IN A brilliant essay, This Invasion Is Brought to You by . . . Western Environmentalists for Epoch Times a week or so ago, Dennis Prager argued that ‘were it not for the green movement, Putin would not have been confident that he could get away with invading Ukraine. During Trump’s presidency, and due to his policies, the United States became independent of foreign oil for the first time. Within months of assuming power, the Democratic Party, an extension of the environmentalist movement, forced America to revert to dependence on foreign oil, including Russian oil. Beholden to the environmentalists, candidate Joe Biden made promise after promise to curtail oil and gas production: no new fracking on government land, no drilling in the Alaskan Arctic, and shutting down the Keystone pipeline. Putin got the message.’
Prager says it should by now be obvious that it is the environmentalist movement, not global warming, that poses an existential threat to humanity, with the world facing the possibility of a nuclear war for the first time since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962,
You can read the full article here.
His theme was taken up a few days later by another great US thinker and writer, Victor Davis Hanson, who mocks the response of the Biden administration’s climate-change envoy, multimillionaire and private-jet-owning John Kerry to the bombing of Ukraine – his lament that President Putin might no longer remain his partner in reducing global warming.
What planet is Kerry on? He asks ironically, ‘Are Russian soldiers losing their green focus? When Putin threatens nuclear war is he merely “diverted”? Would letting off a few nukes be “damaging” to the human environment?’
Where his essay really hits home is on the climate-change moralists’ attitude to humanity – to people. It is, he says so much in the abstract, that they must shut down its life-giving gas, coal, and oil: ‘ . . . they value humans so little that they don’t worry in the here and now that ensuing fuel shortages and exorbitant costs cause wars, spike inflation, and threaten people’s ability to travel or keep warm’.
Or worry about risking war, I might add.
How, he asks, ‘will the Biden administration square the circle of its own ideological war against oil and natural gas versus it handing the advantage to our oil- and gas-producing enemies as Russia invades Ukraine? Or put another way, when selfish theory hits deadly reality, who loses? Answer: the American people.’
You can read the full article here.
We have to ask that question too of Mr Johnson here in the UK. Commentators are increasingly frustrated. What are the levels of fuel and energy poverty that people are expected to put up with? How much cold and poverty is Mr Johnson going to inflict on us, for an impracticable, unproven and dangerous ideology? What does he care for most? An immoral green orthdoxy or the people he has been voted to lead?
He had better make up his mind because ‘The truth is cold on the home front’. That is the compelling heading of Laura Dodsworth’s latest Substack. The writer of A State of Fear nails the dangerous virtue-signalling idiocy of the lamentable Johnson administration, focusing on the real issue that will affect millions in this country. She starts by listing the frightening facts of UK deaths due to cold homes, the energy price cap rise of 54 per cent in two weeks hence time and the doubling cost of heating our homes.
Yet ‘this frightening news has scarcely touched the headlines’, she writes, with media attention focused on bringing refugees into our homes when it should be focused on how we are going to heat them. ‘For two years, government ministers and mainstream media told us “don’t kill granny” and what we should do to save one life. I despair that we are not looking ahead with more urgency at the imminent crisis.’
So too, I suspect, are millions of unheard, unlistened to voices in this country. You can read her full Substack article here.