The left’s handling of environmental issues is inept, dishonest, and self-destructive. From overblown climate catastrophe predictions that consistently fail to come anywhere close to happening to the green new deal whose socialist pushers care more about enacting global communism than they do about the environment, it is clear that the left sees environmentalism as a tool to scare people into enacting left wing policies for the sake of social control, rather than as a legitimate set of problems that threaten the survival and wellbeing of humanity. This doesn’t mean our environment isn’t in serious danger – quite the contrary – but what it does mean is that the left’s extreme focus on the overblown threat of carbon emissions, and their hypocrisy in proposing plans that will do nothing to solve the problem and everything to make it worse, comes at the expense of solving legitimate threats to our ecosystem.
Just because climate change from carbon emissions is greatly exaggerated doesn’t mean our ecosystem isn’t in trouble due to human activity. Since the 1970s, the world has lost about 60% of its vertebrate wildlifehttps://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/living-planet-re...t-2018 and 1/3 of its arable landhttps://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/...ortage. We’ve also lost about half the world’s rainforests, and about 720,000 square miles of forest around the world has been lost just since the year 2000https://www.livescience.com/63196-rainforest-facts.html. The potential damage to human society from wildlife loss, deforestation, pollution, ocean trash, and other environmental threats that have little to nothing to do with carbon emissions is tremendous, as it would cost more than twice as much as the world’s current total GDP to reproduce the variety of services our ecosystem provides to humanity for freehttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pi...000685. If wildlife loss and deforestation continue at their current rates, the end result could prove to be far worse for humanity than even the worst case predictions of the climate alarmists. So why does the left focus almost entirely on climate change due to carbon emissions despite their terrible track record of catastrophic climate predictions that don’t come true instead of focusing on the real threats that wildlife loss, deforestation, land degradation, and water pollution pose to humanity?
Part of the reason may be because of who is to blame for each of those problems. The developed western nations of Europe and North America have the highest per person contribution to carbon emissions, but they have taken steps to reverse deforestation and currently have the highest ratio of forest to agricultural land, while the relatively poor and developing nations of Latin America and Africa are seeing the most rapid rate of deforestation, and the densely populated nations of Asia like China and India have the lowest ratio of forest to agricultural landhttp://www.fao.org/3/a-i5588e.pdf. White majority countries are responsible for only about 1% of ocean trash, while less developed but more densely populated Asian countries are responsible for a solid majority of ocean trash and the less developed nations of Africa and Latin America are responsible for more ocean trash per person than the westhttps://bigthink.com/robby-berman/where-is-the-plast...y-asia.
Many on the left like to blame the rest of the world’s ecological problems on the west, from economic exploitation to imperialism. That may have been true 100 years ago, but it is hardly true today, except in the most indirect sense. The biggest driver of deforestation and wildlife loss is food productionhttps://c402277.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/publications/118...ds.pdf, which is also responsible for about 1/3 of global greenhouse gas emissionshttps://www.nature.com/news/one-third-of-our-greenho....11708. Climate change is responsible for less than 10% of wildlife loss, but habitat destruction (primarily to make way for agriculture) and direct exploitation of wildlife by hunters, fishers, and poachers are responsible for a solid majority of wildlife loss for all forms of animal wildlifehttps://www.worldwildlife.org/pages/living-planet-re...t-2018. Densely populated nations like China and India pollute and destroy habitat to feed their enormous populations, while African, Middle Eastern, and Latin American countries with birth rates well above replacement rates are seeing the highest rates of habitat destruction and species extinction to feed their rapidly growing populations. The narrative that the world’s ecosystems are being destroyed to provide for privileged whites only works if you consider carbon emissions to be the biggest threat to our ecosystem; the moment you look past that and realize that the people of the developing world are destroying their environment primarily to feed and shelter themselves, the anti-white narrative of the green new deal left falls apart and you start to see how socialist welfare programs contribute more to the problem than the solution.
What the west does contribute to the third world’s environmental problems is at least as much from foreign aid as from economic exploitation. When we send poor countries medical aid to save them from diseases that would otherwise help control their population growth and food aid to save them from their self-inflicted famines caused by poor management of the land they clear for agriculture, we guarantee that the problems they’re causing will only continue to get worse. The moral attitude that every life matters and must be saved may make sense in western countries with birth rates below replacement rate, but that attitude is dangerous in sub-Saharan African countries with birth rates 1.5 to 4 times as high as replacement rate, and the same leftists telling white Europeans and Americans to have fewer kids to save the environment are the first to demand we send help to countries that can’t even feed themselves, let alone do so sustainably. However horrible it may seem to allow people in poor countries to starve, if the alternative is enabling more population growth which puts more stress on their local ecosystem and causes even greater ecological catastrophes in the future, the more moral course of action may very well be to let natural selection run its course now, rather than putting it off until it can be constrained no longer and the result becomes catastrophic.
Even the damage done by economic exploitation can be prevented better by the new wave of right wing populism than the neoliberal agenda that dominates the Democratic Party and most left wing parties across Europe. If easy outsourcing and low tariffs are responsible for sending mining and manufacturing jobs overseas to countries with far weaker environmental regulations where they can produce things far more cheaply, perhaps we need more of Trump’s right wing populism and trade wars to bring those jobs back to our countries where we can bear the burden of doing them sustainably. Where globalist capitalism exports our problems and runs the risk of destroying the entire world’ ecosystem equally quickly, nationalist capitalism can do a much better job of containing those problems by making it more expensive to send dirty jobs overseas than to do them at home where people will demand we find cleaner ways to do them. We may not be able to solve the rest of the world’s ecological problems for them (nor is it the west’s responsibility to solve any problems but the ones we cause ourselves), but we can at least stop contributing to them, and the populist, nationalist right that has grown in the era of Trump and Brexit is far better equipped to do that than globalist capitalism, globalist socialism, or globalist communism.
Open borders also contribute to the problem – moreso if carbon emissions are your primary concern than if they’re not. Leftist environmentalists claim that if everyone consumed like the average American or Brit, it would take almost 5 Earths worth of resources to provide for all of us, but if everyone on earth consumed like the average person in Nigeria or India, we would only be using about 2/3 of Earth’s ecological carrying capacity and our ecosystem would be fine.https://data.footprintnetwork.org/#/countryTrends If that’s true, then letting people from poor countries move to wealthier countries would be disastrous – we would greatly increase the amount of carbon emissions as their level of consumption rises to match ours, especially with the help of the welfare state, but poorly educated third world workers aren’t always skilled enough to do complicated jobs like wind turbine construction (which typically requires 2-4 years of trade school), much less run nuclear power plants. And the few who are skilled enough to handle those complicated jobs are needed more in their own countries so they can develop sustainably and stop being dependent on first world aid. And if the left is wrong and the green new right is right, then importing the behaviors of third worlders that cause wildlife loss, habitat destruction, and water pollution is even more dangerous. If anything, countries with better education and training systems should be sending people to the rest of the world to help them develop sustainably, not importing less educated people to replace better educated people. Stricter limits on immigration and enforcement of immigration laws will prevent us from increasing consumption of the world’s scarce natural resources (reducing ecological exploitation in the process) while also helping poor countries develop by keeping their best people at home helping their own people. The problem of importing third world overpopulation problems becomes more clear when you look at consumption per square mile instead of consumption per person – the consumption of the average person in India causes less than 1/5 as much environmental damage as the average American, but because their population density is about a dozen times as high as the US, India as a nation does significantly more environmental damage per square mile of Earth available to them than the United States. Now imagine what would happen if we opened the borders of the highest consuming countries and let millions of people move there and further increase their ecological burden.
The west doesn’t need to lower its birthrate any further or accept millions of third world migrants to appease the left, but it’s going to take a lot of work, a new set of personal and gendered expectations to accomplish that work, and a change in our understanding of the purpose of our economy. Sustainable agriculture takes more labor than factory farming to feed the same amount of people and requires more complicated planning. Solar and wind power take many times as much labor to produce the same amount of electricity as fossil fuelshttps://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/inconvenient-energy-f...orker/, and nuclear energy takes much more highly skilled and well educated labor. Agriculture is also the deadliest industry in America by deaths per hour worked, and construction is the deadliest industry by total deathshttps://www.bls.gov/charts/census-of-fatal-occupatio...ry.htm, so the jobs required to replace our energy infrastructure with renewables and make agriculture more sustainable are among the most difficult and dangerous jobs out there and we need a lot more people doing them if we want to save our ecosystem. The left wants to give free food and shelter to everyone, even people who come here illegally – requiring the people who work the most difficult, dangerous, and dirty jobs to work harder for less to provide for people who don’t work as hard as they do. If we’re already asking our hardest workers to work harder for less to produce things sustainably, how can we also ask them to work even harder for even less to provide for people who don’t work as hard as they do? It’s almost as insulting as the anti-masculine attitudes of much of the feminist left that doesn’t respect the unique dangers men must face to protect and provide for women or the ways men’s mindset must differ from women’s to accomplish that. Instead, we need an economy that understands the value of these jobs, an economy that rewards the people who do them more than people who do safer and easier jobs and far more than people who don’t work at all. We need our hardest workers more than they need more consumers. If our consumption of our world’s natural resources is destroying the planet, we need to set the expectation that anyone who wants to consume must contribute as much to society’s ability to provide for people sustainably as they take. The meritocratic value of capitalism and the nationalist value of serving your country and people are more suited to inspire men to risk their lives to help society in exchange for the respect and share of the resources they deserve.
And I do mean men. The construction workers we need building wind turbines and installing solar panels are 97% malehttps://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm. The agricultural workers we need running our sustainable farms are 75% male, but in logging/tree farming, the single deadliest job, they’re 98% male. If we’re going to replant our forests and/or use tree farming to pull carbon from the atmosphere, most of the workers doing it will be men. There is a biological reason why nearly all the people who will be doing the most important jobs to save our ecosystem will be men. The physical differences between men and women are massive. Literally 99.9% of women are physically weaker than the average man and about 70% of strength differences between individuals are explained by their sexhttps://www.anth.ucsb.edu/sites/secure.lsit.ucsb.edu...ss.pdf, so when you have a job that even many men have difficulty doing, only a handful of women will be able to handle the work. Women also lag behind men in math and sciencehttps://www.aps.org/programs/education/statistics/wo...rs.cfm (while excelling in other subjects), meaning fewer women will be able to handle math-heavy engineering and construction jobs or attain the level of education needed to run a nuclear power plant (only about 20% of engineering and physics degrees go to women). Men are also more biologically expendable than women – a few men and many women can restore a population to its normal size within a couple generations, but a few women and many men can’t, so it makes more sense for men to do riskier jobs that may kill or injure them than for women to. Continuing to deny the massive impact of sex differences for the sake of egalitarianism at a time when we can prove that men and women are fundamentally different on a genetic level is the biological equivalent of being a flat earther, and to hear those outdated and unscientific opinions from people who claim to be pro-science is laughable. Men and women evolved different skillsets on the basis of our different biological roles – and the differences between our roles increase, not decrease, as societies become more advancedhttps://arstechnica.com/science/2018/10/gender-diffe...tries/. Women who want to support a hard working man and invest in the next generation of workers and caretakers are just as important to the survival of our species as men who risk their lives to protect and provide for their family and people, just in different ways. It’s important that a solid majority of the population behave according to gender roles based on our biological sex differences, because we’re going to need a lot more hard working risk taking masculine men in jobs that most women won’t be able to do even if they’re taking testosterone and trying to transition into men, and those men are going to want women to take care of them and give them children to replace them when they die. It’s fine if a few women want to try that kind of work, but the survival of our species is important enough that we need as many able bodied men as we can get doing the hard work that needs to be done to save our planet, and we can’t let the unrealistic expectations of anti-biology feminist fantasies get in the way of saving the world. Besides, motherhood is a useful contribution to the survival and wellbeing of your people just as much as food, shelter and electricity, and shouldn’t many of the men who risk their lives to save our world while providing us with a better quality of life be able to watch their kids grow up in the world they saved?
We also need to recognize that much of the work that needs to be done will be done by the rural working class – it’s hard to find room for wind turbines and sustainable farms in the cities. You may remember rural working class men as the people who voted most solidly for Donald Trump (feel free to slap the word white on there too if you like). Farmers and construction workers vote solidly Republican, unlike the academics and entertainers who constantly lecture to them about the environmenthttp://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/index.html. There’s a reason for that – facing risk tends to make people more conservative, while safety tends to make people more liberal, and since a lot of the work that needs to be done to save the world is dangerous, the people who do it are going to lean to the right. Rural working class men are already on board with nationalism, populism, and sexism (though a milder and more mutually beneficial form of sexism than that of the Islamic world the left wants to import to replace rural white America, and which has already brought rape and sex slave grooming gangs to Europe). How can the left possibly solve climate change if the people they’re depending on to do nearly all of the work are against nearly everything they stand for? The left has nothing to offer the masculine men who will be doing nearly all the work of solving our environmental problems. But the right can promise a greener future, a more natural future, a future where we understand and accept who and what we evolved to be. We can offer a better alternative to the neoliberal future of half assed solutions to justify more control by global elites who want to make us interchangeable numbers on a spreadsheet while ignoring the things that make us different as individuals, sexes, and nations. We can create a better future for workers than the Marxist future of exploiting the hardest working people to allow everyone to consume equally well enough to destroy the world. The right does not have to compromise on any of their fundamental principles to save the environment – the left must compromise most of theirs to win over the hard working class that votes solidly Republican, and to do so they will have to abandon some of the values of the left wing academics and media that currently shape their movement. The environmentalist movement must move to the right, and in doing so its members must give in on at least some of their beliefs on immigration, welfare, sex differences, and gender roles if they want the support of the people they need to save the world.
Getting to a point where we can reverse the environmental damage humanity has done will require a fundamental shift in our economy, both nationally and globally. We must abandon the consumption driven model of financial capitalism and inflationary central bankinghttps://www.unz.com/article/one-third-of-american-wo...s-how/, but we must retain the meritocracy of the free market and the laws of supply and demand. Our economy should be based around sustainable production rather than consumption. We need an economy where profits are determined by how much you contribute to your customers’ quality of life and ability to survive, not by central bankers giving easy money to investment bankers at everyone else’s expense or by state redistribution of wealth away from the hardest workers and towards the neediest consumers. Our education system will need to teach boys and girls different skillsets and encourage a solid majority of students to learn gender specific skills and knowledge to prepare men to do the jobs that need to be done and to prepare women to support them and continue the cycle of life. And that, really, is what separates the green new right from the left’s green new deal – the leftists who have spent the last few decades convincing themselves to go gay, turn trans, abort their babies, and choose to be childfree have no evolutionary future to live for, so they don’t actually care if the world ends, but they’ll use the threat of ecological collapse for selfish gain if they can trick you into letting them. Meanwhile the right’s focus on family and the continued survival of their people as a people, as nations, ethnic groups, religions, different sexes, and ideologies is much more suited to understanding the natural cycle of life and ensuring its continuation for all the varieties of life we depend on for our survival. We must accept that different people with different traits in different environments will need to do different things in order to ensure the continued survival of their people and ecosystem. By embracing the natural principles of meritocratic selection and true diversity – which means different kinds of people are different, not that everyone is the same – the green new right can re-establish the natural order, eliminate the parts of our economy and government that encourage overconsumption and discourage hard work, and create a better future for the next generation of humans. The question is, will the environmental movement accept this reality and do what needs to be done to save the world, or will they cling to their failing, unnatural, anti-science ideology of egalitarianism and anti-whiteness, even if it kills us all?