The Green Tsunami: A Tidal Wave of Eco-Babble Drowning Us All (3 page)

Now, compare that scenario to the crazy world of environmentalism. We are told by a cadre of supposedly world-class scientists,
relying on nothing but ‘garbage in-garbage out’ computer models,
they can predict what the weather will be like not only in our local
communities, but in the entire universe for the next 90 years! Weather
forecasters can’t accurately predict a storm for tomorrow, but environmental science can predict weather from 2012 to 2099?
The mainstream media bought into the environmental agenda
years ago and they have successfully convinced a gullible public that
“the science is settled”. Any scientist worthy of his white lab coat
and “pocket protector” will tell you, “The science is never settled.”
Scientific theory is constantly scrutinized by even some of the theories
we accepted long ago as true. One great example is Einstein’s Theory
of Relativity. His theory was tested and eventually corrected because it
contained a bit of faulty math.
Domestically, the new environmental “alarmism” began with
President Nixon’s Clean Air Act of 1972. From this legislation,
a monstrous new federal bureaucracy was created known as the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Among many environmentally driven projects, the agency created a list of “Endangered Species”
that were threatened with extinction if not protected by law.
The list expanded greatly from the 1970s when saving the wolves
and whales was our foremost concern. When the “Snail Darter” was
added to the list, many began to wonder what the EPA was really protecting. Today, the “Endangered Species” list includes 10,801 names
beginning with the Abbot’s Boobie to the final entry the Zuniga Dark
Rice Rat.
The EPA also regulated the Federal Government’s oversight for the
protection of a list of “endangered” wetlands, once called swamps.
Next came the “Environmental Impact Reports” (EIR’s) demanding
before any construction project began on public or private land, the
impact on “Nature” had to be investigated with particular emphasis
on protecting “Endangered Species”. Once the burdensome paperwork was filed with the government, an environmental organization
would hire attorneys to file lawsuits that delayed building projects for
years.
To the environmentalists of today, nothing is sacred, not even our
light bulbs. The “Green Tsunami” creators have convinced the federal
government that the old and inexpensive light bulbs must be replaced
by new, expensive, “environmentally friendly” light bulbs made in
Mexico. “Out with the old and in with the new”, at any cost, is the
environmental tidal wave of the future.
The federal, state, county and local government will fix all of our
environmental problems by simply taking charge of all of our energy,
the way we live, the way we travel and the way we illuminate our
homes. And no one dare object to their environmental agenda lest
they be labeled a “deny-er” or a “flat earth-er”, or an “obstructionist”, a “simpleton” or worse.
But today as these new environmental programs are gaining ground,
many are taking a second look and reconsidering all they’ve been told
the past four decades. They are revisiting the claims of impending
disasters and the long list of proposed government solutions to regulate their lives. For those of us who were there for that very first and
very innocent, “Earth Day”, the environmental movement has certainly come a very long and frightening way.

As I alluded to in the last chapter, the driving force behind the new
environmental movement is the United Nations, the organization that
developed historically as a natural outgrowth from Word War II. After
so many had died in combat and President Harry Truman ordered the
release of the atom bomb to end the war in the Pacific, the threat of a
“mushroom cloud” hovering over an American or European city was
enough to motivate the post-war generation to create a new international organization to replace the non-functioning League of Nations.
Theoretically, as long as there was a forum for peace operating somewhere in the world, mankind would never again choose war.

The words “United Nations” were first used by President Franklin
Roosevelt on January 1, 1942, as a united pledge by world governments to continue the battle against the three major WWII enemies
Germany, Italy and Japan. In 1945, representatives from 50 nations
gathered in San Francisco to draw up a United Nations Charter that
was ratified and signed by a majority of world countries. The United
Nations first convened on January 10, 1946, but the idealism of the
world’s peace-niks was quickly shattered by the reality of the U.N.’s
first major international crisis.

At midnight on May 14, 1948, the Provisional Government of
Israel proclaimed the new State of Israel as a homeland for Jews who
had been the target of Nazi extermination during WWII. Just twentyfour hours after Israel had been declared an independent country,
neighboring Arab nations that objected to U.N. recognition of the
fledgling Israeli state, invaded the country without warning. The
U.N. was powerless to stop the warfare that spilled across international borders.

Two years later, June 25, 1950, a Korean civil war began. Five
days later, United States ground forces were dispatched to stop the
Chinese-backed north from over running the democracy in the south.
Instead of restoring the peace, the U.N. recruited an army from the
nations of the world to fight the Communist invaders, ironically calling them the “Peacekeepers”.

In 1960, a controversial debate involving Russian dictator, Nikita
Khrushchev, disrupted the annual gathering of the U.N. General
Assembly by the ruler’s unrelenting and contemptuous thumping of
his shoe on the table in front of him. Since then, a steady stream of
dictators and political malcontents have marched to the podium in the
great marble hall of the New York City headquarters to rant and rave,
usually spewing insults to the United States and/or Israel, while drawing standing ovations from many of the U.N. members.

When the U.N. became aware of a complicated and divisive war in
Vietnam, they chose to remain unengaged. It began less than a week
after Japan surrendered to end World War II. Communist guerilla
leader Ho Chi Minh led an uprising that threatened the stability of
the French colony in Indo China. France flew a body of well trained
paratroopers into battle to end the rebellion; however, the conflict
grew until finally the Chinese government sent troops and weapons
to support Ho’s revolt. Under President Kennedy, the United States
joined the fighting (first as “advisors”), until young Americans were
later drafted into military service and ordered into a warzone to fight
the communist invasion of South Vietnam. As the war raged on and
intensified, it became more unpopular with Americans back home.
Finally in 1973, the last contingency of American troops was withdrawn. Two years later, the President of South Vietnam proclaimed
the national surrender to the Northern Communist Regime and again,
the U.N. sat idly by, ineffective.

Various and assorted other “hot spots” continued to erupt around
the world. There was outbreak between tribes in Africa, fighting
among white settlers in South Africa and the native population to
end “apartheid”. In South America, communist dictators rose up,
ran their course in office, then were overthrown by bloody rebellions.
Once again the U.N. offered little help.

Perhaps the most dangerous threat to global stability came in the
early 1960s when the two major powers of the world stood toe to
toe, ready to slug it out in a nuclear confrontation. When Russia military bases were established in Cuba, complete with missiles that could
easily reach the U.S. mainland, America president, John F. Kennedy,
confronted the possibility of a nuclear war. The U.N. did nothing to
help.

Obviously, keeping Global Peace was a United Nations failure. It
was necessary the organization seek a single, global, unifying issue to
validate their existence.

First, they tried Women’s Rights, but one third of the member
nations do not believe women have fundamental rights. Then the
concept for the U.N. to eradicate colonialism was introduced. But
colonial powers like Britain and France were already in the process of
ending colonial rule, leaving the U.N. once again impotent.

Freedom of the Press was another issue proposed, but one opposed
by dictators that firmly believed in a controlled media. Migrants’
issues were suggested and the idea went nowhere. Abolition of slavery
was introduced as early as 1949, yet, sex slavery continues more than
six decades later and, in many cultures, children are treated as family
slaves and begin working at a very young age to support their family.

Finally, one issue emerged that offered global government possibilities—a “new environmental movement” led by a feminist-socialist
from Norway, Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland. After studying medicine
at Harvard, she returned home and became a physician in the staterun health care system. When the U.N. staged its first International
Earth Day in 1971, Dr. Brundtland was appointed to a newly created
post in the Norwegian government and became the country’s first
Minister of Environmental Affairs. Dr. Brundtland’s political philosophy emerged simultaneously when she was elected as vice president of
Socialist International. Her career in politics blossomed and she was
eventually elected not once, but twice, to serve the people of Norway
as their Prime Minister.

Dr. Brundtland became an international force to be reckoned with
and an extremely powerful player on the world stage. She convinced
the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Javier Perez de Cuellar,
to establish a new U.N. organization, “The World Commission on the
Environment and Development”. So powerful was her personal leadership, the new commission became known internationally as “The
Brundtland Commission”.

With an international U.N. team behind her, Dr. Brundtland created what was perhaps the most influential environmental document
of the 1980s, one that would set the agenda for the U.N.’s new international environmental movement. The 415-page report titled “Our
Common Future” not only outlined a global assault on many of the
world’s major health problems, but for the first time included environmental issues as an international cause for health concerns.

The complex, new document laid the groundwork for the first
comprehensive United Nation’s “Earth Summit” held in Rio de
Janeiro, Brazil in 1992, chaired by Dr. Brundtland’s long time cohort
of her Brundtland Commission, Canadian businessman Maurice
Strong. After serving as the Chairman of the Board of a large oil
conglomerate, Petro-Canada, Strong became a very wealthy man.
Brundtland and U.N. Secretary-General Cuellar appointed Strong
to serve concurrently as Under-Secretary General of the entire U.N.
global organization and to the post of Special Advisor to the Secretary
General.

Strong combined his new global status, his friendship with
Bruntland and his belief in the U.N. as a global organization to create
the foundation for programs using environmental issues as the international problem that needed a peaceful U.N. solution. As Strong’s
personal wealth continued to grow, he and wife, Hanna, bought a
large country estate in Vermont they named “Shelburne Farms”. The
family retreat was not far from the U.N. offices in New York City
which also gave Hanna a perfect gathering spot for her “New Age”
friends.

Hanna Strong was fond of meditating and chanting to her favorite goddess Maia (remember, that goddess of the earth’s creation).
Just before her husband banged his gavel and called the 1992 Earth
Summit to order in Brazil, Hanna held a three-week vigil at the family
farm where she introduced her newly minted creation called, “The
Sacred Earth Charter”. After she read it to those assembled, she
buried the scroll on the property in something called “The Ark of
Hope”. Those present described the Charter as the “Magna Carta” of
the people of the earth. One can only imagine how closely this document resembled the body of work created a few weeks later by the
United Nation’s Earth Summit. The scale of Hanna’s big event can
best be understood when it was later learned her special guest to begin
the vigil was the Dalai Lama of Tibet, one of her hubby’s old pals from
the early days of his U.N. career.

As Secretary General of the U.N.’s 1992 Earth’s Summit in Rio,
Maurice Strong’s opening remarks quite candidly expressed the intentions of the U.N.’s global environmentalism agenda. “Industrialized
countries have developed and benefitted from the unsustainable
patterns of production and consumption which have produced our
current dilemma. It is clear that current lifestyle and consumption
patterns of the affluent middle class, involving high meat intake, use
of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work-place air conditioning and
heating and suburban housing, are not sustainable. A shift is necessary
toward lifestyles less geared to environmentally damaging consumption patterns.”

“Sustainable” was a relatively new global environmental term in
1992, but can now be traced to one of the dots we collected earlier, The Brundtland Commission’s “Our Common Future” report.
“Sustainable”, used throughout the 415-page report, quickly became
the key code-word of the new global environmental movement.

To those from the counter-culture of the 60s and 70s, Strong’s
words seemed an attack. Many were already vegetarians, a choice for
them that had nothing to do with a “sustainable” lifestyle to save
Planet Earth. To those somewhat drug-compromised minds, frankly,
eating meat seemed, well, cannibalistic. Also, during those days of
anti-Viet Nam war protests, many drove Volkswagens to the big
events. Was this new environmental movement being championed by
the U.N. declaring war on their major form of transportation operated by fossil fuels? Riding a bike to a protest rally seemed like so
much of a… well, a hassle. Was this counter culture that had rejected
the values of “middle class” America from the 50s to 70s, now being
lumped together as the enemy of the very environmental movement
they started?