Real Threats to Biodiversity and Humanity

Healthy ecosystems and life on Earth suggest ending wind, solar, biofuel and organic programs

Paul Driessen

References to climate change almost guarantee funding, even for research topics of little interest beyond academia and eco-activists. Polls reveal that most people worry most about energy and food prices, crime, living standards, Putin’s war on Ukraine, and increasing efforts to control their lives.

A recent study by Rutgers University scientists sought to determine how much diversity is required among bee species to sustain wild plant populations. They concluded that ecosystems rely on many bee species to flourish – and “biodiversity is key to sustaining life on Earth,” especially with many species “rapidly going extinct due to climate change and human development.”

US Geological Survey wildlife biologist Sam Droege says wild bees are generally “doing fine.” However, they definitely face challenges, primarily due to habitat loss, disease, and competition from managed honeybees and bumblebees – not to pesticides, since most wild bee species don’t pollinate crops.

That brings us to one of Wokedom’s favorite topics: intersectionality – in this case, actual connections among bees, climate change, habitat losses, and threats to our energy, living standards and freedoms.

Simply put, the gravest threat to wildlife habitats and biodiversity (and to people’s rights, needs and living standards) is not climate change. It is policies and programs created, implemented and imposed in the name of preventing climate change.

Let’s examine habitat and biodiversity threats – without asking whether any climate changes today or in the future are still primarily natural, or are now driven by fossil fuels. Let’s just look at what purported solutions to the alleged “climate crisis” would likely do to the planet and creatures we love. In reality:

The most intensive land use – and thus greatest habitat destruction – is from programs most beloved, advocated and demanded by rabid greens: wind, solar, biofuel and battery energy, and organic farming.

Team Biden is still intent on getting 100% hydrocarbon-free electricity by 2035. It wants to eliminate fossil fuels throughout the US economy by 2050: no coal or natural gas for electricity generation; no gasoline or diesel for vehicles; no natural gas for manufacturing, heating, cooking or other needs.

America’s electricity demand would soar from 2.7 billion megawatt-hours per year (the fossil fuel portion of total US electricity) to almost 7.5 billion MWh by 2050. Substantial additional generation would be required to constantly recharge backup batteries for windless, sunless periods. Corn-based ethanol demand would disappear, but biofuel crops would have to replace petrochemical feed stocks for paints, plastics, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, cell phones, wind turbine blades and countless other products.

This is just for the USA. Extrapolate these demands to the rest of a fossil-fuel-free developed world … to China and India … and to poor countries determined to take their rightful places among Earth’s healthy and prosperous people – and “clean, green” energy requirements become monumental, incomprehensible.

We’re certainly looking at tens of thousands of offshore wind turbines, millions of onshore turbines, billions of photovoltaic solar panels, billions of vehicle and backup battery modules, and tens of thousands of miles of new transmission lines. Hundreds of millions of acres of US farmland, scenic areas and wildlife habitats would be affected – blanketed with enormous industrial facilities, biofuel operations and power lines.

Add in the enormous and unprecedented mining, processing and manufacturing required to make all these energy-inefficient technologies – mostly outside the United States – and the land use, habitat loss and toxic pollution would gravely threaten people, wildlife and planet.

Let’s take a closer look, now just from a US perspective, but knowing these are global concerns.

Solar power. 72,000 high-tech sun-tracking solar panels at Nevada’s sunny Nellis Air Force Base cover 140 acres but generate only 32,000 MWh per year. That’s 33% of rated capacity; 0.0004% of 2050 US electricity needs. Low-tech stationary panels have far lower efficiency and generating capacity, especially in more northern latitudes. Meeting 2050 US electricity needs would require Nevada sunshine and nearly 235,000 Nellis systems on 33,000,000 acres (equal to Alabama).

Triple that acreage for low-tech stationary panels in less sunny areas. For reference, Dominion Energy alone is planning 490 square miles of panels (8 times Washington, DC) just in Virginia, just for Virginia. Then add all the transmission lines.

Wind power. 355 turbines at Indiana’s Fowler Ridge industrial wind facility cover 50,000 acres (120 acres/turbine) and generate electricity just over 25% of the time. Even at just 50 acres per turbine, meeting 2050 US power needs would require 2 million 1.8-MW wind turbines, on 99,000,000 acres (equal to California), if they generate electricity 25% of the year.

But the more turbines (or solar panels) we need, the more we have to put them in sub-optimal areas, where they might work 15% of the year. The more we install, the more they reduce wind flow for the others. And some of the best US wind zones are along the Canada-to-Texas flyway for migrating birds – which would mean massive, unsustainable slaughter of cranes, raptors, other birds and bats.

Go offshore, and even President Biden’s call for 30,000 MW of electricity (2,500 monster 12-MW turbines) wouldn’t meet New York State’s peak summertime electricity needs.

Biofuels and wood pellets. America already grows corn on an area larger than Iowa, to meet current ethanol quotas. Keep-fossil-fuels-in-the-ground lobbyists need to calculate how many acres of soybeans, canola and other biofuel crops would be needed to replace today’s petrochemical feed stocks; how much water, fertilizer, labor and fuel would be needed to grow harvest and process them; and how much acreage would have to be taken from food production or converted from bee and wildlife habitat.

Climate activists also approve of cutting down thousands of acres of North American hardwood forests – nearly 300,000,000 trees per year – and turning them into wood pellets, which are hauled by truck and cargo ship to England’s Drax Power Plant. There they are burned to generate electricity, so that the UK can “meet its renewable fuel targets.” And that’s just one “carbon-neutral” power plant. That’s one year to slash and burn the fuel, and fifty years to regrow replacement trees. This is not green, sustainable energy.

Organic farming. Environmentalists dream of converting all US (and even all global) agriculture to 100% organic. However, that would further reduce wildlife habitats – dramatically – especially if we are to simultaneously eliminate world hunger … and replace petrochemicals organically.

Organic farms require up to 30% more land to achieve the same yields as conventional agriculture, and most of the land needed to make that happen is now forests, wildflower fields and grasslands. Organic farmers (and consumers) also reject synthetic fertilizers, which means more land would have to be devoted to raising animals for their manure, unless human wastes are used. More lost wildlife habitat.

They reject modern chemical pesticides that prevent billions of tons of food from being eaten or ruined, but utilize toxic copper, sulfur and nicotine-based pesticides. They even reject biotechnology (genetic engineering) that creates crops that are blight-resistant, require less water, permit no-till farming, need fewer pesticide treatments, and bring much higher yields per acre. Translation: even less wildlife habitat

There are alternatives, of course. Government mandates and overseers could require that “average” American families live in 640-square-foot apartments, slash their energy use, ride only bicycles or public transportation, and fly only once every few years. They could also switch us to “no-obesity” diets.

Indeed, “scientists” are again saying we “common folks” could “reduce our carbon footprints” by eating less beef and chicken, and more insect protein, ground-up bugs – or roasted bumblebees. Or we could just reduce the number of “cancerous, parasitic” humans. (Perhaps beginning with wannabe overseers?)

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of Eco-imperialism: Green Power-Black Death and many articles on the environment.

4.9 18 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 30, 2022 6:19 pm

Ethano as fuel is destroying biodiversity as the need for corporate profits has been eating up all the interstitial land previously ignored by industrial farming.

You want to support biodiversity? Provide tax incentives to allow farmers to keep interstitial land undisturbed.

Reply to  Rob_Dawg
May 1, 2022 8:17 am

Nota Bene: “Ethano” was deliberate.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
May 1, 2022 4:24 pm

C’mon man!! Global warming is real – I can prove it!!!

Proof of Global Warming.jpg
Johne Morton
April 30, 2022 6:22 pm

Sounds like what they’re going for is net zero…humans.

John Garrett
April 30, 2022 6:25 pm

The Federal Government is now in the business of telling me what frickin’ light bulbs I can and cannot buy.

The Federal Government is now in the business of telling me what kind of shower head I can and cannot buy.

The Federal Government is in the business of telling me who I have to work with and who I have to hire.. The Federal Government is in the business of telling me who I have to have as a neighbor.

The Federal government wants to get in the business of telling me what kind of automobile I have to buy.

It is unimaginable. It’s almost like living in the bloody Soviet Union. The only difference is that I am allowed to complain— but only as long as I don’t break the rules about complaining!

Zig Zag Wanderer
Reply to  John Garrett
April 30, 2022 8:48 pm

Don’t forget, only ‘mostly peaceful’ protests are allowed!

Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
May 1, 2022 9:18 am

But “they” define what’s mostly peaceful. Some animals are more equal than others.

Rational Db8
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
May 1, 2022 4:29 pm

Elections have consequences. We’re suffering them right now.

Reply to  John Garrett
April 30, 2022 8:49 pm

If you do complain they will also simply label you a denier or another other term to make you feel insignificant.

It is ironic the same thing is happening in Russia right now if you don’t agree with the invasion of Ukraine

Reply to  LdB
May 1, 2022 6:57 am

Biden is setting up a new government department charged with controlling disinformation, which liberals define as any fact that hinders their ability to control everything.

According to a new article in Time magazine, free speech only applies to the spoken word. You have no right to publish, or use any technology that didn’t exist in 1776 to spread your opinions.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
May 1, 2022 11:48 am

SCOTUS has ruled against that idea.

Sweet Old Bob
April 30, 2022 6:38 pm

Even the IMF is warning of food shortages …
it’s going to get fugly .

Reply to  Sweet Old Bob
May 1, 2022 2:03 am

It took a global war, between Germany, the rest of Europe and Germany, and between the USA and Japan to induce food rationing in the UK.

If we have food shortages over a war for a flat broke, corrupt, tin pot corner of Europe today, we know it’s deliberately manufactured.

April 30, 2022 7:35 pm

Failure by design. The intent is to build back better which translates to their goals.

Reply to  markl
May 1, 2022 2:05 am

So far, there’s nothing built back better, and the shitwit in the WH only has 2.5 years to go.

Perhaps Bumbledore has a magic wand he’s not telling the world about.

Zig Zag Wanderer
April 30, 2022 8:46 pm

“Eating less beef and chicken”

I’m pretty sure that it wasn’t too long ago that somebody was advocating for ‘a chicken in every pot’. That was because people didn’t always have a chicken to eat.

Now, we’re so rich that we can choose not to eat chicken or beef! That’s what fossil fuels have done for us, make us so wealthy that we can afford not to eat meat if we want.

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
May 1, 2022 1:19 am

I have recently been diagnosed as being very low on Folic Acid, my physician has recommended I eat more beef, lamb, pork, chicken, & fish, (which I do anyway), to build up my Folic Acid levels. Have these eco-bunnies fully thought through the potential health issues that could & would result in these dietary changes??? I doubt it very much, but if they have sinisterly thought these things through it speaks volumes about their mentality, which I have never doubted!!!

Reply to  Alan the Brit
May 1, 2022 4:41 am

You may have been misadvised. All living things contain folic acid, and the items you list are no exceptions. But if you are really short, then you should try things with high levels of folate, which this list is empty of.

Reply to  Alan the Brit
May 1, 2022 9:54 am

The issues will have been well thought through. As long as they’re not affected, they simply don’t care.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Zig Zag Wanderer
May 1, 2022 11:52 am

Wanderer, that is probably the most astute and ironic comment on the results of Leftist thinking I’ve seen in awhile.

April 30, 2022 9:50 pm

I think you are missing the point. A much simpler solution is taking away living standards of all but the elites. In other words a drastic reduction in consumption. Do you not believe Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum in Davos when he says of the Great Reset in the future: “You will own nothing……”?

Reply to  Terry
May 1, 2022 2:09 am

‘The Great Reset’. Hah!

Like Xi and Putin are going to do what some Nazi fantasist and a few billionaires tell them to do.

Reply to  HotScot
May 1, 2022 7:09 am

Putin and Xi are Nazi fantasists and billionaires.

Geoff Sherrington
April 30, 2022 10:27 pm

Here is a math question.
The Earth has an angular momentum that keeps it spinning.
Windmills take energy from the wind and so lessen the drag of air on the rotating Earth.
Q. How many miles per hour does a typical windmill at 40 degrees South latitude take from the Earth’s rotational velocity? Geoff S

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
April 30, 2022 11:30 pm

I wish I could find/ remember the name of a paper by a Polish team that discussed the effect of wind turbines on downstream wind patterns.

I suspect there the effect is similar to deforestation has on wind patterns (think retreating glaciers on Kilimanjaro).

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
May 1, 2022 2:11 am

Being that there’s no aerodynamic drag in space, and the atmosphere largely revolves with the planet, I would have thought absolutely nothing.

Geoff Sherrington
Reply to  HotScot
May 1, 2022 3:45 am

Then where does the energy in that renewable electricity come from? It cannot come out of think air. It has to be transferred from somewhere. Geoff S

Richard Page
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
May 1, 2022 3:55 am

The sun.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
May 1, 2022 10:26 am

And be mindful that there is a distinct difference between energy and momentum.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
May 1, 2022 4:52 am

It was admitted that the La Roche tidal power station would slow down the rotation of the earth or more exactly accelerate the slowdown of the earth’s rotation.
For a blast from the past:

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
May 1, 2022 10:22 am

AFIK, wind patterns at Earth’s surface (i.e., not at altitude levels where the jet streams associated with Hadley cells and the mid-latitude cells occur) blow in random compass directions when averaged over the course of a year.

This being the case, drag forces from surface winds acting on wind turbine would act to reduce wind drag on Earth in directions opposite to E-to-W rotation as much as they would reduce wind drag in directions aligned to the planet’s E-to-W rotation.

But overriding this, there is the simple fact that a wind turbine that reduces wind velocity does so, via the law of conservation of momentum, by imparting a net torque on the earth due to turbine aerodynamic drag loading being reacted, over the turbine support tower length, into the ground.

April 30, 2022 10:38 pm

 without asking whether any climate changes today or in the future are still primarily natural, or are now driven by fossil fuels.”

Very smart to engage without asking this question.

This is the crux of the issue, a false question. One in which is driving deep division.

Skeptics trying to prove only natural causes, vs true believers leaning on atmospheric optical forcings by fossil fuel emission.

A problem definition poorly defined. Having lost sight of the real question: what is a climate change?

Is the atmosphere really an external forcing action on the surface? Or, is the atmosphere coupled in the hydrodynamic system?

Is climate a question that exists separate from ecosystems? Or, is climate a part of the ecosystem definition? How might ecosystem changes impact climates?

Is climate an external issue of an isolated atmosphere – or, is climate tightly bound to surface hydrology and biosystems?

Must the question be of natural or fossil fuel origin?

It is right to not get caught up in the false debate. One of natural vs greenhouse optical changes. It is leading us to nowhere, to a place where both sides have lost sense of the problem definition.


Reply to  JCM
May 1, 2022 1:44 pm

A Question I have asked others and contemplated myself; what is or how to define climate change??? How to know when it has occurred and if so what was the mechanism or Physics??? which caused it. Was the little ice age climate change and then the warming since then??? Ice ball earth could be considered so but surely if man made it has to have some definitive mechanism of mammoth proportions and not a trace gas.

Peta of Newark
April 30, 2022 10:46 pm

I have a story, in a podcast I recorded, of a sizeable group of laboratory mice.
They were fitted out in a lovely big living space, given plenty food and water and simply left to get on with whatever mice do.
The Experiment involved, over just 7 days, giving them food containing a trace amount of Glyphosate.
That was it. Just 7 days of Glyphosate and then back to normal.

Then they were watched and monitored over the succeeding generations, a fairly short exepriment considering how fast mice can reproduce themselves.

Things went progressively downhill for the mice with each generation.
The 4th generation were such physical, mental and sexually dysfunctional wrecks that they couldn’t even replicate themselves – they simply went extinct.

As far as humans go, the first generation were those born from the mid 70’s on. Do we say 25 years per generation?
We are now nearing completion of the 2nd generation.
Now, go look for maps correlating Glyphosate use with Covid and Autism.

How many different ‘colours of sexuality’ do we already have. How’s the birthrate holding up – are we getting richer?

Let’s watch the kids born from 2025 onwards, they will be the 3rd generation.
What, if any, kids are born after 2050 will be our last.
Not least, if we construct a trend-line from today’s numbers, all kids born after 2050 will be full-blown Autistic.
And 50% of their parents will die from Alzheimer’s.

And that is just by following what happened the mice.
Trouble is, each and every one of us is consuming Glyphosate on a daily basis – there is no respite, no single short one-off pulse as the mice received.

Maybe we ought to reconsider Organic Farming…………….

Why, we read it on our own page recently when Willis pointed to the rabbit hole with a Never Better piece not dissimilar to this.
But the rabbit hole revealed:

  • Yes very lovely = 3 times greater food production since 1960
  • But only twice as many people eating all that mush
  • A seven-fold increase in artificial fertiliser use to get that extra ‘food’ Even after the (haha) well proven CO2 Fertilation Effect, an effect = just as much garbage as the Greenhouse Effect

Ask any farmer who uses Roundup, Rud for example.
If that farmer has been paying attention to his farm, he’ll notice that since he introduced Roundup, he’s needed to use 50% more fertiliser to grow the same amount of stuff.
He won’t, because it creeps up on you. You ‘just don’t realise

GMO crops are very lovely BUT, the only significant thing about almost all GM crops is that they are ‘Roundup resistant’
That’s it. Roundup Resistance is the only main application of GM technology and was/is done so as to generate ever more sales/use of Roundup itself.

Yes Golden Rice is very lovely BUT, everybody on this Earth who eats rice hates the stuff and almost all of them are pre or actually Type 2 diabetic
Hence why Golden Rice bombed. Nobody wanted it.
They wanted to eat wheat instead.

PS Norman Borlaug modified the Lectin inside wheat when he created the dwarf varieties we now depend upon.
That Lectin protein we all know and love as Wheat Gluten. Insanely sticky stuff that makes bread which passes as a nice and chewy meat substitute

Borlaug, without realising or intending, turned it from a Dr Jekyll protein into a Mr Hyde protein.
Result = 200 (and counting) distinct autoimmune disorders.
Wonder what was in the diet of those lab-mice?

Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 1, 2022 12:43 am

I think you need thicker aluminum foil.

Reply to  PCman999
May 1, 2022 7:22 am

Peta is descending deeper and deeper into full blown crack pot territory.

dodgy geezer
Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 1, 2022 12:52 am

If we are working on the ‘correlation equals causation’ principle, you could include mobile phone radiation, chem-trails and the extensive use of video games in your list of evil technology….

Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 1, 2022 7:18 am

You really need to learn how to tell fantasy from reality.
The idea that any chemical, applied merely to one generation, is able to do increasing damage to succeeding generations is so nonsensical that it fails the laugh test.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
May 1, 2022 12:01 pm

Mark, I wouldn’t make such a dogmatic statement. Chemicals can alter DNA, etc. Also, read up on “epigenetics.”

Reply to  Peta of Newark
May 1, 2022 7:22 am

BTW, how the heck did we get from glyphosate to Golden Rice?
Also, for once, I would love to see you actually document the wild claims that you make.
For example, please document your claim that everyone who eats rice hates golden rice. If that were true, there would never have been a need to ban the stuff.

April 30, 2022 11:38 pm

Green logic is illogical.

dodgy geezer
May 1, 2022 12:46 am

Eventualy (actually fairly rapidly) ‘environmentalism’ turns out to mean getting rid of humans and making the species extinct.

May 1, 2022 5:11 am

Greentards want people dead. THAT is their goal killing off people.

Tom Abbott
May 1, 2022 6:07 am

From the article: “Team Biden is still intent on getting 100% hydrocarbon-free electricity by 2035. It wants to eliminate fossil fuels throughout the US economy by 2050: no coal or natural gas for electricity generation; no gasoline or diesel for vehicles; no natural gas for manufacturing, heating, cooking or other needs.”

Biden said (whispered) the other day that he thought windmills were beautiful !

What a moron! Joe should take a walk sometime on the ground below those beautiful windmills. It’s not such a pretty picture down on the ground.

Obviously, Joe does not live within sight or sound of windmills.

Obviously, Joe should not be leading the United States. He should be at home resting and recalling the good ole days, as best he can and leave the running of the country to competent people.

Gordon A. Dressler
May 1, 2022 10:03 am

From the eighth paragraph of the above article:

“Team Biden is still intent on getting 100% hydrocarbon-free electricity by 2035. It wants to eliminate fossil fuels throughout the US economy by 2050: no coal or natural gas for electricity generation; no gasoline or diesel for vehicles; no natural gas for manufacturing, heating, cooking or other needs.”

Well, according to Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., a scientist whom I hold in high respect:
“. . . to achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, the world would need to deploy 3 Turkey Point nuclear plants worth of carbon-free energy every two days, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050. At the same time, a Turkey Point nuclear plant worth of fossil fuels would need to be decommissioned every day, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050.”
(source: )

Joe Biden promised US citizens he would “follow the science”, if elected as President.

So, Joe, how’s that nuclear power plant building and simultaneous fossil fuel power decommissioning going?

And Joe, did you include new nuclear power plants as part of your and the Democrats’ massive, $1.2 trillion USD “infrastructure” plan? . . . I’ve not been able to find such, so please help me out here.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
May 1, 2022 12:11 pm

Actually, nuclear subsidies are included in allocation of the infrastructure monies. And (Lord, kill me now for I have seen everything.) CA’s Gavin Newsome wants to extend the life of Diablo Canyon. Reality is real, even to the extent of kicking and screaming Leftists being dragged into apostasy.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Dave Fair
May 1, 2022 1:42 pm

Dave, yeah, but none of those subsidies are directed to the purpose of building new nuclear power plants . . . only to keeping existing ones functioning.

“While the Infrastructure Bill is wide-reaching, it includes a number of nuclear energy-related provisions, including support for keeping nuclear power plants facing economic hardship operating and funding for DOE’s Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP). These provisions are briefly summarized below:
“US$6B civil nuclear credit program. The Bill establishes a civil nuclear credit program designed to preserve the existing nuclear fleet and prevent premature shutdowns of nuclear power plants. This provision is anticipated to preserve immense amounts of carbon free electricity as well as high-paying jobs. The Bill both authorizes and appropriates US$6 billion through FY 2026 (US$1.2 billion per year) to the Department of Energy (“DOE”) to implement the program—therefore this program is fully funded. (Section 40323; pages 591, 594.)
“The program is intended to provide support for economically troubled plants so that they can remain open. Plant owners/operators would need to apply for the program, explaining their need.”
(source: )

The main point of my OP, in directly quoting Dr. Piekle’s analysis, is that an average of three new nuclear power plants need to put on line every two days between now and year 2050, for the US to achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by that date.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
May 1, 2022 2:52 pm

Duane, I’m well aware of what you are saying. My (clumsy) attempt at humor was directed at “and simultaneous fossil fuel power decommissioning” [avoidance] funding. Both that and new nuclear funding are hair-on-fire issues to the Left.

Mike Dubrasich
May 1, 2022 10:35 am

The point apparently missed by the preceding comments is that global warming increases biodiversity. Once again, Warmer Is Better and specifically for biodiversity.

The definition of biodiversity is the number of species per unit area. More species more diverse, less species less diverse, per acre or hectare or square mile.

The highest species richness occurs in the tropics, the lowest in tundra. Biodiversity lies on a pole-to-equator gradient, most where it’s warm, least where it’s cold.

This solid and well-known fact destroys the entire Panic Attack narrative.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Mike Dubrasich
May 1, 2022 11:01 am

Good point, but there’s a caveat: biodiversity also depends on average atmospheric/land moisture content.

Hot deserts within Earth’s tropical zone (e.g. the Sahara desert) have a sparseness of species compared to tropical forests, which are naturally humid and typically fed by great rivers.

Andy Pattullo
May 2, 2022 11:15 am

Billions of years of successful evolution, adaptation and close integration of countless animal and plant species and we’re paying university “academics” to tell us how fragile the whole system is

Verified by MonsterInsights