Deforestation

everyone_wants_a_house_in_the_suburbs

2013 was a wrecking ball for global warming. Avoiding the obvious symbolic incidents such as colder weather, as we look into the climate changer claims none of them seem to be working out. Further, the changers are revising their models.

As someone who formerly trusted media to tell me what was right and to tell me the truth, I’ve become a skeptic about global warming. It’s clear that it is a proxy for something else — or to avoid something else.

On the surface, global warming is a comforting theory. If we just get our carbon under control, life can go on. Further, we can use carbon credits to re-distribute wealth and raise the third world from poverty. It’s happier than Disneyland.

Those with more experience with human beings would take a look at the huge forces behind climate change: liberal billionaires, Western governments, big media and the usual chattering neurotics who call themselves “progressives.” Anything these people like is probably fatal to anything good.

But what could they be hiding?

The salient factor in climate change is that all the solutions are easy. Stop carbon; that’s it. Nothing else really needs change. And this is where we see the sleight-of-hand that accompanies all really good deceptions: they’ve distilled a complex problem down to a single factor.

In truth, the problem can’t be distilled, but history shows us its cause. As humans have expanded, we have taken over much of the globe and replaced its forests with farm fields, roads and dwellings. The result is a massive loss of forest, which in turn has a series of negative consequences.

First, loss of unbroken space means loss of species and reductions in many others as they lack enough space for individual creatures to hunt, live and raise young. Second, it limits the amount of absorption that these forests can do, not just of carbon dioxide but other pollutants and heat. Finally, it limits the amount of fresh oxygen and water that are produced by these forests.

What is the primary driver of deforestation? More humans. How do we know this? We’ve watched it happen over the last half-century. It’s irrefutable because it is history. Unlike climate change, it is not based on models; we have seen that the more people we add, the fewer forests we have. And there’s no way to add new land and plant forests there.

Overpopulation = deforestation. In turn, deforestation means more pollution, species extermination, and lack of general health to our natural world. If ecocide has a face, it is silhouetted in deforestation. And yet the climate changers don’t want to talk about this. Why?

First, it refutes their theories. Climate changers want you to believe that our problem is increased carbon output; in reality, our problem is decreased amounts of forests to offset this carbon. They don’t want to talk about that, because in order to stop deforestation, we have to stop population growth. This goes against the basic liberal method of gaining power, which is to give out freebies: everyone gets a place to live, everyone gets an income, everyone gets special rights against the majority.

Fighting deforestation doesn’t require we do anything. It requires we stop doing things: no welfare, no programs to stop people from dying out where the land can’t support them, stop allowing any immigration, no foreign aid, and even such extreme measures as fewer warning labels and safety features. Let Darwin, mother nature and the Hand of God (H.O.G.) do their work and thin the herd. All we have to do is get rid of our do-gooder deeds which we use to purchase votes for liberal parties.

And therein lies the secret. Global warming is a win for liberals. They get to keep living exactly as they have been, except the SUV gets swapped for a Prius and they use toxic fluorescents instead of incandescents. They will be able to transfer wealth from the first world to the third, buying support there. They can keep buying votes with immigration, even though it causes the source countries to have baby booms to replace their lost population. It’s business as usual, plus they can go to their base and say, “See, we stuck it to those obese bloated rich people using too much carbon.”

But… for those of us concerned with reality, namely that the effects of our actions match our intentions, climate change is a loser. We don’t stop the real problem, deforestation, which is a product of rising human population. And we dump more wealth into kleptocracies that will just continue their environmentally toxic practices in order to get more aid. We’re passing the buck to tomorrow, with a big helping of debt to match.

9 Comments

  1. NotTheDude says:

    Very true. I lay most of the blame at the door of the drive for ‘Growth’. Not all growth is good but we are told that blind growth cures all. Growth is not the same as progress. We could move forward without the folk who hinder and leech off of the industrious. However, it is true that our present system encourages their kind to keep it alive. It is refreshing to hear a different, more sensible solution as opposed to the usual ‘Stop having babies’! We don’t all have ‘too many babies’ here in the West, and those who don’t usually are the more thoughtful ones who do the most for society. We shouldn’t be rising in number, when you see our low birth rates. We need to stop mass immigration, that hole in the bucket model, and, as this post says, let Nature do the work.

    1. Growth is how we keep enough money flowing to buy off the parasites and still have some for ourselves.

  2. Carnivore says:

    I’m not so sure about deforestation. Deforestation claims are made about South America – don’t know if they are true or not (“we lose a zillion acres of rain forest per day”). In the USA, however, it’s not the case. Vast areas of the Midwest and Northeast were completely bare in the 19th century due to logging. Northern Wisconsin, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan, Vermont, New Hampshire, etc. were devoid of trees whereas today they are covered by large, dense tracts of forest. Logging is still done, but it is managed.

    1. As the article points out, logging isn’t an issue — expansion of civilization (housing, roads, farms) is.

  3. HEburnLL says:

    What is the solution to overpopulation? Does government need to step in and implement mandatory sterilization? Or should we educate people to sterilize or not breed themselves? What obstacles could we expect when we face a declining population?

    If I am correct in understanding, it isn’t that climate change is a hoax, it is the solutions that politicians come up with to reduce climate change that is the hoax. From what I’ve observed in America, conservative politicians seem just as interested in profiting from climate change as liberals are because the real solutions would hurt them economically in the short term.

    1. crow says:

      Climate Change is no hoax. The planet does what it does, when it feels like doing it. The hoax is in the arrogant assumption that people cause, not-cause, change, or manage it. There’s big bucks and big power in convincing everyone of it being their fault. Or, in the case of leftists: somebody else’s fault.
      Every time a volcano erupts, that’s 100 years of human pollution. Every time The Sun acts up, there’s another 50. Each forest fire adds its quota.
      People, obviously, don’t help matters, by behaving irresponsibly, but people are not remotely responsible for planetary fluctuations in climate. Those fluctuations would occur naturally, with or without humans. Hence the various prehistoric ‘ages’ that were by turns very hot, relatively temperate, or very cold.
      Humans managed to navigate an Ice Age before. They tend to do quite well in warmer conditions.

      1. Will says:

        I’m not sure that’s right. I tried finding information to back up what you say about volcano eruptions and here’s what I got:

        “Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010…The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year”

        (http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/climate.php)

        In lieu of the said politico-economic forces, it’s not that I don’t find it feasible something this prevailing could turn out to have fabricated elements, but I just always seem to come across the same lines that upon googling, would not, at first glance, appear to hold true.

        1. crow says:

          I’m not sure anything’s right. Besides, I have no idea of the actual figures involved. Also, I don’t really care. What I care about is the impact of the utter madness of humans, which I would have to say is the single biggest threat to everything. Fix that, or at least minimize it, and so many other problems would fizzle out.

          Anyway, most planets have a SO2/CO2 atmosphere. It’s normal, so I read. If we had one too, our population problems would be nicely solved. No existence=no problem.

          It’s all so exhausting, worrying about living forever.

  4. Will says:

    I find it hard to see see anthropogenic climate change as a simplification of environmental crisis. -Liberals- may make reducing carbon sound as simple as driving a Prius, however liberals are anything but in line with what the figures suggest. Furthermore, you’ll see them offer the same kind of solution (the kind aimed at satiating the ego as opposed to solving actual problems) for all environmental issues – bring up deforestation to one and they’d start talking about things like recycling, or not buying furniture made from the rain forest, and that’s all you have to do!

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.656 seconds