Politicized sustainability threatens planet and people

“The real purpose of ‘dangerous manmade climate change’ is gaining greater agitator and government control over people’s energy use, lives, livelihoods, liberties and living standards.” – Paul Driessen

“It seems nearly everyone wants to advance sustainability principles,” says Driessen. “The problem is, no one really knows what they are. Real sustainability means responsible conservation and stewardship of natural resources. The public relations variety is mostly image-enhancing fluff. Politicized sustainability – the version that’s all the rage on college campuses and among government regulators – insists that we may meet the needs of current generations only to the extent that doing so “will not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”

“The problem with this infinitely malleable definition is that it requires us to predict both unpredictable future technologies and their raw material demands. Even worse, we are supposed to protect those future needs even if it means ignoring or compromising the undeniable needs of current generations – including the needs and welfare of the most impoverished, politically powerless people on Earth today. That’s why this irrational, unworkable, environmentally destructive idea deserves to land in history’s trash bin.”


Politicized sustainability threatens planet and people

It drives anti-fossil fuel agendas and threatens wildlife, jobs, and human health and welfare

By Paul Driessen

Sustainability (sustainable development) is one of the hottest trends on college campuses, in the news media, in corporate boardrooms and with regulators. There are three different versions.

Real Sustainability involves thoughtful, caring, responsible, economical stewardship and conservation of land, water, energy, metallic, forest, wildlife and other natural resources. Responsible businesses, families and communities practice this kind of sustainability every day: polluting less, recycling where it makes sense, and using less energy, water and raw materials to manufacture the products we need.

Public Relations Sustainability mostly involves meaningless, superficial, unverifiable, image-enhancing assertions that a company is devoted to renewable fuels, corporate responsibility, environmental justice, reducing its carbon footprint – or sustainability. Its primary goal is garnering favorable press or appeasing radical environmental groups.

Politicized Sustainability is the untenable, even dangerous variety. It relies on ideological assertions and theoretical models as an alternative to actual outside-our-windows reality and evidence. Like “dangerous manmade climate change,” its real purpose is gaining greater agitator and government control over people’s energy use, lives, livelihoods, liberties and living standards. It reflects an abysmal understanding of basic energy, economic, resource extraction, manufacturing and human rights realities.

The most common definition is that “we may meet the needs of current generations” only to the extent that doing so “will not compromise the ability of future generations to meet their needs.”

Among other alleged human wrongdoing doing, Political Sustainability thus reflects the assertion that we are rapidly depleting finite resources. Therefore, we must reduce our current needs and wants in order to save those resources for future generations. At first blush, it sounds logical, and even ethical.

Ignoring or compromising the undeniable needs of current generations

However, under sustainability precepts, we are supposed to predict future technologies – and ensure that today’s resource demands will not compromise the completely unpredictable energy and raw material requirements that those completely unpredictable future technologies will introduce. We are supposed to safeguard the assumed needs of future generations, even if it means ignoring or compromising the undeniable needs of current generations – including the needs, aspirations, health and welfare of the most impoverished, malnourished, disease-ravaged, energy-deprived, politically powerless people on Earth.

For thousands of years, mankind advanced at a snail’s pace. Then, as the modern fossil-fuel industrial era found its footing, progress picked up rapidly, until the speed of change became almost exponential. How today is anyone supposed to predict what might be in store ten, fifty or a hundred years from now?

Moreover, as we moved from flint to copper, to bronze, iron, steel and beyond, we didn’t do so because mankind had exhausted Earth’s supplies of flint, copper, tin and so forth. We did it because we innovated. We invented something better, more efficient, more practical. Each advance required different materials.

Who today can foresee what future technologies we will have … and what raw materials those future technologies will require? How we are supposed to ensure that future families can meet their needs, if we cannot possibly know what those needs will be?

Ignoring or compromising the pressing needs of current generations

Why then would we even think of empowering activists and governments to regulate today’s activities – based on wholly unpredictable future technologies, lifestyles, needs and resource demands? Why would we ignore or compromise the pressing needs of current generations, to meet those totally unpredictable future needs?

“Resource depletion” claims also fail to account for new technologies that increase energy and mineral reserves, reduce their costs – or decrease the need for certain raw materials: copper, for instance, because lightweight fiber optic cables made from silica (one of Earth’s most abundant minerals) can carry thousands of times more information than a huge bundle of copper wires that weigh 800 times more.

In 1887, when Wisconsin’s Hearthstone House became the world’s first home lit by hydroelectric power, no one could foresee how electricity would come to dominate, enhance and safeguard our lives in the myriad ways it does today. No one could envision the many ways we generate electricity today.

120 years later, no one predicted tiny cellular phones with superb digital cameras and more computing and networking power than a big 1990 desktop computer. No one expected that we would need so much cadmium, lithium, rare earth metals and other raw materials to manufacture thousands of wind turbines.

No one anticipated that new 4-D seismic, deepwater drilling and hydraulic fracturing technologies would find and produce so much oil and natural gas that today we still have at least a century’s worth of these vital energy resources – which “experts” had just told us we would run out of in only a few more years.

Ignoring the clear needs of current generations

And yet, we are still supposed to predict the future 50 or 100 years from now, safeguard the assumed needs of future generations, and ignore the clear needs of current generations. We are also supposed to presume that today’s essential natural resources have to last forever. In reality, they only have to last long enough for our creative intellects to discover real, actually workable replacements: new deposits, production techniques, raw material substitutes or technologies.

Of course, all of this is irrelevant to Politicized Sustainability dogma. That doctrine focuses on ridding the world of fossil fuels, regardless of any social, economic, environmental or human costs of doing so. And regardless of whether supposed alternatives really are eco-friendly and sustainable.

For example, mandated U.S. ethanol quotas eat up 40% of this nation’s corn, grown on over 36 million acres of cropland, to replace 10% of America’s gasoline. Corn ethanol also requires billions of gallons of water, and vast quantities of pesticides, fertilizers, tractor fuel and natural gas … to produce energy that drives up food prices, damages small engines, gets one-third fewer miles per gallon than gasoline – and during its entire production and use cycle emits just as much carbon dioxide as gasoline.

Imagine replacing 100% of US gasoline with corn ethanol. How would that in any way be sustainable?

Producing expensive, intermittent, unreliable electricity

Mandated, subsidized wind energy requires millions of acres for turbines and ultra-long transmission lines … and billions of tons of concrete, steel, copper, rare earth metals and fiberglass. The turbines’ subsonic noise and light flicker create chronic health problems for susceptible people living near them, and kill millions of birds and bats annually – to produce expensive, intermittent, unreliable electricity that must be backed up by dozens of fossil fuel generators or billions of (nonexistent) land- and resource-intensive battery arrays.

Meanwhile, American and Canadian companies are cutting down thousands of acres of forests and turning millions of trees into wood pellets that they truck to coastal ports and transport on oil-fueled cargo ships to England. There the pellets are hauled by truck and burned in place of coal, to generate electricity … so that England can meet its renewable fuel targets. How is this sustainable – or “climate friendly”?

Why not just build the fossil fuel power plants … mine for coal and frack for natural gas to fuel them – or build more nuclear power plants – and forget about the ethanol, wind turbines, wood pellets and other pseudo-renewable, pseudo-sustainable false alternatives … until something truly better comes along?

Meanwhile, more than 1.2 billion people still do not have electricity. Another 2 billion have electrical power only sporadically and unpredictably. Hundreds of millions get horribly sick, and five million die every year from lung and intestinal diseases that are due to breathing smoke from open fires … and not having refrigeration, clean water and safe, bacteria-free food.

As Steven Lyazi has noted, these people simply want to take their rightful, God-given places among Earth’s healthy and prosperous people. Instead, they’re being told “that wouldn’t be sustainable.” They’re being told they must be content with a few wind turbines near their villages and little solar panels on their huts – to charge cell phones, pump a little water, power a few light bulbs and operate tiny refrigerators.

Politicized Sustainability is irrational, unjust, inhumane, eco-imperialistic and environmentally destructive. It is especially harmful to the world’s poor. It’s time to rethink and overhaul this insanity.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death and other books on public policy.

18 thoughts on “Politicized sustainability threatens planet and people

  1. The only purpose behind the scam and destruction of cheap energy is population reduction. It isn’t about keeping the 3rd world 3rd world, it is about population reduction in the resource expensive 1st and 2nd tier countries. If you think talking warm when you know it is getting cold serves any other purpose, you aren’t thinking.

    • I tend to agree with you Tom. I think it may be purposeful manipulation to keep humanity off balance and looking in the wrong direction while reality closes in on us.

    • Yes, according to the Georgia Guidestones the elite want the earths population to be sustained at no more than a certain amount and so population reduction is a must. Then the elites can have all the resources for themselves and set themselves up as Lords of the earth with the rest as serfs. This is the real agenda behind the @New World Order’, open borders (Soros), agenda 21 (now revised as agenda 2030). Also I suspect they know the earth is cooling and they will want to be fed themselves and let the serfs die because of lack of food. Be informed and find out for yourself and prepare>

  2. Resource depletion can be brought about by simply declaring access to the resources for devlopment and production off limits through the use of regulations , excessive fee structures and declaration of surface lands as green spaces. Dont get me wrong there is a place for conservation. It seems that today however the abuse of and down right shut down of industrial progress is wrapped in a cloak of greenspaces, carbon fees, and over regulation. This is the thing that has killed a greater prosperity for this country in my opinion.

  3. Well said Paul Driessen !!

    Snake oil is the original ‘sustainable’ product, sat on the shelf next to unicorns, and fairy dust.

  4. Canada was on the cusp of building an oil pipeline from the western source provinces (Alberta/Saskatchewan) to the eastern provinces, where refineries are already in place. This would have given western producers a fairer price for their oil, and would have replaced the oil that eastern Canada currently imports from despotic countries. Largely due to political opposition, the pipeline company has shelved the project. This is a devastating blow for all of Canada, and particularly for the resource rich provinces.

    • Meanwhile, Australia is short on gas because we keep selling it overseas and have less for ourselves thus driving up the prices. We have the highest cost of electricity in the world in South Australia – but some of the best reserves of gas! Stupidity plus, or is there another agenda?!

      • You also have vast quantities of coal, the reason for the highest cost of electricity in the world in South Australia, is the state closed its based load generating coal plant(s) as a sop to the anti CO2 green movement, and the people have been paying the price since in increasing prices since.
        That coal has since been exported to China, and has still been burnt contributing to China’s GDP growth, and Australia’s GDP decline.

    • The Saudis are behind a lot of the sustainability movement because it keeps up demand for their oil and gas by keeping new supplies of the market. Thus they fund environmental groups to block the pipeline that would cheaply carry oil from western Canada to eastern Canada.

      • No, the real people behind the AGW fraud are biased western NGO, your own Governments, and a bankrupt UN. This applies to every Anglo Saxon speaking country.
        And the Data lies which support AGW and HICC, originate with every English Speaking Met Office and the Climate universities which provide then with graduates and AGW slush fund papers purporting to be science.

  5. In an article today about the Trump administration’s plans to repeal Obama’s greenhouse gas emissions policy, the NY Times included this quick summary about the current scientific assessment of climate change: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/climate/what-is-climate-change.html
    Obviously they refute any ideas that the planet is cooling due to solar activity (or lack thereof). It’s an interesting read, and I’d be interested in feedback here.

      • They also missed the worst of Dalton GSM cooling and started at start of SC12, the start of the cool to warmish Gleissberg period and all of the hot part of the solar warm period from 17 to 19 and 21 to 23. I expect they missed out SC24 as it hadn’t finished yet, and it has been inconveniently cold in comparison.
        Their calculations are based on only the most solar energetic parts of the 172 year cycle from the end of Dalton to the end of the Modern Solar Warm period 2008, and the start of the Modern GSM.
        What do you expect – the truth? The NYT are ground zero AGW fake news. Once they had great reporters who chased down Establishment and political fraud, now they are part of the AGW Carbon Credit propaganda lie machine, as is the BBC and many other sections of the MM.

    • In the Article they write :-

      “In the 19th century, scientists discovered that certain gases in the air trap and slow down heat that would otherwise escape to space. Carbon dioxide is a major player; without any of it in the air, the Earth would be a frozen wasteland. The first prediction that the planet would warm as humans released more of the gas was made in 1896. The gas has increased 43 percent above the pre-industrial level so far, and the Earth has warmed by roughly the amount that scientists predicted it would.”

      So it IS all about global warming !! Global cooling will, and has, also caused climate change – pretty hard to ignore the glaciations for example.

      So it all comes down to whether there is any “heat trapping” by “greenhouse gases” and would the Earth “be a frozen wasteland” without “greenhouse gases” ?

      The answer to both of these is a resounding NO !!!

      The so called “science” behind the alarm is completely unproven,
      totally contradictory and deceitful.

      CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere – one molecule in 10,000.

      Nitrogen and Oxygen make up 99% of the atmosphere. Alarmists state that they do not absorb or emit infra-red radiation and are not “greenhouse gases”

      BUT they do change in temperature ALL the time !!

      When it is 100°F or 0°F Nitrogen and Oxygen are responsible for air temperature.

      IF, as alarmists state, they cannot radiate Infra-Red to space THEN Nitrogen and Oxygen are the “heat trapping” gases – if that is a reality that such a thing as “heat trapping” gases exists !!!!

      The IPCC used an “energy budget” created by Trenberth et al in one of their reports as evidence about global warming.

      Assuming it is real – something I don’t by the way – they explicitly state that the Earth emits 239 W/m2 to space and absorbs 239 W/m2 from the Sun.

      Of the 239 W/m2, 199 W/m2 is emitted by “greenhouse gases” and clouds (“greenhouse gas” water vapour in liquid droplet form) and 40 W/m2 escapes directly from the surface to space.


      IF Nitrogen and Oxygen emit almost NOTHING to space, AND we all know they do change temperature all the time, THEN Trenberth et al claim that 99% of the atmosphere loses “heat” to space by transferring ALL of the “heat” to greenhouse gases which radiate the Infra-Red radiation to space for them !

      As the chance of transferring energy to CO2 from Oxygen is 0.84 % , less than 1:100, and the chance of transferring energy to CO2 from Nitrogen is roughly 3.1 %, or 3:100, it is simply amazing the atmosphere EVER cools at all !

      Especially as while absorbing “heat” from 99% of the atmosphere around them CO2 is also absorbing some Infra-Red radiation from the land and oceans.

      So how is an increase in the number of the ONLY atmospheric Infra-Red “radiators” supposed to “trap heat” – surely more of them means N2 and O2 can shed their “heat” more easily as there are more radiating molecules to collide with ?

      Remember ALL of the atmosphere absorbs “heat” and ALL of the atmosphere is at 100°F or 0°F or whatever temperature your thermometer says.

      Concentrating only on radiation is deceitful !

      Finally there has been no “heat trapping” anyway as NASA itself says at a website celebrating 40 years of the Nimbus satellite series – 1965 – 2005.

      At this site – https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Nimbus/nimbus2.php

      they produce this graph:-


      As you can easily see most of the period 1979 to 2005 has a positive anomaly for radiation to space measured by the satellites !

      This reflects a warmer temperature but CANNOT possibly be caused by “trapping heat” – MORE is escaping than “normal” !!

      The other interesting question is why does a website celebrating a 49th anniversary produce a graph which ignores 14 years of data ??

      14 years out of 40 means 35% of the data is ignored ???

      • The other interesting question is why does a website celebrating a 49th anniversary produce a graph which ignores 14 years of data ??

        Obviously I missed the 0 and hit 9 in 49th.

  6. “Politicized Sustainability is irrational, unjust, inhumane, eco-imperialistic and environmentally destructive. It is especially harmful to the world’s poor. It’s time to rethink and overhaul this insanity” ?

    Yes Dan that is true !


    This is a World preparation scheme for something called the “Thing that should not Be” !!!

    And that “thing” is alive and not well today waiting for what is in the way to remove Himself allowing this “Thing” to come (Rise) to Semi-Global Power (China will “not” except it and India probably won’t either) and ground “0” is the United States of America simply because the U.S. is the leading (Dominant) World Power, so you see how the “Left” in a America is in suchseething with rage over the election of Donald Trump and will attack him in “Every” possible manner within their grasp to remove our President while welcoming in the Beast !!!

    Global Climate/Warming etc is just one way of the preparation and this movement (Revolution) is purely Satanic in every possible way and currently at least 30% of the U.S. population is completely behind this evil movement and considering that the “Left” has been in complete control of our Public School System for decades removing every God-Full reference possible then now what do you expect, and if you think that that is not happening then take a look at our College’s and Universities which (Witch) are now Satanic “breeding” grounds !

    That wasn’t the reality pre-1965 !!!

    Look around, last Days !!!!!!!

    Soon to be, for a Time, a Time and a Half of a time, they will “rule” the World, and “Brutality” will then take on a new meaning !

    Wayyyyy beyond “Vicious”, and this is just (Only) the start of it…

    And I know for one thing, it will be Bruce Dickinson’s dream come true !

    Be Prepared !!!


Leave a Comment