Maurice Strong, the father of the modern environmentalism

PART III:

“Global Warming”: Anti-Capitalist, Anti-Western and Anti-White?

How anthropogenic CO 2 can be a pollutant but non-anthropogenic CO 2 not, even though both have the same molecular formulas and structure, is a mystery that not even the intellectual luminaries of the IPCC can explain. Of course, the evidence says otherwise; rising CO 2 , whether anthropogenic or not, has allowed modern farmers to increase crop yields simply because of its greater availability in earth’s atmosphere. Despite these obvious errors, the “Church of Climate Change” continues to demand that White Western nations – and only White Western nations – impose restrictions on industrial emissions of CO 2 through carbon taxes and cap-and-trade policies. White Western nations are encouraged by environmentalists to squander trillions on unreliable “green” technologies and renewable sources of energy, yet environmentalists have consistently ignored one policy that has significantly increased global atmospheric CO 2 in recent years, generating hundreds of millions of metric tons of the stuff annually: mass Third World immigration.

Environmentalists have long believed in the IPAT formula (I = P × A × T). Ecological sustainability is affected by Population × Affluence (per capita consumption) × Technology (environmental impact per unit consumption). In Paul Ehrlich’s original formulation (1968), the impact of population and the other two variables is not independent and additive, but interdependent and multiplicative; in other words, the variables increase or decrease in tandem with each other. If this equation is valid, as Ehrlich and his supporters believe, increasing population pressure on natural resources will accelerate environmental degradation. If impact is understood in terms of AGW, increasing consumption per capita will lead to higher industrial emissions of atmospheric CO 2 . If IPCC officials were objective, they would demand significant reductions in mass immigration instead of more carbon taxes and emissions trading systems (ETSs). In 2008, Kolankiewicz and Camarota presented empirical evidence that mass immigration was tied to rising CO 2 emissions. For the United States, the authors conclude:

Immigrants in the United States produce about four times more CO 2 in the United States as they would have in their countries of origin. The estimated 637 metric tons of CO 2 U.S. immigrants produce is 482 million tons more than they would have produced had they remained in their home countries. This 482 million ton increase represents about 5 percent of the increase in annual world-wide CO 2 emissions since 1980. … If immigrants in the United States were their own country, they would rankseventh in the world in annual CO 2 output, ahead of such countries as Canada, France, and Great Britain.

Although recent “increases in U.S. CO 2 emissions have been driven entirely by population increases as per capita emissions have stabilized,” climate alarmists continue to overlook mass immigration, a significant driver of CO 2 emissions in the industrialized West. Such obliviousness in the face of the evidence indicates that modern environmentalism was never about “saving the planet.” Environmentalists are just as committed to the racial dispossession of whites in their own countries as any other group of leftists, otherwise they would all be concerned anti-immigration activists.

So what is the ulterior motive? To further understand what this may be, we turn to the career of Canadian businessman Maurice Strong (1929-2015), founder of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The UN’s current role as chief propagandist of AGW is not a random historical accident; instead, Strong’s tireless “lobbying behind the scenes” allowed the UN “to play … a central shaping role” in the ideology of AGW, making it one of the dominant leftist orthodoxies embraced by most Western governments.

In a sense, he was the right man at the right moment in time. Besides Strong’s machinations behind closed doors, he was aided by other factors, such as the collapse of Soviet communism in the early 1990s, creating a vacuum that helped pave the way for the emergence and eventual dominance of a new ideological force in the industrialized West: environmentalism. As a form of secularized Christianity with an apocalyptic vision of the future, environmentalism was uniquely situated to fill the vacuum left by the decline of Marxist ideology:

“The environmentalist narrative had much in common with the Marxist version it for so many people replaced. It divided the world into the exploiters and the exploited. It identified many of the same ‘enemies’, the power of America and of multi-national corporations, particularly those involved in oil and energy. It saw the rich nations of the world, led by the US, living at the expense of the poor. And above all it provided for its adherents the heady sense of being caught up in a great idealistic cause, aimed no longer just at freeing the world from the evils of capitalism but at something more cosmic altogether, saving nothing less than the entire planet from the greed and selfishness of humanity” (Booker 2013, pg. 339).

Strong was an ardent believer in the efficacy of state redistributive policies. In 1976, Strong told Maclean’s magazine: “I am a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” Christopher Booker (2013) goes into some detail about Strong’s personal philosophy:

“Many of the problems of mankind, he believed, lay with the selfish materialism of the rich Western countries, which laid such a heavy burden on the poorer nations of the under-developed world. This was posing an ‘acute moral, economic and political dilemma to the whole global community.’ And one notable expression of this, he had been advised by scientists, was that ‘we may already be in the beginning stages of a major shift in the dynamics of the earth’s climate system.’”

Strong’s environmentalism was more pragmatic, than ideological. His main purpose was to use environmentalism to advance his vision of global governance under the aegis of the UN. In a 1992 essay, he wrote: “It is simply not feasible for sovereignty to be exercised unilaterally by individual nation-states, however powerful. It is a principle which will yield only slowly and reluctantly to the imperatives of global environmental cooperation.” Strong’s environmental pragmatism is confirmed by Booker (2013, pg. 311):

Maurice Strong’s primary interest was not in the ‘environment’ as such. The real driving force of his life (apart from making money) was his 30-year-old dream that the UN might be a stepping stone to full world government. And now, through his association with the apocalyptically minded Club of Rome, he had come to see ‘environmentalism’, transcending national boundaries, as the most powerful instrument whereby his own great ambition might be brought about. His setting up in 1972 of the UN Environment Program, with its own international commissariat, able to command funding from national governments, was a step towards realising his dream.

Even though Strong had retired from the UNEP in 1976, he continued to play a significant role on the world stage as a militant environmentalist. He was a member of the The World Commission on Environment and Development, or the Brundtland Commission, established by the UN General Assembly in 1983. Although chaired by then Norwegian Prime Minister Gro Brundtland, Strong was its most influential and active member. The Brundtland Commission Report was finally published in 1987. Strong played a key role in developing the report’s concept of “sustainable development,” a term of crucial significance to the IPCC’s use of climate “adaptation and mitigation” as a vehicle for the promotion of egalitarian principles. This was defined as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts:

the concept of ‘needs,’ in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which overriding priority should be given;

and the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs” (pg. 41).

Sustainable development was a call for social and economic egalitarianism, nestled within a simple Marxist dialectical framework. The antagonism between Marx’s capitalist and proletariat mirrored the antagonism between industrialized and developing nations. The First World is the primary culprit behind Third World underdevelopment. Its need for raw materials had forced developing countries to over-exploit and deplete natural resources, leading to more environmental degradation and underdevelopment. The Brundtland Commission saw this as a vicious circle; environmental degradation is both cause and effect of poverty. The poor are disproportionately more affected than the rich because of global disparities in wealth and power. For example, the wealthier nations, because of their superior infrastructure and technological base, are better able to shield themselves from the effects of air pollution. This is why the authors conclude that “inequality is the planet’s main ‘environmental’ problem; it is also its main ‘development’ problem.” The solution, in a nutshell, boils down to more money to the developing world from rich Western nations.

Strong’s participation in the Brundtland Commission would ensure that man-made climate change and socialist redistribution would be incorporated into the report. These would subsequently form the basis of the UN’s environmental policy, becoming so influential that Western governments would try to reverse the effects of the Industrial Revolution in their own countries, limiting their capacity for scientific and technological development through restrictions on CO 2 emissions and increasing dependence on unreliable biofuels and green technologies. Climate hysteria and the UN’s insistence on implementation of socialistic policy on a global scale would persist well into the 21st century and possibly beyond.

In 1988, Strong had convinced the UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) to agree to the formation of an “intergovernmental mechanism” to monitor AGW and suggest policy recommendations for the UN and Western governments. This organization was the IPCC. Booker (2013, pg. 339) writes:

Maurice Strong used his influence to harness this new ‘environmentalist’ mood of the time to his lifelong dream that the United Nations should move forward towards becoming a ‘world government’. The answer to all these threats crowding in on the planet, he argued, lay in the creation of new UN structures to tackle them.” The purpose of new structures like the UNEP and the IPCC “was not just to enhance the UN’s global role by identifying it with humanity’s response to environmental challenges, but also to further his socialist ideals by redistributing wealth from the rich nations of the West to the underdeveloped world.

Billions of dollars have been siphoned off from Western taxpayers and transferred to Third World countries, ostensibly to aid in climate “mitigation and adaptation” within the “context of sustainable development.” AGW was merely a pretense for socialist redistribution on a global scale. To this day, the IPCC supports the redistribution of wealth from the developed to developing countries. In 2010, the Green Climate Fund was established, with the ostensible purpose of climate “adaptation and mitigation” in the Third World. This would, of course, necessitate the redistribution of wealth from the rich countries to the Global South. Obama pledged $3 billion to the fund in 2014, with $1 billion already handed over by 2017. However, not all Western politicians subscribed to the false humanitarianism of the UN’s avowedly socialist redistributive aims. Trump, who had promised during his election campaign to withdraw from the Paris agreement, did so on June 1, 2017. In his withdrawal speech, he said:

Beyond the severe energy restrictions inflicted by the Paris Accord, it includes yet another scheme to redistribute wealth out of the United States through the so-called Green Climate Fund … which calls for developed countries to send $100 billion to developing countries all on top of America’s existing and massive foreign aid payments. So we’re going to be paying billions and billions and billions of dollars, and we’re already way ahead of anybody else. Many of the other countries haven’t spent anything, and many of them will never pay one dime.[1]

Socialist redistribution followed necessarily from Strong’s hostility to Western industrial society, which had (in his view) impoverished and underdeveloped the Third World. “If we don’t change, our species will not survive […],” Strong said in a 1997 interview. “Frankly, we may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to collapse.”

In 1990, he is reported to have said:

What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? … In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?

Why else have so many globalists backed the the outsourcing of the West’s manufacturing base to the developing world? The West’s transition from an industrial to an information-based service economy is a deliberate plot to de-industrialize the West in the name of socialist redistribution.

Maurice Strong believed that only the destruction of Western civilization would save man from ecological catastrophe. In the Brundtland Report, co-authored by Strong, the developing nations are not to be brought up to the same level of industrialization as the West; instead, Western governments were advised to pursue less energy- and capital-intensive productive activities, all in the name of sustainable development. The result, of course, is the managed de-industrialization of the Western nations, with the aim of placing them on a more equal footing with the developing world. If social inequality and environmental degradation were the result of industrialization, then de-industrialization would return the West to the way it was before the Industrial Revolution. This, of course, was the clandestine purpose of the IPCC.

Strong’s wish to dismantle industrial civilization is not only anti-capitalist and anti-Western, but anti-White. The overwhelming majority of industrialized nations are White nations, apart from Japan and South Korea. The underlying anti-White hostility of Green dogma should be obvious. As of 2019, China is responsible for over one-quarter of all global CO 2 emissions, making it the world’s biggest polluter,[2] yet the burden of reducing CO 2 is entirely shouldered by the Western industrialized nations. This burden includes the payment of carbon taxes, implementation of cap and trade policies, development of green technologies and renewable sources of energy, all entirely White, Western endeavors. This is, of course, what Strong and his supporters have always wanted, since the founding of the UNEP in 1972.

Not only is the environmental movement anti-capitalist, but as Klaus (2008, pg. 4) explains, it is profoundly misanthropic and life-denying:

“If we take the reasoning of the environmentalists seriously, we find that theirs is an anti-human ideology. It sees the fundamental cause of the world’s problems in the very expansion of homo sapiens. Humans have surpassed the original scope of nature through the development of their intellect and their ability to reshape nature and make use of it. Not coincidentally, many environmentalists refuse to place human beings at the center of their attention and thinking.”

Environmental ideology demands the end of progress to save the planet. If Western nations have always been at the forefront of scientific and technological progress, it makes no sense to economically cripple them to achieve parity with the developing world. Research and development are necessarily energy- and capital-intensive; if fossil fuel consumption is drastically reduced by limiting CO 2 emissions and encouraging dependence on unreliable biofuels and green technologies, how would man ever progress, scientifically and technologically, as a species? Environmentalism practiced on a large scale will simply lead to the abolition of Western civilization. By regarding humans as neither above nor a part of nature, but subordinate to it, environmentalists believe that the natural world has greater moral worth than humans. If taken to its logical conclusion, mass extinction of the human species is the best possible outcome for the planet.

At its core, environmentalism is a nihilist belief-system that rejects humanity in favor of nature. This makes environmentalism a dangerous, fanatical ideology, much like Soviet Communism. What environmentalists fail to understand is that man belongs to nature, but also transcends it because of his capacity to reason. This has freed him, albeit partially, from the tyranny of his own instincts. Insofar as man is an integral part of nature, the human impact on the environment is no different from the impact of any other endogenous process. In nature, the response to endogenous factors is adaptation and divergence, not optimal or steady-state equilibrium. This is why environmentalist aims are naively utopian. If vast geological timescales reveal enormous fluctuations in mean temperatures, sea levels, atmospheric CO 2 , tectonic plate activity etc. then believing that one can turn the “climate knob” back to some ideal climate through “sustainable development” is a laughable pipe dream.

In many respects, environmentalists are the new Marxists, with the same shared goal of creating an ideal world. In the words of former Czech President Václav Klaus ( 2008, pg. 5):

The environmentalists’ attitude toward nature is analogous to the Marxist approach to economics. The aim in both cases is to replace the free, spontaneous evolution of the world (and humankind) by the would-be optimal, central, or—using today’s fashionable adjective— global planning of world development. Much as in the case of Communism, this approach is utopian and would lead to results completely different from the intended ones. Like other utopias, this one can never materialize, and efforts to make it materialize can only be carried out through restrictions of freedom, through the dictates of a small, elitist minority over the overwhelming majority.

In practice, leftists have no interest in the environment; if they did they would be neo-Malthusians advocating lower population growth in places like Africa and the Middle East. Instead, only Western nations shoulder the entire burden of “fixing” AGW. China and India are the world’s biggest polluters, but continue to emit GHGs into the atmosphere with scarcely a word of criticism from either environmentalists or the IPCC. As an ideology, environmentalism is little more than black-and-white moralizing within a Marxist framework. It’s basic message is a simple one: West, bad; Third World, good. Such are the Orwellian beliefs of those who would enslave the West to save the planet.

Part IV:

The Myth of Resource Scarcity and the Threat of Environmentalism

Climate change is the greatest non-issue of the twentieth century. The only purpose of AGW was to manipulate the masses into gradually abandoning Western industrial society by fanning mass hysteria to fever pitch; once this was done, getting the politicians and the electorate to be on board with curtailing Western scientific and technological development would be a cakewalk. Making false predictions about resource depletion was one way of accomplishing this.

Ever since the first Earth Day, environmentalists have been predicting the disappearance of vital natural resources in the near future. In 1970, Kenneth Watt, an ecologist, famously predicted that declining oil production would lead to a global economic meltdown by the year 2000. His prediction was based on the work of American geologist M. King Hubbert who, in 1956, predicted that crude oil production in the US would peak around 1970 using a bell-shaped or Hubbert curve. After 2000, the world would be running out of oil. Hubbert’s prediction, known as Peak Oil, was only partially accurate. Where the theory errs is on the decline side of the Hubbert curve. The decline only applies to conventional sources of oil, whereas unconventional sources are vastly underestimated. If recovery of unconventional oil is costly, at least initially, then prices will go down as more capital investment in extractive technologies leads to more improvements in terms of efficiency.

The failure of Peak Oil, like all of the failed predictions made by environmentalists since the 1970s, teaches us that resource scarcity is a myth. Man will always adapt himself to his surroundings. The more challenging the surroundings, the greater man’s capacity for discovery and invention. It would be Western Europeans, exposed to the most challenging environment of them all, the frigid circumpolar North, who would exhibit the highest degree of creativity and intelligence. After the long night of the Christian Dark Ages, Western man would progress to such an extent that he would eventually fashion the world in his image. Environmentalists are too pessimistic; the greatest resources of all are the geniuses who have shaped the course of Western civilization – and will continue to do so – since the time of Plato and Aristotle.

We see limited resources, but in reality, the list of potential resources is infinite; all that is lacking are men with the IQ, creativity and technological know-how to visualize the endless possibilities for resources and resource extraction in a world that is, for the most creative individuals, infinite and without boundaries. Environmentalism and other totalitarian ideologies threaten to put an end to this Faustian character of the West by suppressing all deviation from the orthodoxy of political correctness. By limiting the sphere of discourse within the range of what is publicly acceptable, environmentalists create an atmosphere of intimidation where they can quietly indulge their anti-Western hatred without risk of public scrutiny. By sabotaging the West’s engine of economic growth, either by limiting industrial activity through carbon restrictions or by exporting the manufacturing base to developing countries, they will have “saved the planet.” If they are to be stopped before it is too late to reverse the damage already done to the West’s economic infrastructure, there must be a thriving marketplace of ideas; without it, the Western mind will forever remain imprisoned in the “green shackles” of environmentalism.

Part V: Beyond Environmentalism? Laissez-Faire, Stewardship of Nature and Ethnic Nationalism

A possible to solution to the problems caused by modern environmentalism is a return to the more sensible conservationism of the past. Teddy Roosevelt was among the early twentieth-century’s most prominent conservationists; through executive order, he established dozens of national parks, forest reserves and wildlife refuges across the US. His philosophy of conservation was simple:

There is a delight in the hardy life of the open. There are no words that can tell the hidden spirit of the wilderness that can reveal its mystery, its melancholy and its charm. The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased and not impaired in value.

Man was superior to nature, but he was also its steward. With stewardship came certain moral responsibilities. He was obligated to the next generation to leave the environment better than when he had found it.

What is the best way to enforce man’s stewardship of nature? Klaus (2008, pg. 29) says:

In 1991, Gene M. Grossman and Alan B. Krueger noticed that an upside-down U-shaped relationship exists between the quality of the environment and the level of income, that is, wealth. After analyzing data from 42 countries, they calculated that the critical point occurs when the annual GDP reaches something between $6,700 and $8,400 per capita. […] Applying this to the real economy, a remarkable conclusion follows: Economic growth—an increase in wealth—is ultimately beneficial to the environment.”

Whites create better and more sanitary environments than non-Whites because only Whites create societies conducive to high rates of economic growth. Compared to the vast majority of societies, in the West, towns and cities are cleaner, the air and water are less polluted, and there is even less congestion and overcrowding. Most importantly, large sections of the natural environment have been left untouched, reserved for the enjoyment of future generations. If industrialization was as bad as environmentalists say it is, this would not be the case. Western industrial societies would be just as filthy as any in the developing world. Yet the exact opposite is true; ecological sustainability is a beneficial side effect of increasing industrialization. Once a certain level of average GDP per capita is reached, people suddenly have more leisure to develop an ecological awareness of their surroundings.

The correlation between economic growth and quality of environment is not complete without a discussion of racial factors. Whites have produced virtually all of the world’s greatest creative geniuses; this has made Western civilization the wealthiest and most powerful that has ever existed. The fact that these societies were racially homogeneous until recently meant that people were willing to care for each other, allowing them to hand over the environment “to the next generation increased and not impaired in value.” For example, when society is racially homogeneous, there tends to be greater redistribution of wealth than in more heterogeneous societies. Alesina et al. (2019) write:

[W]e find that native respondents display lower support for redistribution when the share of immigrants in their residence region is higher. This negative association is driven by regions of countries with relatively large Welfare States and by respondents at the center or at the right of the political spectrum. The effects are also stronger when immigrants originate from Middle-Eastern countries, are less skilled than natives, and experience more residential segregation.

In racially homogeneous White societies, people are more likely to trust and care for each another; but as White societies become more heterogeneous, this mutual trust disappears; as these societies fracture along racial lines, people become more isolated from each other and “hunker down” (Putnam, 2007). If people are more likely to care for each other in a White homogeneous society, they will be more likely to leave the environment better than when they found it for future generations.

Conserving natural resources for future generations will not be achieved by subordinating national interests to economic interests under the neoliberal system of world governance envisioned by the UN. If high IQ, White racial belonging and ability to create wealth are all positively associated with efficient natural resource management, then the best environmental policy is to encourage more industrial economic activity — more factories, more smokestacks, more burning of fossil fuels and more R & D, in White racially conscious societies. Government policy will not preserve nature for us, but more ethnonationalism will, especially in all-white societies.

Promotion of nationalism as part of an ideal environmental policy is incomplete without a neo-Malthusian world-view. Low-quality stock should be discouraged from breeding; at the same time, every effort should be made to encourage the reproduction of high-quality individuals. The same principle should be consistently applied on an international level. Societies that are most destructive toward the environment, with fertility rates and surplus population far in excess of the land’s carrying capacity, must be allowed to quietly vanish. Foreign aid must be acknowledged as a failure; the time has now come for pursuit of more active eugenic measures.

References:

Alesina, Alberto, et al. “Immigration and Preferences for Redistribution in Europe.” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series, 14 Feb. 2019, www.nber.org/papers/w25562.

‌Berry, Edwin X. “Human CO 2 Emissions Have Little Effect on Atmospheric CO 2 .” International Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, vol. 3, no. 1, 2019, pp. 13–26, 10.11648/j.ijaos.20190301.13. Accessed 8 Sept. 2019.

‌Booker, Christopher. The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with “Climate Change” Turning out to Be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History? Bloomsbury Continuum, 2013.

Fortin, Marie-Claude, and Gajewski, Konrad. “Multiproxy Paleoecological Evidence of Holocene Climatic Changes on the Boothia Peninsula, Canadian Arctic.” Quaternary Research, vol. 85, no. 3, May 2016, pp. 347–357, 10.1016/j.yqres.2016.02.003. Accessed 8 Sept. 2019.

‌Fyfe, John C., et al. “Making Sense of the Early-2000s Warming Slowdown.” Nature Climate Change, vol. 6, no. 3, 24 Feb. 2016, pp. 224–228, courses.eas.ualberta.ca/eas570/warming_slowdown.pdf, 10.1038/nclimate2938. Accessed 8 Sept. 2019.

González-Hidalgo, J.C. “El Consenso Sobre El Origen Humano Del Cambio Del Clima No Ha Sido Demostrado Aún.” Cuadernos de Investigación Geográfica, vol. 44, no. 1, 20 Feb. 2018, p. 349, 10.18172/cig.3368. Accessed 8 Sept. 2019.

[1]Trump, Donald. Statement by President Trump on the Paris Climate Accord. The White House, 2017, www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-president-trump-paris-climate-accord/. ‌