By Robert Bradley Jr.
“Literally millions are saved at any one time around the world by the use of fossil fuels in transportation and electrical generation. Imagine not having the gasoline or diesel to get to the hospital, or sanitary water and conditioned air.”
MasterResource has followed eco-radicalism and Deep Ecology, the religion behind it. Ecocide, a term transferred from the Holocaust term genocide, has been explained and debated at this site.
Eco-radicals see humankind as a plague on Nature. (“I campaign for the extinction of the human race,” stated Les Knight in The Guardian.) They exaggerate, fuss, protest, threaten, and at times end up in jail. The malcontents (e.g. Roger Hallam) are at odds with society and are to be watched carefully and avoided. Eco-terrorism is always a few steps away.
Enter the UK-based Stop Ecocide International (est. 2017), dedicated “to make ecocide an international crime.” The vision statement has (unstated) climate change in mind:
Enable a new international legal framework to protect Earth and all its current and future inhabitants by establishing criminal liability for widespread destruction to ecosystems, so that human behavior is consciously aligned with a widely recognized moral code of respect, peace and duty of care for all life. Based on the principle: ‘First do no Harm’, this offers protection against ecocide and forms the bridge to a liveable world.
Further:
Creating a moral and legal mandate that will protect life on Earth and make ecocide unacceptable. Creating personal accountability for key decision-makers whose actions cause or threaten ecocide.
Stop Ecocide Foundation aims: To have Ecocide recognized as an international crime at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague; To have ecocide recognized as a crime at national and regional level and monitor the effective implementation of all legislation that criminalises ecocide. [1]
Enought said.
Fossil-fuel Mortality?
Fossil fuels have been blamed for death from air pollution, even one in five deaths based on 2018 data (stroke, lung cancer, heart disease, and respiratory infections). But several criticisms immediately come to mind:
- Countries mired in poverty from Statism led the mortality estimate, led by China and India.
- With improving air quality in the U.S. and elsewhere, any estimate is subject to downward revision.
- This estimate of 8.7 million compares to lower annual estimates elsewhere (4.2 to 5.13 million). [Source: AI overview]
- Any mortality estimate must be netted against lives improved and saved from oil, natural gas, and coal, all environmental products under current technology.
Alex Epstein Corrects ….
Literally millions are saved at any one time around the world by the use of fossil fuels in transportation and to generate electricity. Imagine not having the gasoline or diesel to get to the hospital, or sanitary water and conditioned air. Alex Epstein, “the world’s leading champion of fossil fuels,” describes the benefits of stock energies in My Energy Story:
Here are 3 crucial facts about fossil fuels’ benefits I realized were widely ignored:
1. Fossil fuels are a uniquely cost-effective form of energy.
2. Cost-effective energy is essential to human flourishing.
3. Billions are suffering and dying for lack of cost-effective energy.
Most people have no idea that fossil fuels have not only contributed to 1° C of warming in the last 100+ years, but also to a 98% decline in climate-related disaster deaths!
Enough said. Fossil future. For cause.
—————–
[1] “Stop Ecocide International (SEI) was co-founded in 2017 [as Ecological Defence Integrity Ltd.] by pioneering barrister Polly Higgins (1968-2019) and current CEO Jojo Mehta. SEI is the driving force at the heart of the growing global movement to make ecocide an international crime. In their words:
Our core work is supporting diplomatic progress and fostering global cross-sector support for this. We collaborate with diplomats, politicians, lawyers, corporate leaders, NGOs, indigenous and faith groups, influencers, academic experts, grassroots campaigns and individuals to … amplify the global conversation. Criminalising #ecocide is an #economic policy decision aimed at preventing today’s growth from being financed by the destruction of tomorrow’s value.”
You mean the homicidal loon faction?
Or the suicidal loon faction?
No, homicidal. Because it is others who have to disappear for the pure to live a life of virtue.
I guess the first steps in stopping ecocide is to:
-Clear cut habitats in ancient forests to make room for bird/bat-chopping windmills, access roads and transmission lines.
-Clear cut rain forests to make room for palm oil production.
-Drive the Right Whales to near extinction with off shore wind projects.
-Cover thousands of acres of farmland and wildlife habitats with solar panels.
-Build massive battery backup systems prone to fires spewing toxic gases and runoff of toxic water from extinguishing effort.
-Employ child and slave labor to mine for all the toxic materials to build these devices to stop the ecocide.
-And, just for fun, we’ll destroy some priceless artwork.
Exactly what I was thinking. One other thing eco nuts fail to realize is that wind turbines and solar panels require the use of a lot of very heavy fossil fuel powered machinery throughout their life span starting with the mining and processing of the minerals needed. As Ron White says, you can’t fix stupid – or in this case maybe, willful ignorance.
HIGH COST OF OFFSHORE WIND ELECTRICITY PER kWh.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-cost-of-offshore-wind-electricity-per-kwh
.
The reason costs are ballooning is because the focus has been on the cost of offshore wind electricity, say 15 c/kWh, after the equivalent of 50% federal and state subsidies.
.
Hidden Costs: These are the A-to-Z costs (windmill to land fill) almost all folks are kept ignorant about.
At a future 25-30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, based on UK and German experience:
– Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect far-flung W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, which means more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– A fleet of traditional power plants to provide electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings, at night, snow/ice on panels, which means more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh, more cost of about 2 c/kWh
– Pay W/S system Owners for electricity they could have produced, if no curtailment, about 1 c/kWh
– Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh
– Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh
– Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
Total: 2 + 2 + 2 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 = 11 c/kWh
.
1) The European elites have screwed themselves by going hog-wild for wind, solar, batteries, etc.
They closed their near-zero-CO2 nuclear plants and their coal plants and refuse to frack for clean-burning gas.
.
2) Because of grossly too many rules and regulations emanating from Brussels, and a lack of nuclear plant building experience, all recent nuclear plants cost $10,000+/installed kW and take 10+ years to build; China and Russia build such plants for about 6,000/kW and take about 5-6 years
.
3) These elites are encouraging the displacement of native populations. A total of 64.2 million unvetted, uneducated, untrained, culturally different, non-citizens were in Europe at end 2025 (not counting their children and grandchildren born in Europe). In 2025, the A-to-Z cost was about $160 billion to grow the economy to provide goods and services for the additional people. How will Europe ever get rid of these people, before its rapidly growing population is greater than the shrinking population of natives?
.
4) These elites imposed a ban on Russian low-cost fossil fuels and other natural resources much needed by Europe, so Russia cannot profit from them; the sanctions backfired on Europe.
.
5) After NATO was established in 1949, these elites, dependent for defense on the US, saved themselves $trillions by spending only 0.5 to 1.5% of GDP on their own defense, while the US spent about 4 to 5% to keep the peace in the world. How can you claim to be sovereign and not be able to defend yourself?
.
That grossly inequitable situation came to a screeching halt in 2025, when Trump required Europe to spend up to 5% of GDP for their own defense, because the US was “busy elsewhere”.
For MAGA, Trump 1) imposed tariffs on European imports to reduce the US trade deficit, 2) will reduce US troops and their costs in Europe, 3) requires Europe pay for its own defense, 4) no longer pays for Ukraine, but will provide US weapons, if Europe pays for them.
They do love giant, ugly collectors of low density energy that clutter the landscape with a junkyard like demeanor.
Not really. Their ideal is no people, so no need for any energy infrastructure.
Funny, I don’t see them lining up to set an example by being the first to leave the planet.
Art! My God, it’s a human creation! And humans are evil. That’s why it’s better to throw soup at a Van Gogh than to serve it, piping hot with bread, to homeless people.
And you could add this to your list: make sure to let dead wood pile up in forests. When that leads to a wildfire and hundreds upon hundreds of hectares go up in flames, all that’s left to do is blame humanity for “burning the planet.”
The corollary to deadwood is the recent drive to re-introduce beavers to regions where they have been extirpated. I’m surprised the tree-huggers haven’t spoken up. The first thing beavers do when they move into a new area is to start bringing down trees from which to build their dam(s). They will also sink branches, once the pond gets deep enough, to provide food over the Winter. If they bring down trees too big to move, they will just chew off the limbs and leave the main trunk behind to decompose. They then create a new wetland that is a prolific source of methane and carbon dioxide resulting from decomposition of the materials their dams and lodges are made of. Once they have created a wetland, and removed all of the trees that they are capable of bringing down and transporting, the food supply will decline, putting pressure on the resident population. If their dam rots away, or is breached by a large flood, and there are no trees left with which to repair it, they will have to abandon their temporary home and move on. The location will remain unusable until another generation of trees grows large enough to replace the ones that were originally chewed down. I doubt that beavers are the permanent solution to problems that advocates are promising. Long term, beavers can have an impact on the hydrology of a watershed. But the dams aren’t always going to be where humans find them useful.
“First, do no harm.”
Define ‘harm’. For the left, harm is considered to be anything that disrupts stasis. ‘Change’ = ‘Harm’. The only thing in nature that is in even close to stasis is death. Life is change, and CO2 is the gas of life!
The Earth’s biosphere is a very dynamic place. It always has been. Trying to hold the biosphere in status, would harm it tremendously. Stop Ecocide International poses the biggest threat to the Earth’s biosphere ever, and should seek to “…collaborate with diplomats, politicians, lawyers, corporate leaders, NGOs, indigenous and faith groups, influencers, academic experts, grassroots campaigns and individuals to …” prevent themselves from existing!
Besides, primum non nocere is the guiding principle of the Hippocratic Oath, sworn by Hippocrates, the father of medicine. And the remarkable advances of medicine—what are they owed to? Degrowth, misanthropy, and the rejection of modernity?… Oh, no, wait…
“Primum non nocere” is not in the Hippocratic Oath. It appears in other texts of Hippocrates, but not the oath.
I know: I meant that it was the guiding principle of this oath; the essence of the text. My messages are in French and I ask ChatGPT to translate them, so perhaps a nuance was lost in my comment.
Yep, back in the days when I was a serial committted manager of divisions for business corporations, I adopted the habit of opening those insufferable annual “Planning & Business Development Meetings” with a reference to the Hippocratic Oath.
My first slides always went like this –
“First Do No Harm”
Please!
(Know that here there are penalties for FUBARs more serious than the Medical and Military Authorities together can inflict.
H.R. involvement is only the prelude.)
For the left, harm is considered to be anything that disrupts stasis. ‘Change’ = ‘Harm’.
I must contest that single statement.
From my point of view, the harm, as identified by the left, is anything they cannot change. Stasis is harm.
A point for mature debate, no doubt, as there are nuances that support both sides.
I agree with your point without disrespect to larke341. One can disagree and be civil about it. Remember Obama’s slogan “Hope and Change.” “Hope and Change” was all about harm…harm and destruction to anything he disagreed with or anyone who disagreed with him (and the left in general). It more correctly should have been “Change and Hope.”
I think it is both. Progressives, in particular, are known for wanting to change social structures that they disagree with, while decrying any structural or physical changes to ecosystems. It is the hubris of the segment of society that thinks it is smarter than the other half, and smarter than their ancestors who established cultural mores or norms. The unexamined assumption is that Nature ‘knows’ best, as though Nature were an intelligent force. The reality is more along the lines of in a “dog eat dog” world, evolution favors those who are better adapted. It is only when humans, who are able to comprehend future results of their actions (but rarely act that way) get involved that things get complicated.
You are, of course, again spot on.
My context (not clearly stated) addressed the purely US political party aspects.
3 crucial facts about fossil fuels’ benefits I realized were widely ignored
Ignored? In Britain they are being erased and replaced with neo-religious dogma.
Human activities are causing world temperatures to rise, posing serious threats to people and nature.
Things are likely to worsen in the coming decades, but scientists argue urgent action can still limit the worst effects of climate change.– Waffen BBC
No ifs, buts, or even maybes about it. RCP8.5? That’s still the benchmark. Has the CCC made comment? No. Has the Met Office? No. Has anybody in the media? No. ad nauseam. So I sent an email to the MO…
———————
I am writing with regard to the international committee responsible for the official scenarios that feed into climate modelling, and thereby into UKCP18.
You will no doubt be aware that the scenario used has been declared implausible. This is an absolutely huge development in climate science that will have lasting impacts across research and policy. The future is not what it used to be.
Just as RCP8.5 has been ruled as implausible, so have all the Met Office’s climate predictions based upon it. What is the plan to discard the implausible UKCP18 and what will you advise to the Climate Change Committee about RCP8.5s new junk status?
I think we should be told…. Maybe you can get someone on to the BBC to explain it?
Kind regards
If I get a reply I’ll let you know.
Anticipate “Return To Sender” would be my bet.
(Postage cost of course fully covered at their end by you the taxpayer)
I don’t expect a reply. But on the off chance they do send one I wonder what they might say? I would expect them to make what they would call a robust defence of UKCP18.
And nobody on the BBC.
Whatever it is, you know it will a standard pre-approved boilerplate template response, where the only place your name appears is on the outside of the envelope atop your address lines.
I don’t need to say how utterly corrupt they are, it’s patently obvious.
That is an all too commonly accepted assertion. However, the quantitative proof of the statement is elusive. After all, we are still experiencing a warm interglacial, which by definition, is a period of increasing warmth followed by cooling. Where does the world stand with respect to that cycle?
All else held equal, optimum biological growth tops out at about 45°C (113°F), as widely stated in every basic biology textbook. In terms of local temperature, except in hot desert regions, warmer is better ! Given that higher latitudes are those expected to warm the most (polar amplification), a bit of slow incremental warming over many decades would be by far a net benefit biologically speaking. Yes there would be some changes in habitats and ecosystems, some of which might be considered deleterious. The UK might occasionally slightly break old temperature records, but by and large, Canadians, Britons, northern Europeans, and north Asians should be gleeful at the prospect of warmer weather.
None of this is to suggest that we are certain to get warmer, nor does it concede that CO2 is the “control knob” as opposed to natural forces and natural variability.
Case in point: where do many northerners go to retire? They leave their cold climates for warmer latitudes, voluntarily subjecting themselves to climate change on the order of +5 to +15°C, equal to or far in excess of the most pessimistic climate model projections.
Complaining about imaginary threats is another a luxury provided by abundant, affordable energy. Only those pampered by fossil fuel/petrochemical use can afford to whine about them.
In the case of the new monarch, that’ll be a cheese and wine powered Aston Martin
“wine powered Aston Martin”
That should be “whine” powered…. almost an unlimited supply from the Net-Zero shills and climate alarmist wonks.
Spot on! EXACTLY!
Contrary to the claims re: social costs of carbon, “fossil fuels have enabled people to live longer, healthier, more comfortable lives. Infant mortality dropped. Women didn’t die in childbirth at the same rates. Food became more plentiful, clean water more reliable, heat more accessible, and medical care more effective. Nearly every measurable improvement in human well-being since 1850 can be traced back to the power of coal, oil, and natural gas. And no matter how fervently activists try to paint fossil fuels as the villain in their climate morality play, they remain the reason billions are alive and thriving today“. https://irrationalfear.substack.com/p/how-fossil-fuels-doubled-human-life?r=kv2ig&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_id=97757_v0_s00_e232_tv2_tp1_a1demoo4qyk3vl&fbclid=IwY2xjawRpnzlleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEe4E1t_0avKJ45hpsLQPy68BJ9rODii59ASCFxIKW_ZEsygJROjtjSRC2REGY_aem_ih7XgBUNFCMh7yVv5HkHpA
As far as infant mortality is concerned, consensus was in favor of doctors not washing their hands. In fact one of the earliest researchers, Semmelweis, who demonstrated the importance of sanitation, was mocked and driven out of the profession.
Of course today, antiseptics, detergents, etc., are primarily petroleum and/or natural gas derived.
Semmelweis threatened the consensus and those who were in authority.
How familiar that sounds!
And poor or aboriginal settings throughout human history, home births, I turned by friends, family, or midwives, were the norm. Infant mortality his estimated to have been as high as 200 to 300 deaths per thousand births. By the late 19th century in the developed western countries, this began to change with the medicalization of childbirth, quickly accelerating in the 20th century. First, male doctors began attending home births, and later birthing was shifted to hospital settings. By the late 20th century in the West, infant mortality had fallen by greater than 90% from about 100 per 1,000 to less than 7 per 1,000. Medicalization was a net positive driver of the steep 20th-century declines in infant (and maternal) mortality through technology, standardization, and emergency capabilities. However, it wasn’t solely responsible—broader public health, sanitation, and socioeconomic improvements played major roles.
All this coincided with rapid increases in technology and prosperity enabled by the availability of cheap and abundant coal, oil and natural gas. Sanitation certainly played a role, but the broader context, enabled by energy, probably had the far greater effect. In contrast, energy poor developing nations and aboriginal cultures still experience extremely high infant mortality.
Multiple choice question – which is the best policy answer?
A. Cease using natural hydrocarbons as fuel. Everyone eventually dies, after struggling to eat, move, produce essential goods, and stay protected from heat and cold.
B. Continue using natural hydrocarbons as fuel. Everyone eventually dies, after having lived a better life with ample supplies of fuel for growing food, producing goods, powering transport, and protecting us from heat and cold.
This is not that hard to figure out.
Everyone eventually dies
Eventually telomeres run out. Wait! There’s an idea for a new Labour tax… telomere length…
I’ll never forget my grandfather’s last words before passing.
“A truck!”
Or, how about this: When I die, I want to go peacefully in my sleep, not like the passengers in his car screaming and yelling all the way down.
Apparently, it is hard for some people. Particularly those driven by their ideological view of reality, as shaped (or should I say “warped?”) by their unstated and unexamined assumptions. And especially those suffering from the Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
“Everyone eventually dies…”
All human beings, every one of us, is infected with a common disease.
It has a documented 100% mortality rate.
It is acquired at conception.
It is called life.
The only difference between one person and another is the timing and circumstances.
Fighting to live forever?
Grab a lance – there is the windmill.
What matters is not your life, but how you live within the time you have.
Do you strive to better yourself, your family, friends, neighbor?
Do you strive to make a better future for those who follow?
This is not advocacy for one point of view or another.
This is advocacy for living well, building not tearing down.
For everything built, something is torn down.
Cost-risk-benefit analysis is essential.
Analysis of alternatives is essential.
Reverend rodent now steps off the soap box.
Next!
I had brainwave when the paperless office fad first started –
All birth certificates should be standard 2-sided, so that the reverse side could be the deaths cert.
From the article: “Most people have no idea that fossil fuels have not only contributed to 1° C of warming in the last 100+ years, “
There is no evidence that CO2 has raised the temperatures by 1C in the last 100 years. Just the opposite.
The temperatures were just as warm in the recent past, as in the 1930’s and the 1880’s, as they are today, according to the written record, so the truth is there has been no net increase in temperatures in the last 100 years.
More CO2 today than in the past, but no net increase in temperatures. Where’s the evidence for CO2 warming?
CO2 was dangerously low at 280 ppm CO2, as plants start to fail at 200 ppm CO2. Even today at 420 ppm CO2, we are in a serious CO2 drought and need more CO2, not less. Ir was as high as today around 1940 (shhhh they do not want people to know that).
Ice core data is estimated to suffer 30-50% losses of contained gases during the extreme depressurization and microfracturing of extraction (Jaworowski). Back calculate a 40% loss and CO2 during the last glacial periods (400,000 years) was as high or much higher than now. Raw ice core CO2 data shows CO2 as low as <172 ppm CO2, which is alarming until the data is properly considered. But, recalculated, CO2 was a high as 700 ppm during interglacial periods
In the far past 600 million years, CO2 has been 4 to 10 times higher and even way over 7000 ppm CO2 (Geocarb III). It has been as low as today during only two short periods, both more recently. High CO2 is the major norm.
It is the coral reefs and concretion processes in the warmer seas that are constantly removing CO2 as calcium carbonate precipitate (CaCO3, think of the thick Cliffs of Dover, all CaCO3) from the oceans and air. It is volcanic CO2 output that saves the planet, while our emissions do not hurt but they are puny in comparison. Coal and abiotic oil and gas (from Earth’s core) do not hurt to use but, again, the contribution is puny. It is indeed fun to realize that abiotic oil and gas are renewable, by the planetary core—it is a win for us.
Oh, and there is no such thing as a greenhouse effect (except in a real glass greenhouse) and no such thing as greenhouse gases (not even in a greenhouse). This was a concept cobbled up from failed conjectures, including by Arrhenius, in the 1800s. It was resurrected by dishonest elites to demonize CO2 and all human activity, as part of their political agenda outlined in Agenda 21 and 2030 Agenda.
While seldom acknowledged, it is well established that the amplitude of seasonal variations in CO2 in Antarctica are the lowest on Earth. One should be careful when citing historical CO2 concentrations that the same locations are being compared. That is, Antarctic concentrations should generally not be compared with modern measurements in the Northern Hemisphere to make a point about the past behavior of the claimed ‘well-mixed’ gas.
I did not know that.
Excellent!
He said “contributed.” That could be interpreted as “just a little” or even an infinitesimally small amount.
Based on the accepted graphs of geological reconstructions of the distant past’s temperature and atmospheric CO2, I’m going to make the wildly controversial statement that fossil fuels have contributed NOTHING to the temperature gain over the last 500 years. That is, the graphs show that the modal temperature of the planet, including the Ice Ages of the last month (relatively, compared to 500 million yeats), has been about 73 F. Right now, we are at somewhere around 57-60 F, a low anomally. The planet average temperature will move toward 73 F regardless of the CO2 level, as it has over the last 500 million years.
If natural variation holds to its current cycle.
As usual, Leftists have EVERYTHING backward! FF provide lots of C02 to help GREEN the Earth, the opposite of ecological destruction.
Our CO2 contribution is puny compared to the natural outgassing of the oceans, which contain 50 times the CO2 in the atmosphere. Temperature always leads and atmospheric CO2 follows, with a visible lag at all time scales. It is a mistake to think that we control climate or even CO2 concentrations.
In most murder cases, showing that the alleged victim is alive and well is considered an absolute defense.
I invite Les Knight to stop being a hypocrite by removing himself from the planet.
The leftists want everyone else removed, so that the leftists can have their stuff.
They want us all in box cars
Or, rather, they want us all in boxes, 6 feet down.
I remember seeing slaughterhouses described as “the new Treblinkas.” I am, of course, disgusted by the slaughtering conditions of cows, sheeps, pigs, etc. in these places , but comparing those practices to the genocide of six million people by the Nazis is, at best, horrifically tendentious—at worst, and I believe this is much closer to reality, indicative of a hideous contempt for humanity, a hatred of human beings, and reflective of genuinely genocidal aspirations. Did the geophysicist Bill McGuire not state that the only solution was the “culling of the human population”* before deleting his tweet in the face of the outcry it (fortunately) provoked? That people can entertain such thoughts does not surprise me, and in truth leaves me entirely indifferent. Thought policing is not my thing. That a mind might become tinged with every conceivable shade of despair or misanthropy does not strike me as abnormal. Nor is it surprising that certain activist organizations tend to attract such minds more readily than others. People can always find others who think as they do. What is frightening is the number of such individuals, and above all the ease with which they can gather openly and describe their aspirations. And what leaves me dumbfounded is that one can make such statements with complete nonchalance, as though they were an act of uncomfortable but necessary candor. The Final Solution is not far away—not the Holocaust itself, but all those unspeakable ends that tyrants and their followers have considered justifiable, brought about through monstrous means and a variety of methods, yet all culminating in mountains of piled-up corpses.
There are many examples: the genocide of Ukrainians through famine (the Holodomor), the massacre of Tutsis by Hutus, of Armenians by Turks, of Native Americans by the early settlers, and the atrocities committed by the Japanese army in Manchuria. (I am, however, infuriated by demands for repentance. It is inconceivable that I should apologize for being white because of French colonization in Algeria, just as a twenty-year-old Turk owes no apology to the Armenian people for the misdeeds of ancestors who may not even have been his own.)
The demands for repentance made by these eco-fanatics are of an entirely different order. Man himself is the problem. As though inventing rifles or vaccines stemmed from a hatred of nature or a desire to destroy it!
Epimetheus, whose very name reveals his thoughtless character (Epimetheus means “the one who thinks afterward”), managed to convince his brother Prometheus (whose name means “the one who thinks beforehand”) to let him distribute to every creature in Creation the attributes that would enable it to face the world.
The eagle received wings, talons, and keen eyesight; the bull was given horns; the lion, teeth and claws; the slow worm was thoroughly cheated (even more so than the Bipes, which is saying something); and as for man, Epimetheus left him naked, without fur, fangs, or claws. Prometheus therefore undertook to steal fire from the realm of the gods and bring it to mankind. The Titan was punished: each day an eagle devoured his liver, and had to endure the same meal endlessly until Hercules finally put an end to it during the course of those public-service labors whose exploits mythology has faithfully recorded.
Human intelligence is mankind’s only protection against the vicissitudes of the world. It is also a curse: in Genesis, Adam and Eve realized that they were naked, and were ashamed of it. In this way they distinguished themselves from the rest of the animal kingdom. The wolf sees in man only another animal, but human beings understand themselves and accept themselves as such. It follows naturally that they can harbor toward their fellow humans a hatred that is truly fundamental. The fanaticism illustrated by this article belongs to a higher order still.
Drieu Godefridi explains this admirably in a work entitled Environmentalism: A New Totalitarianism? (L’écologisme, nouveau totalitarisme ?), published by Texquis in 2019. If an English translation exists, or if you read French, I strongly recommend this book.
*https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/culling-for-climate?utm_source=publication-search
They don’t want repentance, they want reparations. They don’t give a sh!t about genocides or humanity any more than how they can exploit them to guilt the guiltless and demand subsidies.
Not to detract from your excellent points, the Adam and Eve story is an interpretation, one I find invalid.
Adam was not ashamed for being naked. He was ashamed for defying God by nibbling on the apple. Being naked and knowing so from having eaten the apple was a 24/7/365 reminder of his transgression.
The original sin, as I see it was Adam blaming Eve. “Eve gave me the apple and I did eat.”
Sadly this, along with the Romanization of Christianity put women into a chattel class, bought and sold in marriage (honor and OBEY), traded for political alliances, imprisoned in the homes, subject to all manner of laws related to procreation.
If there are human beings today that deserve reparations, it is the 50% of the population that are female. They fought and got the right to vote decades after the Civil War.
They were not allowed, for the most part, to work outside the home until WWII when factories needed workers due to men going overseas.
Thank you very much for this information!
I completely agree with you about the situation of women during the 20th century. I would add that third-wave feminism has done a great deal of harm to the eminently justified struggle of the women of earlier generations.
Aren’t all the children going to die this November? Once humans are gone from the planet there will be no problem. Nothing to worry about.
Aren’t all the children going to die this November?
Are there enough social workers to do it?
Please explain as I have absolutely no idea of what you mean…am I out of touch of some upcoming disaster, or what?
“First do no harm.”
Copy that.
However, one must absolutely include human beings as part of the ecosystem.
We evolved here (planet earth).
If any actions taken by these zealots causes harm to human beings, they violate their own creed.
Remember, when witches appear, they must be burned at the stake. Same as it always was except now we can use Naptha to start the fire. That’s real progress.
A planet that does not develop intelligent life is the waste of a planet.
And life on a planet without intelligent life is all murder, short, and brutal.
We have seriously decreased all of these by taking over the planet. Decreased predation of plants and animals, which means longer lives for most, and harvesting animals in humane manner arther than being torn apart and eaten while still alive. Yeah, we are nasty people.
It is the plants and animals that are useful to us, endearing themselves by their various aspects, that are the winners, as they will go with us to other planets and even the stars, thus ensuring their survival as a species. All other species get to stay behind and be possibly wiped out by the next huge meteor roar strikes Earth.
To be fair there are places where people are only trying to survive and the world around them not considered in the long term. It is when these people prosper, gain a higher standard of living, and develop as a society that they have the time, the will, and the wealth to nurture the nature around them.
The ecocide cult has no idea that they are pushing for planetary suicide and a truly primitive, violent, and cruel world.
Socialism takes all of this out of the mix. The USSR largely trashed their nature and lands along with placing no value on life, even human life. No one but the elite get ahead and all others and everything suffers. China is still at it and the damage extensive as the leaders only see the management of their slaves in their decisions.
The USSR largely trashed their nature and lands
Or so they and we thought. Chernobyl springs to mind.
…isolation of the CEZ from human activity means it has become an exceptional example of rewilding, with animals such as bears and wolves making a comeback in the area. It offers an unparalleled opportunity to observe and study how ecosystems and animals cope and even thrive in high-radiation environments. – RTE
They are not dead. They are even thriving. The writers of Silo and Fallout etc etc will have to think again.
“A planet that does not develop intelligent life is the waste of a planet.”
It is still a planet full of resources for intelligent life from other planets to exploit.
“Most people have no idea that fossil fuels have not only contributed to 1° C of warming in the last 100+ years, but also to a 98% decline in climate-related disaster deaths!”
Weather-related. No one dies from climate, unless they suddenly move somewhere they aren’t acclimated to.
Not even 1 C.
“UK based Stop Ecocide International”.
The UK is a mess. Miliband is a true believer in Net Zero despite its impossibility. These nutters. Starmer intentionally covered up the Paki Muslim grooming gangs.
Let’s hope Nigel Farage and Reform can turn UK around like 45/47 has done in the US.
Here’s a funny and very weird couple of facts for Mr Trump to mull over the next few days and weeks.
Andy Burnham, whom Trump described as ‘very liberal‘, has appointed as his chief of staff a very, very good friend of… Peter Mandelson. (continuity or what, eh?)
Even worse is the fact that the BBCs most recently unmasked high profile paedophile – Huw Edwards…
“…has launched a Substack in which he has endorsed Burnham’s ascension to power. Andy’s got some real weight behind him now…”” –
https://order-order.com/2026/06/25/huw-edwards-endorses-burnhams-coronation/
Make that a double, bartender.
Burnham seems to think the United States is currently in a “Dark Period” according to a speech he gave, the implication being that Trump is the cause of the Dark Period.
So, I predict that Trump won’t take kindly to such a characterization and will have some things to say about it, none of it good for Burnham.
Starting off on the wrong foot.
I campaign for the extinction of the human race,” stated Les Knight
Lead by example.
Perhaps we should volunteer him.
They should be forced to watch this about 5 times a day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTPlKwkryEk
(If you want, go forward to about 7 minutes.)
PS That’s a link to a George Carlin routine.
For a long time I’ve had this photo of a Hmong tribal boy cooking family lunch in the hut on firewood and dung and I guess joining the four million early deaths
Plaintiffs should have to affirmatively prove that they have not participated in the use of fossil fuels for anything. No, nada,, none, autos, no synthetics, no gas heating, cooking, or grilling. No latex gloves, no fiberglass, no plastics.
Suits should no be allowed if they use the very things they want to disappear.
Or never allowed anesthetics or drugs to be used for surgery, nor hobbled around on crutches made of metal and plastics after breaking a leg while skiing on skis made of synthetic materials, or wearing Winter clothes made of anything but hand-woven wool or other natural materials.
If they truly believe what they say, they should be stripped of all possessions, including their clothes, and driven from the courtroom.
About 70 % of the earth’s environment is water. How do you kill the vast Pacific, Indian and Atlantic oceans. If you were to mess with Mother Nature’s oceans, she would whack you with monster typhoons, cyclones, and hurricanes!
I still maintain that these climate alarmists really don’t give a damn of what happens to the planet. Instead, they’re pulling out all the stops to profit from a manufactured non-disaster. Governments see an opportunity to raise revenue from carbon taxes, Environmentalists and climate researchers are trying to gain subsidies to study the bogus problem, and green-product hucksters are hoping for mandates and regulations that will create an artificial demand for their products that are overpriced and have been shown to be no more efficient than those powered by fossil fuels.
Nihilism for some. Greed for many. Power and prestige for others.