Unintended Consequences Again

The environmental movement went wrong following their acceptance of the false premise that industrial use of carbon based mineral resources is dangerous to the biosphere. The problem of starting with a false premise is that good intentions tend to go horribly bad.

Forests Paying the Price for Biofuels: THE drive for "green energy" in the developed world is having the perverse effect of encouraging the destruction of tropical rainforests. … The rush to make energy from vegetable oils is being driven in part by European Union laws requiring conventional fuels to be blended with biofuels, and by subsidies equivalent to 20 pence a litre.

"The expansion of palm oil production is one of the leading causes of rainforest destruction in south-east Asia. It is one of the most environmentally damaging commodities on the planet," says Simon Counsell, director of the UK-based Rainforest Foundation. "Once again it appears we are trying to solve our environmental problems by dumping them in developing countries, where they have devastating effects on local people."

The case for biofuels includes the argument that they should be carbon neutral, since carbon released by burning them is recycled into the next crop. It is always interesting to see true believers downplay the carbon cycle unless they need an aspect of it for agenda support. Photosynthesis, the sunlight fueled combination of carbon dioxide and water, is why there is abundant life on Earth.

Much of the push behind these environmentalist polices comes from political forces desiring increased government control over the economy. Hans Labohm writing at Tech Central Station makes the case that global warming has been adopted by the same people who believe there should be one world government.

Global Warming, Global Governance: This mindset is a fertile breeding ground for a quantum leap in international governance, shifting sovereignty from the national level to that of international organizations.

It sounds logical: one climate for the planet, in danger from industrial societies, needs one government to control those societies. That big false premise, however, forces me to disagree.