Rio+20 is greatest threat to biodiversity

99% of species and humans are ill served by the 0.1% UN and environmentalist elites

Guest post by Paul Driessen and David Rothbard

The UN Conference on Sustainable Development is underway in Rio de Janeiro. This time, 20 years after the original 1992 Rio “Earth Summit,” thousands of politicians, bureaucrats and environmental activists are toning down references to “dangerous man-made climate change,” to avoid repeating the acrimony and failures that characterized its recent climate conferences in Copenhagen, Cancun and Durban.

Instead, “Rio+20” is trying to shift attention to “biodiversity” and alleged threats to plant and animal species, as the new “greatest threat” facing Planet Earth. This rebranding is “by design,” according to conference organizers, who say sustainable development and biodiversity is an “easier sell” these days than climate change: a simpler path to advance the same radical goals.

Those goals include expanded powers and budgets for the United Nations, UN Environment Programme, US Environmental Protection Agency and other government agencies, and their allied Green pressure groups; new taxes on international financial transactions (to ensure perpetual independent funding for the UN and UNEP); and more mandates and money for “clean, green, renewable” energy.

Their wish list also includes myriad opportunities to delay, prevent and control energy and economic development, hydrocarbon use, logging, farming, family size, and the right of individual countries, states, communities and families to make and regulate their own development and economic decisions.

Aside from not giving increased power to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats and activists, there are two major reasons for stopping this attempted biodiversity-based power grab.

1) There is no scientific basis for claims that hundreds or thousands of species are at risk

Up to half of all species could go extinct by 2100, asserts astronomer and global warming alarmist James Hansen, because of climate change, “unsustainable” hydrocarbon use, human population growth and economic development. At Rio+20 activists are trumpeting these hysterical claims in reports, speeches and press releases. Fortunately, there is no factual basis for them.

Of 191 bird and mammal species recorded as having gone extinct since 1500, 95% were on islands, where humans and human-introduced predators and diseases wrought the destruction, notes ecology researcher Dr. Craig Loehle. On continents, only six birds and three mammals were driven to extinction, and no bird or mammal species in recorded history is known to have gone extinct due to climate change.

The massive species losses claimed by Hansen, Greenpeace, WWF and others are based on extrapolations from the island extinction rates. Some are just wild guesses or rank fear-mongering, with nothing remotely approximating scientific analysis. Other extrapolations are based on unfounded presumptions about species susceptibility to long or short term climate shifts – fed into clumsy, simplistic, non-validated virtual reality computer models that assume rising carbon dioxide levels will raise planetary temperatures so high that plants, habitats, and thus birds, reptiles and animals will somehow be exterminated. There is no evidence to support any of these extinction scenarios.

Indeed, there is no empirical evidence to support claims that average global temperatures have risen since 1998, or that we face any of the manmade global warming or climate change cataclysms proclaimed by Hansen, Gore and others.

2) The greatest threats to species are the very policies and programs being advocated in Rio.

Those policies would ban fossil fuels, greatly increase renewable energy use, reduce jobs and living standards in rich nations, and perpetuate poverty, disease, death and desperation in poor countries.

Today, over 1.5 billion people still do not have electricity, or have it only a few hours each day or week. Almost 2.5 billion people live on less than $2 a day. Millions die every year from diseases that would be largely eradicated by access to reliable, affordable electricity for cooking and refrigeration, clinics and hospitals, clean water, sanitation, and businesses and industries that generate jobs, prosperity and health.

Opposition to large-scale electricity generation forces people to rely on open fires for cooking and heating – perpetuating lung diseases and premature death, from breathing smoke and pollutants. It also destroys gorilla and other wildlife habitats, as people cut trees and brush for firewood and charcoal.

Wind turbines slice up birds and collapse bat lungs, exacting an unsustainable toll on eagles, hawks, falcons, and other rare, threatened and endangered flying creatures.

Turbine and solar arrays cover and disrupt millions of acres of farmland and wildlife habitat, to provide expensive, intermittent power for urban areas. They require backup generators and long transmission lines, and consume millions of tons of concrete, steel, copper, fiberglass, polymers and rare earth minerals – extracted from the Earth, often in countries whose pollution control regulations and technologies are substantially below US, Canadian, European and Australian standards.

Corn-based ethanol requires tens of millions of acres, billions of gallons of water, millions of tons of fertilizer and insecticides, and enormous quantities of hydrocarbon fuels.

And yet, President Obama told Ghanaians in 2010 that poor, electricity-deprived, malnourished Africans should rely on biofuel, wind and solar power – and not build even gas-fired power plants.

Hunting, subsistence living and poverty are among the greatest risks to species. Denying poor families access to reliable, affordable electricity is a crime against humanity

The Rio+20 biodiversity and sustainability agenda means artificially reduced energy and economic development. It means rationed resources, sustained poverty and disease, and unsustainable inequality, resentment, conflict, and pressure on wildlife and their habitats.

Simply put, 99% of humans and wild kingdom species are being ill served by the 0.1% UN and environmentalist elites gathered in Brazil, and purporting to speak for mankind and planet.

Our Creator has endowed us with a world rich in resources, and even richer in intelligent, hard-working, creative people who yearn to improve their lives and be better stewards of our lands, resources and wildlife. The primary obstacles to achieving these dreams are the false ideologies, anti-development agendas and suffocating regulations being promoted at the Rio+20 Summit.

If we can eliminate those obstacles, the world will enjoy a rebirth of freedom and opportunity, voluntarily stable populations, and vastly improved health, welfare and justice for billions. We will also bring far greater security to Earth’s wondrous multitudes of wild and scenic areas, and plant and animal species.

That would be an enormous gain for our planet and people.

__________

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Washington, DC-based Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death; David Rothbard serves as CFACT’s president.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

63 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
pat
June 21, 2012 9:10 am

Sustainability is definable as inconvenient, expensive and defective. But it gives certain personality types great pleasure.

Bloke down the pub
June 21, 2012 9:17 am

This would all be relevant and true if the UN gave a rat’s arse about sustainability. As it is, they are just like their cousins in the EU, a bunch of self serving bureaucrats out to grab more power and money for themselves.

adolfogiurfa
June 21, 2012 9:24 am

1) There is no scientific basis for claims that hundreds or thousands of species are at risk
There is indeed ONE species really at risk: The human species, falling prey of a 0.01% strange predators, who believe themselves being immortals, as there is no other plausible explanation for their insatiable green. However, we are the majority.

Henry Clark
June 21, 2012 9:34 am

Of 191 bird and mammal species recorded as having gone extinct since 1500, 95% were on islands, where humans and human-introduced predators and diseases wrought the destruction, notes ecology researcher Dr. Craig Loehle. On continents, only six birds and three mammals were driven to extinction, and no bird or mammal species in recorded history is known to have gone extinct due to climate change.
Most interesting. While I haven’t gotten around to fully looking into that yet, it wouldn’t be surprising if true. There are only a moderate number of thousands of total vertebrate species, only a small fraction of those endangered. The limited number in danger could be saved by far more efficient means than throwing money at the UN. The claims about really vast numbers of species come mostly from bugs and the like, plus wild extrapolation for such as how many species supposedly limited to tiny microhabitats each per area of jungle (how did they even survive over prior eons if that fragile?), although that fact is not commonly mentioned for obvious reasons. High-yield agriculture is what allows land to be spared for nature, and being able to spare concern about environmental issues in themselves is mainly the luxury of the prosperous, the opposite of a starving farmer with low yields resorting to slash-and-burn; in both cases, prosperity helps.

June 21, 2012 9:38 am

It would be nice to add in as a yardstick the number of new additions to the list of species since 1500, as far as I am aware its just a modicum above 191.
or was that just for last year ?

June 21, 2012 9:39 am

The thieves at Rio have to change the subject now that their global warming scam is falling apart. I don’t know how much longer we can put up with their evil crap. This has gone on so long that I am amazed at the time it has taken for people to wake up and realize we are being lied to and stolen from. There is nothing new under the sun people , it’s the same old scam, lie , cheat and steal . With the vote by mail scam in place there is no honest way to check these thieves ether. Do we really want a violent revolution? It seems it is being forced upon us.

June 21, 2012 9:39 am

Reading through Paul Bain’s response agreeing that this is social science designed to back up desired public policy reminded me of Georgescu-Roegen’s Bioeconomics work from the 1970s and 80s.
I searched for any contemporary uses and the internet lit up in multiple languages all seeking to bring back his orientation as current projects. That’s degrowth. It’s also an attitude that completely rejects Julian Simon’s work on human ingenuity as the ultimate resource. In fact, G-R and his acolytes like Herman Daly saw man as just another part of the biosphere. No better.
Again this is ultimately pulling in all that work that acknowledges it is seeking a new economic system. It expressly rejects the individualism and rational mind of the Enlightenment. Once again we are playing with the most dangerous ideas of the 20th century. Just renamed and looking for a better sounding social theory to put a notorious political theory in place quietly.
Engrenage is a great name. No wonder we keep seeing illustrations of gears in all these different publications.

June 21, 2012 9:44 am

It used to be that the public would “see through” items like the Rio proposals with help from the media. The help is not forthcoming, so reliance on your own intellect is required and that too, is in short supply, as the system we use to develop it in students has also been hijacked.

MarkW
June 21, 2012 9:49 am

I’d take these cries for “sustainability” a lot more seriously, if the people doing the yelling, were actually living the lifestyle that they wish to impose on the rest of us.

higley7
June 21, 2012 10:02 am

“On continents, only six birds and three mammals were driven to extinction, and no bird or mammal species in recorded history is known to have gone extinct due to climate change.”
Looking a bit further, we have DISCOVERED 15 birds and mammals that we had thought extinct. So, we are up 6 continental species.
My favorite Draconian species extinction prediction was based on a fantastic calculation of how many species that would go extinct BEFORE WE EVER DETECTED THEM! I’d love to know what they smoke before dreaming up numbers to put into that model.These species could just as well be fantasies and never existed in the first place.

Latitude
June 21, 2012 10:06 am

The only way you can get these numbers….is by giggling the definition of species

DirkH
June 21, 2012 10:07 am

There is now talk amongst the parasites that they want to drop their “limit warming at 2 degree C” goal and replace it with “flexible” goal; as it turned out to be impossible to loot the West with the 2 degree goal. They will probably try to push through some total block on development in the West, like Obama’s Kill Coal regulations.
Source, German, a warmist “policy expert” called Oliver Geden in Der Spiegel:
http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/natur/klimawandel-oliver-geden-fordert-abschaffung-des-zwei-grad-ziels-a-838667.html

RayG
June 21, 2012 10:25 am

IIRC, the reason that Bjorn Lomborg became a skeptical environmentalist (or is that a “denier?”) is that while attending a a national GreenPeace meeting in Denmark, he heard a speaker quote a rate of species extinction. Dr. Lomborg asked the speaker to source his data because the stated rate would have the Earth devoid of all life in 75 years. This obvious absurdity lead to Lomborg’s change of direction and his being declared a heretic by the Green clergy. See the first pages of Lomborg’s book The Skeptical Environmentalist for details.

June 21, 2012 10:27 am

higley7 says:
June 21, 2012 at 10:02 am
“On continents, only six birds and three mammals were driven to extinction, and no bird or mammal species in recorded history is known to have gone extinct due to climate change.”
Looking a bit further, we have DISCOVERED 15 birds and mammals that we had thought extinct. So, we are up 6 continental species.
My favorite Draconian species extinction prediction was based on a fantastic calculation of how many species that would go extinct BEFORE WE EVER DETECTED THEM! I’d love to know what they smoke before dreaming up numbers to put into that model.These species could just as well be fantasies and never existed in the first place.
===============================================================
And lets not forget critters like the Coelacanth. They weren’t even continental.
There’s an “H” of a lot man doesn’t know. Some admit that. They try to learn more.
The nature of a bureaucracy is that the larger it is the less is cares about what it doesn’t know. It just wants to control … something … anyway. Individuals in it may be aware, but the system has become bigger than they are.

June 21, 2012 10:28 am

The objective of the UN bureaucrats and the useful idiots who support them is very simple: a global vegan commune of roughly 1 billion population, run by their favorite benevolent despots – themselves.
Wealth and income transfers to achieve uniform poverty and suffering, except for “Napoleon” and the rest of the “pigs”.
DirkH June 21, 2012 at 10:07 am
“A goal without a plan is just a wish.”, Antoine de Saint-Exupery

higley7
June 21, 2012 10:29 am

By the way, some species are already on the way into the Dark. Why should we stop them? It’s a natural process, in which we should not mettle. Sure our direct activities are suspect and should be considered regarding the impact, but a rare animal in the Laotian highlands that is going extinct is no worry to me, and none of our business.
The whole idea of the incredible value of the whole world gene pool and its “genetic potential” is a namby-pamby idea that means you can never let anything go. “That species that just went extinct could have had the cure for all cancers and we let it go!”, lots of moaning.
We would call them “hoarders” and we pity them as they spend their lives tending their hoard. We, too, can end up spending all of our resources and destroying our civilization and societies in the misbegotten idea that extinction is not allowed. People die. Species die.
Wait, wait. That’s exactly what the UN and Agenda 21 want. They want us to be shepherds and gentle gardeners of the planet and in our humbleness never really develop our intelligence or technology. Leaving the planet and going to the other planets and even stars is much to technological for these anti-technology whiners.
••••• Let’s take a different point of view. I maintain that a plant that fails to develop intelligent life is a failure and has no reason to be. We are the reason that this planet is here. It had to develop an entire biosphere in order to have the potential to develop intelligent life. For us to deny this reality is to have no idea who or what we are. As Carl Sagan once said so sagely, “We are a way for the cosmos to know itself.”
For that matter, the entire universe had to exist to produce the chance of the formation of Earth-like planets!
Perhaps were are the beginning of a cosmic intelligence, which is why, other than having all our eggs in one basket on Earth, we need to spread out from this ball of dirt. The cosmic level means that one HAS to leave home and learn more closely about the cosmos.
It is truly sad that our Undocumented Worker-in-Chief has decided to stop and effectively disband the incredible expertise and knowledge that NASA had accrued. HIs agenda obviously does not see beyond a socialist state. Agenda 21 goes one step, or many steps, further and squashes mankind to rubble and the rank of simple downtrodden caretaker dependent totally on the UN and their ever so perfect wisdom (not).

Andrew
June 21, 2012 10:41 am

Well we can see that AGW is about terminated because most realize that it aint happening, so lets move onto some other agenda LOL

Vince Causey
June 21, 2012 10:42 am

“Their wish list also includes myriad opportunities to delay, prevent and control energy and economic development, hydrocarbon use, logging, farming.”
Does it also include delay of growing biofuels? That would be consistent with the theme of preserving biodiversity wouldn’t it?
Q, What does nature hate most – a rainforest felled for growing palm oil, or an oil well?

dorlomin
June 21, 2012 10:47 am

“99% of species and humans are ill served by the 0.1% UN and environmentalist elites” I see the far right is once again mimicking the left, this time occupy. Not an original thought in their heads.
Well done on following heartlands instructions to pretend to care about the poor as well. Exactly as you were told to do here on this video
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/30/dr-bob-carter-on-sun-news/

June 21, 2012 10:50 am

higley7 says:
June 21, 2012 at 10:02 am
I’d love to know what they smoke before dreaming up numbers to put into that model.These species could just as well be fantasies and never existed in the first place.
====================================================================
How does one smoke CO2?

June 21, 2012 10:50 am

In this area (Southern New Hampshire) the greatest recent threat to wildlife was the Great Depression. Deer were hard to find when people were hungry. Now we have more, and close to Boston deer have become a pest, and also attract coyotes. There are more bear, moose, mink, otters, and fishercats, which were basically extinct in 1934, locally.
One odd side-effect of the way we teach kids that man-is-ruining-nature is that children become afraid of nature. Rather than feeling they are part of it, they feel alienated. Rather than hunting and fishing they avoid the woods. I try to teach kids they are part of the great outdoors, a “member of the family.” It develops a feeling of love for Nature, rather than fear of Nature. I think one is a better steward when their actions are based on love, even if one fishes and hunts.
There are whispers that some wealthy people want to move “common folk” off the land, to create “wildlife corridors.” It goes to show you that some didn’t learn a thing from the Highland Clearences or the Cherokee “Trail of Tears.”

mwhite
June 21, 2012 11:01 am

UN official urges global tax on Americans

DB
June 21, 2012 11:21 am

I am Brazilian and I can say that this big nonsense party called Rio + 20 is being treated by the Brazilian media as a potential big fail. 78% of Brazilian have no idea what Rio+20 is about. Nobody really cares.
Also, for the first time the Brazilian mainstream media is questioning the AGW, thanks to this Rio +20. Very good.

1 2 3
Verified by MonsterInsights