Cram a thousand people into some high rise housing? Well they aren't all going to dig wells, something that was beyond their ability back in their own country anyway. They aren't going to grow any of their own food, apart from a couple of illicit chickens or something. They will require enormous water, sewage, garbage hauling, and food delivery services. All of those require enormous inputs, many of which are bad for the environment.
The Left doesn't understand this. They scream at working class Americans because of our alleged profligate energy usage but apparently are incapable of considering the environmental consequences of tripling the U.S. population. As usual, they lack the capacity to think critically more than one step ahead.
The only way to pack America with half a billion "immigrants" in a "carbon neutral" way is to so drastically diminish the standard of living for the Americans already here to the point that our standard of living will be indistinguishable from the third world nations our new "Americans" fled from. That is of course has been the plan all along.
Not for everyone of course. While we live in tiny pods eating bugs, the elites will go on as before. Even better than before. Do you think the ultra-wealthy people attending the 2021 UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) are going to stop living in mega-mansions that burn up more energy than a small rural town? Will they fly coach instead of taking a private jet? Will they eat bug paste instead of steak and lobster? Of course not. Such indignities are only for the peasants like you and me.
The dirty not-so-secret about the elites yammering about "the environment" is that they don't really care about nature or wildlife but they do see it as a way to justify smashing down the bulk of humanity. What makes rich people happy is being able to see a huge gap between them and the rest of us and the bigger the gap and the greater our misery, the happier they are.
Political dissidents should care about conservation. We should reject the idea that talking about conservation and the natural world is the exclusive domain of the far Left loons and upper middle class White girls in Patagonia fleece jackets made by child laborers. We absolutely should embrace personal responsibility and collective action to preserve the beauty of the natural world within the framework of the reality of human nature. People want to have cars, they want to have homes that are warm in the winter and cool in the summer. They want to eat steak and bacon. They want to have yards. There is nothing wrong with that. People also want the stuff we manufacture and the food our farmers raise, and the people making stuff and raising food should have the ability to make a profit doing it. That is also good. There is no reason we can't be prosperous and free without destroying the environment but we can't do that with billions of extra mouths to feed in the Global South that are somehow our responsibility to care for.
Do your part. Support groups that do actual conservation work. Hell, plant a tree. Don't let the Left hijack a noble virtue like being responsible stewards of the Earth.