For decades now, you have heard leftist ear sores bloviate endlessly about "climate change."  The world will end in a decade if we don't take action now! screams AOC.  However, the more skeptical and rational among us tend to question the true motivation of the environmentalist Green cult.

The best example of a real environmentalist was probably conservationist John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club.  Muir's work helped to establish a number of national parks throughout the country, an act that did not regress the progress of society for the sake of nature, but sought to preserve nature while simultaneously allowing industrial society to progress at a steady rate.  Thus, Muir sought to build something, while the modern environmentalist movement seeks only to destroy everything and anything that gets in the way of its climate crusade. 

Just take a look at the Sierra Club's website today, and see what its goals are for 2030.  Within the next seven years, the Sierra Club hopes to eliminate enough coal and gas in the energy sector to make for 80% carbon "pollution"–free electricity by that time, in addition to decreasing oil used in the transportation sector by 18%, ending the sale of gas appliances, and halting the fossil fuel market by banning oil and gas exports and petrochemical expansion at the same time.  This is an ambitious plan...and also a complete load of BS and magical thinking. 

Although it may not faze most people at first, notice how they call carbon a "pollutant" and claim they want to reduce it by 80% in electricity production.  Since when is carbon a pollutant?  Carbon is an element necessary to all life on earth. No organism can survive without it.  Indeed, the entire process on which all human life depends, photosynthesis, requires carbon dioxide.  In order for plants to produce oxygen for living beings to breathe, they must first collect carbon dioxide dispelled from the living being breathing the air they are producing.  Numerous studies have indicated that areas with higher carbon concentration are more green and more fertile, not less. 

So why would the Green cult want to reduce the amount of carbon in the atmosphere?  Also, if the Green cult is so concerned about the effects of fossil fuels, then why is it so opposed to using nuclear energy, a form of energy production that requires zero fossil fuel at all, while simultaneously endorsing solar panels and windmills, which use fossil fuels throughout their energy production processes?  The Green cult knows that the wind isn't always blowing and the sun is only out for about half the day, so why would cultists favor unsustainable energy sources like wind and solar?  Could it be because the "climate crisis" hysteria is actually just a mask that their movement is wearing?  Do they actually believe the hyperbolic nonsense they spew?  Or could their environmental alarmism be cover for something more sinister? 

It probably isn't a coincidence that most environmentalists, and especially the crowd at the World Economic Forum (WEF), also happen to be fairly Malthusian in attitude.  Moral connotations aside, Malthusianism, named after English economist and demographer Thomas Malthus, essentially states that, by necessity, human population growth will outpace the scarce available resources within a given society and that, for a society to be stable, the population growth rate should be stabilized or reduced to match the available resources.  The Green cult and their WEF allies clearly believe that a steadily growing human population is straining the Earth's resources and is causing irreversible damage to the natural habitat, the landscape, and especially the climate.  The Environmentalist Conquistadors seek not only to preserve the ecosystem, but to destroy anything they deem as a threat to it, including humans. 

The WEF, for instance, predicts that by 2100, the population of the Earth will be between 6.3 and 8.8 billion people.  As it stands now, the population of the Earth is about 8 billion people.  That means that the entire population of the Earth will either be fairly dramatically reduced (by 1.7 billion people) at the low end, or hardly increase at all.  Whether you think this would be a good or bad thing is irrelevant, the point is that the WEF wants, predicts, and is betting on a decreased population, and so are their environmentalist friends, who view a decreased human population as a "healthy" trend for the Earth's sake. 

Is the true goal of the modern environmentalist movement not carbon reduction, but instead, perhaps, human reduction?  If so, what might they be willing to do to achieve that goal?  Back to Malthus: He claims that if population growth is not restrained, then "positive checks" on population will result, such as war, famine, and epidemics. 

Is it a coincidence that the WEF and the most environmentally conscious leftist governments in the West also happen to be the staunchest supporters of the war in Ukraine, where roughly 180,000 Russian soldiers and 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers plus 30,000 civilians have died thus far?  Is it a coincidence that the same leftist "climate" governments in the West who preach ceaselessly about melting glaciers, rising sea levels, global warming, carbon dioxide "pollution," and so forth causing massive amounts of death are the same ones that allow their State Department and National Institutes of Health to send $1.7 million in taxpayer dollars to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, the place where the first COVID strain likely came from, which kicked off a three-year pandemic, which was directly connected to the Chinese military, as the United States government did?  Is it a coincidence that this same government knew since 2005 that the People's Liberation Army of China maintained an offensive biological weapons program called the "Fifth Institute" of the Academy of Military Medical Sciences, which was drawing on research directly from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and sent the money anyway?

Is it a coincidence that the same leftist environmentalist governments like Canada, who also proclaim that climate change is killing people, are at the same time restricting and reducing the use by Canadian farmers of chemical fertilizers required for industrial, mass-production farming that feeds millions of people?  Is it a coincidence that at the same time the Trudeau government claims that the purpose of this fertilizer crackdown in Canada is to "reduce emissions" and slow climate change, Canadian farming organizations are claiming that "the Trudeau plan will significantly reduce crops, slash the income of farmers, and increase Canadian grocery prices"?  Is it possible that Canada's restriction of fertilizer could result in food shortages and famines in Canada, the same way that massive food shortages and widespread starvation resulted after the Sri Lanken government implemented a similar policy banning chemical fertilizers only a few months before Canada? 

This article is not stating anything as official fact, nor is it meant to be construed as conspiratorial speculation, because I am not giving my opinion on it or stating that this is happening for a fact.  The point is to prompt people to think and raise questions, including the following one: is it possible that the Green cult is only pretending to care about the environment and how it impacts not only the Earth, but people, too, in order to cover for the real purpose of its climate alarmism?  Is the real goal to stealthily implement Malthus's "positive checks" on population by actively supporting war, famine, and pandemics in order to reduce the population and destroy humanity?

Image: max_gloin via Pixabay, Pixabay License.