"New World Order" Conspiracy Theory, Fascism & The Green Movement

octo

Are any of you are aware of a conspiracy theory involving the sustainable development movement / Green Movement as a cover for world domination by a global elite? Involving The UN, the Bilderberg Group, the Rockerfellers, James Lovelock, new age religion and more (that's just the tip of the iceberg), it reads like a Dan Brown novel. It seems to emanate from a certain libertarian-type mindset in the states. Us environmentalists (I assume there are a few on this board) may unwittingly be part of a fiendish and dastardly plot, where population control is a form of eugenics and climate change & peak oil are only weapons to scare the masses.

It would be funny if it wasn't so widespread. A good friend, politically very well-informed (Chomskey etc), gives it a lot of credit. Look at the comments in almost any climate or environmental blog or youtube video and you'll see references to New World Order.

Read Conspiracy Archive or Alex Jones for a good summary, or just google "new world order" and "sustainable development".

I have a serious question: Do you think there's a substantial connection between Fascism and the Green movement?

AlmightyCushion

octo wrote: »

Look at the comments in almost any climate or environmental blog or youtube video and you'll see references to New World Order.

Because comments left on a blog or youtube video are a reputable source. If I posted a comment on a blog saying that my pet parrot is behind the new world order would you believe it to be true?

cavedave

There is a general distaste among libertarians for government intervention and when that government becomes a global one as needed to limit greenhouse gases and such it is easy to go off the ranch on paranoia.

Do you think there's a substantial connection between Fascism and the Green movement?

Fascism is a general catch all term for people we do not like as Godwins law shows. Authoritarian might be a better word then Fascist.

AngryHippie

Fascism indeed,
A new world order indeed,
The Green movement as a conspiracy, Hardly...

If you want to satisfy your conspiracy radar, have a read of the "project for a new American Century", a fascist document created as the mandate of the neo-conservative movement in the US, Them have a glance at "does America need a foreign policy" by henry Kissinger. If you're in any doubt after that then have a gawk at "Hegemony or Survival" by Noam Chomsky. When You've read all that it'll become clear that a green conspiracy is the least of the global societies problems.

To see how it should be done, and the actual concerns about the direction we are taking as a species, read "One World " by Peter Singer.

Don't spend so much time reading blogs, anyone that can type can write one of those. Tap into some of the greatest minds in the world, and oppose some of the most twisted.

SeanW

Well, I think the OPs question is a load of bunkam tbh, a conspiracy involving mainstream environmentalists is a remote possibility but not likely. First of all, James Lovelock diverges radically from mainstream environmentalism by calling for the increased responsible use of nuclear power to combat climate change. A simple, sensible, but powerful solution that doesn't involve any kind of authoritarian or draconian moves in and of itself, but if he also proposes restrictions and extra taxes on fossil fuels then I can see how an extreme libertarian might take that as a sign of conspiracy.

That said, some of the positions taken by mainstream environmentalists, would at first glance, appear to defy all credible logic.

Take the SPD in Germany for example. They now want to impose nationwide speed limits on all the Autobahnen in Germany. Currently, about half of the Autobahn network has no legal maximum "tempolimit." The reason? Save fuel and help fight global warming. Sounds good right?

But the same SPD, in grand coalition with the Christian Democrats, also drew a red line under the programme to eliminate all of Germany's nuclear power capacity by 2020. Accounting for approximately a third of Germany's present power generation capacity, this is all to be replaced by - you guessed it - Coal. Uber-cheap coal from Poland primairly. Much of the 20GW in coal fired plants necessary are already under construction. (And make no mistake, a direct replacement is what is happening). This will cause not only more global warming, but more of the negative effects on human health caused by toxic emissions and on the forests and lakes of Scandinavia by way of more Acid Rain. (linky)

Talk about an own goal.

If one had a particularly libertarian mindset, it would be easy to conclude that the SPD doesn't give a f*** about global warming or the environment but is rather using it as an excuse to impose Socialism with relatively draconian measures on the people.

However, in that case, I consider the maxim "Do not attribute to malice that which can be better explained by incompetence" to be more apt.

So in short, to answer the OPs question, No. There is no credible evidence to suggest that environmentalists are part of any evil conspiracy. It is, in almost 100% certainty, a load of rubbish designed by and to attract the attention of SUV and Hummer driving morons whos only thoughts are for Number 1.

luckat

Heh, world domination by tweedy earnest types. Scary!

silverharp

octo wrote: »

It seems to emanate from a certain libertarian-type mindset in the states. Us environmentalists (I assume there are a few on this board) may unwittingly be part of a fiendish and dastardly plot, where population control is a form of eugenics and climate change & peak oil are only weapons to scare the masses.

I would say it is more a product of a very narrow evangelical protestant outlook that maybe sees libertarianism as an antidote to the “New world order” . Although they may have identified a trend towards merging currencies and centralisation of power etc. they make the mistake of pulling events together where here is no real connection. I would say it generally appeals to disaffected and undereducated people in the US and is such a mish mash of ideas that it is hard to take seriously. However it is not to say that the US gov in particular does not give them plenty of ammunition to work with, given the way the present administration simply bypasses the US constitution whenever it wishes.

octo

silverharp wrote: »

I would say it is more a product of a very narrow evangelical protestant outlook that maybe sees libertarianism as an antidote to the “New world order” . Although they may have identified a trend towards merging currencies and centralisation of power etc. they make the mistake of pulling events together where here is no real connection. I would say it generally appeals to disaffected and undereducated people in the US and is such a mish mash of ideas that it is hard to take seriously. However it is not to say that the US gov in particular does not give them plenty of ammunition to work with, given the way the present administration simply bypasses the US constitution whenever it wishes.

Well that's pretty much my take on it too. i agree with what everyone else has written. But it appears symptomatic of a wider criticism I've often heard about environmentalists. For instance, I heard the journalist John Waters once assert that the history of the greens in Germany could be traced back to nazis.

silverharp

octo wrote: »

Well that's pretty much my take on it too. i agree with what everyone else has written. But it appears symptomatic of a wider criticism I've often heard about environmentalists. For instance, I heard the journalist John Waters once assert that the history of the greens in Germany could be traced back to nazis.

People have built their existance on that fact that growth can continue indefinetly into the future, lets be honest the average Irish person wouldn't borrow 300K to buy a house if they didn't believe it. So any ideas that contradict this like green politics are going to irritate people

AngryHippie

Certainly the greens have'nt got it right, but they have some good priorities, even if the actions they have taken as a result are counter-productive, this is the reality of politics left to the politicians.
Unfortunatley the environment is going to be a health issue in a matter of years (famine, drought, heat waves, flash floods, fish kills, climate change)
I'm not just talking about C02, I'm talking about civil engineering design and standards, crop production and agricultural methods, population centre locations, transport alternatives and planning policies.
The facts are there, the greens are up FF's a*** and unfortunatley the picture is similar worldwide. Kyoto targets are gone out the window and they were the point of a safe landing.
I wonder who these clowns are listening to sometimes.
The too little too late "experts" club ???

cavedave

The environmental movement is fundamentally unrealistic. People will not reduce current consumption by 80% to help their grandchildren. People will not even stop smoking now to help themselves in 5 years time. Humans have a daily discount rate that means they will not forgo consumption now for minor increases in consumption later.

Current environmental solutions such as carbon credits are essentially a reinvention of medieval sin indulgences. The rich paying the governments of the poor to prevent development is obscene.

Libertarians have grave concerns on the morality of the authoritarian solutions suggested to ease man made climate change. For example

They believe these neo-Malthusians "will seek to establish and enforce the equivalent of an international caste system in which the poor of the developing world are consigned to energy poverty in perpetuity." Eternal limits to growth for the already impoverished.

silverharp

cavedave wrote: »

The environmental movement is fundamentally unrealistic. People will not reduce current consumption by 80% to help their grandchildren. People will not even stop smoking now to help themselves in 5 years time. Humans have a daily discount rate that means they will not forgo consumption now for minor increases in consumption later.

Current environmental solutions such as carbon credits are essentially a reinvention of medieval sin indulgences. The rich paying the governments of the poor to prevent development is obscene.

Libertarians have grave concerns on the morality of the authoritarian solutions suggested to ease man made climate change. For example

I am sympathetic to the libertarian outlook on life given the alternatives however where even a libertarian outlook would fall down is if there are resource constraints. It has been said that to give a western lifestyle to everyone you would need 3 planet earths, under this assumption all the free market philosophy will do is confer first mover advantage on the society that adopts it first. In absolute terms one would prefer not to have a population overshoot as when resources become scarce then the blowback will be much worse. In reality there will not be agreements that everyone will stick to, there will be an overshoot and the population will reduce over the next 50 years.

octo

cavedave wrote: »

The environmental movement is fundamentally unrealistic. People will not reduce current consumption by 80% to help their grandchildren. People will not even stop smoking now to help themselves in 5 years time. Humans have a daily discount rate that means they will not forgo consumption now for minor increases in consumption later.

Current environmental solutions such as carbon credits are essentially a reinvention of medieval sin indulgences. The rich paying the governments of the poor to prevent development is obscene.

Libertarians have grave concerns on the morality of the authoritarian solutions suggested to ease man made climate change. For example

You do a good job of articulating the Julian Simon/Bjorn Lomborg thesis. And I have a certain sympathy for that viewpoint, I think their emphasis of keeping a positive creative vision, rather than doom and gloom, is very important.

On the issue of carbon taxation, I notice in the article you've linked to:

They cite a study suggesting that the price of carbon dioxide would have to rise to $190 per ton in order to induce the U.S. to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 90 percent.

Yet, according to Tim Flannery, this is exactly what's happening now:

I know you used to pay around $2.00 a gallon; you’re now paying $3.00. If you try to calculate what that means in terms of a carbon price -- in other words, you ask how much of a tax would we have needed to put on the oil industry to raise prices that high, what you find is that the cost would be between US $200 and $300 a ton to do that.

Given that most countries like Ireland emit 10-20 tons carbon per capita per annum, I'd say that $190/tonne is well within reach, given that it would produce a 90% carbon reduction.

Surely a carbon tax is simply a market correction to reflect the social cost to society of burning carbon, and actually brings us closer to an ideal free market where, theoretically, resources are most efficiently allocated.

I'm not interested in an argument here, but I am interested in how you see a totally free-market approach dealing with the climate change situation. As I see it, the solution from that perspective might be to allow economic growth to continue unhindered by carbon taxation, and by the time global warming really kicks in, even the poorest among us should have the resources to adapt adequately. This seems to be Lomborg's position but I think it's very risky.

Am I misreading or over-simplifying your position? How does libertarianism approach this? I'm guessing that massive state investment in renewables, as advocated by Schellenberger and Nordhaus, is just as authoritarian as a carbon tax (because the money has to come from somewhere).

cavedave

I'm not interested in an argument here

Why not, you are putting forward a good one currently.

The government do have a right according to libertarians to limit the production on green house gases. Libertarians reject the use of government for almost anything other then enforcing property rights. If global warming will sink my house under the sea or kill off the rain forest (this assumes the forest is owned by the indigenous people) then the government can protect my property rights by preventing global warming. (Unless I sell my property to the polluter then they can do what they want with it). How a Fijian would sue me for driving round in a car is a difficult issue.

My understanding of it is based on this document.

Carbon taxes are Pigouvian taxes which are inefficient as the government cannot know the true market value of a good that is not for sale on the market. Government vouchers for the right to pollute (carbon credits) are also viewed as inefficient as the government must know who the polluter is. The model suggested by Couse seems to be based in a world in which you can prove who carried out the pollution (the Fijian suing me for driving)

“Coase showed that, for some problems, there is no legal rule, no form of regulation, that will generate a fully efficient solution. He thus anticipated public choice economists, such as James Buchanan (another Nobel winner), in arguing that the real choice was not between an inefficient market and an efficient government solution but rather among a variety of inefficient alternatives, private and governmental.”

I do not think libertarians have a simple answer to man caused climate change. I would be pretty suspicious of any group that claimed they did have though

AngryHippie

To be frank,
I think the carbon taxing/carbon credits system was just an incentive to try and get the US on board with Kyoto, Unfortunately the situation with the Federal Reserve Bank makes Dollars irrelevant to most economic theories anyway and so the clause is now just being abused by 1st world nations who are trying to get the green vote in line without any real change in methods or goals.

Very interesting article on Couse by the way. Cheers for that

Ekancone

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Because comments left on a blog or youtube video are a reputable source. If I posted a comment on a blog saying that my pet parrot is behind the new world order would you believe it to be true?

I would if you put really eerie music behind it. OP, the reason it reads like a fictional novel is because it IS fiction.

ircoha

Reviews on "The Long Emergency by James Howard Kunstler" can be read at

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1843544539/ref=cm_cr_pr_link_1

Having read a few I see why the NRA are so strong in the US, they will be needed when the Chinese and Mexicans invade, and militarily defeat the US.

Sweet dreams

octo

The government do have a right according to libertarians to limit the production on green house gases. Libertarians reject the use of government for almost anything other then enforcing property rights. If global warming will sink my house under the sea or kill off the rain forest (this assumes the forest is owned by the indigenous people) then the government can protect my property rights by preventing global warming. (Unless I sell my property to the polluter then they can do what they want with it). How a Fijian would sue me for driving round in a car is a difficult issue.

My understanding of it is based on this document.

Carbon taxes are Pigouvian taxes which are inefficient as the government cannot know the true market value of a good that is not for sale on the market. Government vouchers for the right to pollute (carbon credits) are also viewed as inefficient as the government must know who the polluter is. The model suggested by Couse seems to be based in a world in which you can prove who carried out the pollution (the Fijian suing me for driving)

“Coase showed that, for some problems, there is no legal rule, no form of regulation, that will generate a fully efficient solution. He thus anticipated public choice economists, such as James Buchanan (another Nobel winner), in arguing that the real choice was not between an inefficient market and an efficient government solution but rather among a variety of inefficient alternatives, private and governmental.”

I do not think libertarians have a simple answer to man caused climate change. I would be pretty suspicious of any group that claimed they did have though

Well, I finally got around to reading that paper, but I'm not persuaded that the logic applies to the carbon emissions problem, although it was an interesting paper. That's a global and intergenerational problem rather than a local problem such as the examples in your paper. Can you give me an example of a solution that fits with your theories?

On the issue of libertarianism, wouldn't you consider adopting a new philosophy if the one you are pursuing is so obviously inadequate? Should individual liberty be the ultimate goal? It strikes me as an immature and naive outlook. Libertarianism has no good solution to the problem of the global commons.

casey212

The green movement is a scam from top to bottom. Al Gore?? are you having a laugh. The man is scum, look into his history.

Wake up before you lose all your rights.

casey212

cavedave wrote: »

There is a general distaste among libertarians for government intervention and when that government becomes a global one as needed to limit greenhouse gases and such it is easy to go off the ranch on paranoia.


Fascism is a general catch all term for people we do not like as Godwins law shows. Authoritarian might be a better word then Fascist.

Godwins law????? How cares about Godwins law, I can see my rights and quality of life are being eroded piece by piece due to this environment scam.

And on another issue, capitalism, if anyone can point any time in history when it existed I would be interested.

fictionaire

For some insight into the green movement, you have to read
"The First Global Revolution" by Alexander King and you'll understand why there is even a green revolution to begin with.

Combine what you'll learn in that book with a few comments made by Sir Julian Huxley in his old book called "UNESCO, its purpose and philosophy." Again, if you can get your hands on a first edition your on to a winner.

Its gas, to hear people call all this a "conspiracy" - you don't happen to think its a coincidence theory?

There is nothing conspiratorial, its all published and there for people to read and research if they really want to. The only problem with telling people this sort of information is that it contradicts what they are being told on a daily basis. When confronted with such a situation, the latter will win out - its a choice people make.

fictionaire

Also people should read this
from the U.N

casey212

fictionaire wrote: »

For some insight into the green movement, you have to read
"The First Global Revolution" by Alexander King and you'll understand why there is even a green revolution to begin with.

Combine what you'll learn in that book with a few comments made by Sir Julian Huxley in his old book called "UNESCO, its purpose and philosophy." Again, if you can get your hands on a first edition your on to a winner.

Its gas, to hear people call all this a "conspiracy" - you don't happen to think its a coincidence theory?

There is nothing conspiratorial, its all published and there for people to read and research if they really want to. The only problem with telling people this sort of information is that it contradicts what they are being told on a daily basis. When confronted with such a situation, the latter will win out - its a choice people make.

Could not agree more.

AngryHippie

On the UN document

Considering the complexity of weather and climate though, apart from pollution, Is it not nigh on impossible to evaluate or validate the effects of any such act ???
I.E Did the American invasion in Iraq cause the summer temperatures to be higher than usual, or was it the fact that they broke the water system, or is it merely a localised effect of a global trend.
How would compensation or action be taken on such matters, especially when the 5 most likely offenders are members of the Permanent security council. Sure they have scientists comin out of their holes!!!

fictionaire

AngryHippie wrote: »

On the UN document

Considering the complexity of weather and climate though, apart from pollution, Is it not nigh on impossible to evaluate or validate the effects of any such act ???
I.E Did the American invasion in Iraq cause the summer temperatures to be higher than usual, or was it the fact that they broke the water system, or is it merely a localised effect of a global trend.
How would compensation or action be taken on such matters, especially when the 5 most likely offenders are members of the Permanent security council. Sure they have scientists comin out of their holes!!!

The signatories of UN treaty have had the ability to create what we call global warming. If I wanted more money going around the world and a reduced population I would us it to the same effect.

That is the bottom line and its in black and white for the world to see.

fictionaire

If people do not stand up and say this is a farce soon this is the sort of stuff that we will have to deal with in the not so distant future.

1. voluntary sterilization
2. followed closely by mandatory sterilization

Its already on the cards

Think of the many other laws that could be passed for our natural inclination to emit CO2?

They are lined up and ready to go.

cavedave

Well, I finally got around to reading that paper, but I'm not persuaded that the logic applies to the carbon emissions problem, although it was an interesting paper. That's a global and intergenerational problem rather than a local problem such as the examples in your paper. Can you give me an example of a solution that fits with your theories?

An example of something that would Limit climate change to "reasoinable" levels.
1. Back all currencies by kilowatt hours.
2. Remove the commons nature of things like shipping co2 production
3. Invest (by grants and prizes) in solar energy research.

On the issue of libertarianism, wouldn't you consider adopting a new philosophy if the one you are pursuing is so obviously inadequate? Should individual liberty be the ultimate goal? It strikes me as an immature and naive outlook. Libertarianism has no good solution to the problem of the global commons.

Yes i would if the one I am pursuing could be shown to be less inadequate then the alternatives. No individual liberty is not a goal it is a necessity. Libertarianism has no good solution to the problem of the global commons but neither does any other system.