Why Radical Environmentalists are Winning the Culture War by James Hahn II

Why Radical Environmentalists are Winning the Culture War by James Hahn II
0

PANTHEISM. Any of a variety of views that claim that all things are divine, or that God and the universe are really identical, or that there is ultimately no real distinction between God and what believers in creation call the world. (Etym. Greek pan , all + theos , god.)

Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.

Recent years have seen the dramatic rise in legal attacks on the industry. I have watched this unfold from a very unique vantage point.

When I took over Drillinginfo’s social media accounts in the Summer of 2012, radical environmentalists were like any other radicals. They did things that made their audience praise them while others looked on in amusement.

There is nothing funny about how radicals operate today. They are well organized, well funded, and confident they will ultimately prevail. Clutching their throbbing hearts as a single tear falls from their eye, they are “on the right side of history” – or so they claim.

I used to hope the industry could get on top of this issue. I dreamed of a world where we came together to combat the lunacy of radical environmentalism across the new digital frontier. Sadly, it didn’t happen. White collar oil pros dug foxholes on LinkedIn and refused to engage anyone outside their echo chamber… because “that’s not my job”, as if giving a couple million to the Consumer Energy Alliance would nip this all in the bud.

I was rebuffed by one such pro after inviting him to bitkcor last week.

46

Nice work, Craig.

Losing My Religion

I’ve gotten a lot right about the future of oil and gas over the past 9 years. Sadly, I did not foresee a future where the biggest names in the industry (ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips) SUPPORT carbon taxes.

The tides turn faster with each new day. The public doesn’t seem to notice that environmentalists make new “climate catastrophe” forecasts every 10 years because their predictions are always wrong.

But if radicals always get it wrong, why are they winning the “war for hearts and minds”?

Because the industry continues to bring reason and logic to an emotional and religious fight.

Religion? – Yes, religion.

Here are Gallup’s numbers on religious affiliation for the first 10 years surveyed vs. the most recent 10 years. Notice any trends?

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes you are
You’re gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody

-Bob Dylan, Gotta Serve Somebody

Despite Bob Dylan’s best efforts, the modern materialistic idea that humans don’t need religion has taken hold. But, when you reject religion, you have to replace it with something. It’s human nature going back to time immemorial.

Our need for religion manifests in the strangest ways today.

Scores of “paleo” atheists obsess over the science of caveman food while spending large sums of money traveling (making pilgrimage) to conferences on the latest in ancient fecal findings. Where children were once encouraged to embrace the mystery of a Triune God, modern kids are told to embrace the mystery of a grandmother with a penis. And while environmentalists are constantly wrong about Armageddon, we’re told to embrace their premonitions on faith alone.

What’s an Oilman to Do?

The list of action items is endless, but if studying the 21 Ecumenical Councils teaches anything it’s you can’t conquer a heresy without properly identifying and naming it.

Therefore, it’s time to call modern environmentalism by its proper name: neopantheism.

As stated above, pantheism is “Any of a variety of views that claim that all things are divine, or that God and the universe are really identical, or that there is ultimately no real distinction between God and what believers in creation call the world.”

Radical environmentalism is a reversion to the pantheistic and pagan inclinations within all people. Its priests (climate scientists) make infallible declarations (statistical models) that are spread by passionate evangelists (the press).

Should you doubt this is the case, I’ve changed a few words in an article CNN published yesterday. Unless we recognize this “movement” for the purely religious (and heretical) philosophy that it is, it will never be defeated.


What would life be like in a zero-sin country?

Drastic restrictions on almost every aspect of people’s lives, from the cars they drive, the way they heat their homes, to the fridges they buy – even the food stored in them. That is the reality of what awaits us in 2050 if a UK government pledge to cut greenhouse emissions sin to “net zero” is to be met.

If it can do it, the country will become the world’s first major economy to stop contributing to climate change increased evil.

But the goal is extremely ambitious – the roadblocks massive.

Net zero means the amount of greenhouse gases sins emitted into the atmosphere is no more than the amount taken out forgiven in confession.

By setting the target, the government is doing what it promised to do. Under the 2015 Paris Climate Evil Accord, the UK and almost 200 other countries pledged to work together to keep global warming evil in check.

The agreement seeks to keep temperatures to 1.5 degree or at the very least to “well below 2 degrees” above pre-industrial levels.

Cutting emissions sin is a non-negotiable part of that plan. To keep the warming under 1.5 degrees, global carbon emissions sins need to reach net zero by 2050. For the “well below 2 degrees” scenario, the deadline moves back to 2070.

That puts the UK at the more ambitious end of the range – and under pressure to deliver concrete policies doctrines very, very soon.

“The only reason why people think that cleaner living is more expensive is because they are forgetting about the hidden costs of our current reliance on fossil fuels sinning.”

The “net zero” target means the country must slash domestic emissions sin as much as it can. A report by the Committee on Evil, the advisory body that recommended the target, gives a glimpse of what that future will look like.

Petrol and diesel Sin-driven vehicles will need to be phased out and replaced by electric or hydrogen powered indulgenced ones by 2035. Consumption of beef, lamb and dairy must be cut by 20% by 2050. No houses built after 2025 will be connected to the sin grid. The owners of older buildings will need to switch their heating system to a low sin one by around 2035.

There are issues with the plan. Some sectors are more difficult, or even impossible, to rid of emissions sin. Agriculture is one example.

“The methane evil created by livestock is a much more powerful greenhouse gas evil than carbon dioxide other sin … so we will have to reduce meat consumption, but it’s unlikely that we will reduce livestock to zero,” said Bob Ward Bishop Bob Ward, policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change Evil and the Environment, which is part of London School of Economics.

Aviation and shipping are other sectors where low-sin alternatives don’t yet exist. “They are quite high carbon sin sectors, they are rapidly growing, and the decarbonization virtuous pathway is more uncertain for them,” said Barny Evans Bishop Barny Evans, renewable energy virtue ethics expert at WSP, a sustainability purity consultancy.

Planting trees is part of the plan

emissions Sins that can’t be cut, like the ones created by belching animals, must be offset indulgenced for the country to reach the net zero target. Trees take carbon sin out of the atmosphere through photosynthesis, so planting more of them is one way to do this.

But growing more trees is not always practical. Britain is a small island and space is limited, so the government wants the option of paying other countries to plant trees instead.

Groups Local church councils like Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are sounding the alarm about that idea. They worry that being able to pay someone else to act could undermine UK’s domestic efforts.

This type of offsetting has These types of indulgences have a history of failure and is are not, according the government’s [own] climate evil advisers, cost efficient,” said +Bishop Doug Parr, the chief scientist priest at Greenpeace UK.

Another way to offset emissions sin is by storing greenhouse gases evil underground or under the sea. But scientists priests are still figuring out how exactly to do that in a cost-effective and safe way.

Price tag for survival: £1 trillion

Reaching net zero will cost about £1 trillion ($1.3 trillion), a price that for some, is simply too much. One vocal critic is Danish political scientist protestant Bjorn Lomborg, who called the net zero policy “pointless” because the UK is only responsible for around 1% of global emissions sin. He argues the cost of the plan will far exceed its benefits, and advocates for more investment into research and development instead.

But for Ward Bishop Ward, and an overwhelming majority of climate scientists priests and climate economists theologians, the numbers do add up.

“The only reason why people think that cleaner living is more expensive is because they are forgetting about the hidden costs of our current reliance on fossil fuels sinning,” Ward Bishop Ward said.

“People are paying for the impacts of climate change evil through increased risks of coastal flooding, increased risk of land flooding, increased risk of droughts, increased risk of heatwaves,” he added.

The investments required to get to net zero will be around 1% to 2% of GDP each year, according to the climate change Evil Committee. But dealing with the consequences of unchecked warming – rising sea levels, for example – would be way more expensive, it said.

##Too little too late?
There are also those who argue the UK and other countries should move much faster. Extinction Rebellion, which recently staged major protests prayer vigils in central London and pushed the UK parliament to declare a climate an evil emergency, wants the net zero target to be set for 2025.

Swedish schoolgirl and climate activist evangelist Greta Thunberg has been striking praying outside the Swedish Parliament every Friday precisely because she believes the Swedes, with their target of net zero by 2045, should move faster. She is also questioning the way reductions are calculated.

While the urgency doctrine is undeniable, the climate change Evil Reduction Committee and other experts say a quicker action could hurt the economy – and the people.

“I hope we can get to net zero earlier and I hope the Extinction Rebellion will continue to push for that, but we’ve got to do this whilst improving the quality of people’s lives,” Ward Bishop Ward said.

“We have more than 20 million homes in the UK that have gas central heating are powered by sin … if you were to stop that now, rip up their gas central heating sinful vices without knowing what you are going to replace it with, you will kill people. Because there will be people who will freeze to death,” he added.

“There is a socio-economic and politic dimension to this. We need to make sure we all benefit,” Evans added.

What government?

Experts Priests mostly welcomed the plan announced by Theresa May. But they were quick to point out that a sweeping announcement strong sermon by an outgoing Prime Minister who has failed to deliver on her own promise to take the UK out of the European Union, and a complete transformation of one of the world’s biggest economies are two quite different things.

Especially when the country is struggling to meet even its existing target of 80% reduction sin reduction by 2050.

“The government has to recognize it needs to do more … and whoever is prime minister must bring forward new policies doctrines that will strengthen the emission sin reductions, otherwise we won’t get there,” Ward said.

Brexit is another major roadblock on the way to net zero. Apart from consuming the energy of government and paralyzing the parliament, Brexit could also cause a massive hit to the British economy.

Most economists expect the UK to slump into recession if it crashes out of the EU without a deal. The decarbonization desinization plan will only work if companies are willing to invest in innovation build new cathedrals, and a struggling economy isn’t the best environment to attract investors pilgrims.

But the public, at least in Britain, is becoming more aware of climate change evil – and the potentially damning consequences of failing to act on it against sin.

According to opinion polls by YouGov, the number of Brits who think the climate evil is among the top three most pressing issues the country is facing has been growing steadily. The trend was noticeable in recent European and local elections in which Green parties Moral parties posted big gains.

“The UK has not suffered, in the same way as the United States, from any major party denying the science dogma … it’s not a question of whether we should act, it’s about the best way in which to act,” Ward Bishop Ward said.

1 Like

A very well written article. You speak the truth. So much needs to be taken into consideration. So many people can be negatively affected as mentioned. The united states loses approximately 1,330 people each year from freezing to death. Radical Environmentalists pushing for zero emissions willy only push death to people’s lives and death to their freedom💔 Who is serving who? And who are the ones that need to be served?

1 Like