In today's National Post, Kevin Libin uncovers a scathing exposé of hypocritical actions by so-called environmentalists and green advocates- Emissions omissions.
He cites the Kyoto high priests themselves, Suzuki and Gore, whom we all already know emit more hot air when giving speeches than most ordinary Canadians do in a lifetime.
But he also hones in on Liberal Environment critic David McGuinty, of the Flying McGuinty Brothers. (Great blog there, BTW)
Libin provides a stinging list of David's environmental sins acquired by access to information. Just check out McGuinty's carbon footprint! You'll be blown away by the greenhouse gases.
Anyway, as we all know brother Dalton is having his own problems - especially lately with news leaking out of his own Environment Minister Laurel Broten's unpopular plans to build a huge two-story garage to accommodate "one of their four vehicles, baby gear and bikes." Neighbours are not happy due to the threat to a large nearby tree and the perceived visual impact of such a monstrosity.
Then there is the matter of those fours vehicles, which Broten defends as something her husband is entitled to, after having become a "mining town boy made good".
Ah, so if you achieve some financial success in your life, you're allowed to drive a bunch of fancy cars. Or maybe they're just saving them for the boys, who should be ready to drive in around 15 years or so...
Anyway, back to the Post article. An actual Doomsday Believer is frustrated with these high-profile, so-called green advocates who make convenient exceptions for themselves:
"It's arrogance. It's a sense of entitlement. A lot of people in the environmental movement, and in government, are so convinced that they're smarter than everybody else, a certain amount of behaviour just comes from that."
What do you think? Do you feel it's acceptable for these environmental saviours to preach one thing but do another?
If you're rich enough to purchase carbon credits to offset your lifestyle, does that seem fair to others that are being asked to make huge personal sacrifices with cutting back on the A/C in the summer, shivering in the winter, letting their lawns go brown and taking the bus to work?
Or are such questions considered to be an act of heresy?
11 comments:
In my oppinion the whole environmental movement in government is not about the environment. It is about increasing taxes and making people feel good about it. The environmentalist are on side for increased government grants and publicity. This is why they have no problem with their hypocrisy. They know it is all just a big scam.
I'm going to cut McGuinty some slack here. After all, in the pre-Dion days, the LPC was busy "showing concern" for things like health care and child care. The environment wasn't much more than an afterthought.
You can't blame McGuinty for the LPC delegates picking Dion as the next leader, thus turning the spotlight on everything environmental. If only they had picked Ignatieff, then nobody would care about this "carbon footprints" hypocricy.
This is just another one of the unintended consequences of Dion's poorly thought out green strategy.
You can't blame McGuinty for the LPC delegates picking Dion as the next leader, thus turning the spotlight on everything environmental.
I have a feeling it was an accident anyway.
Although I don’t share the same environmental extremist attitude that Suzuki and Gore do, it does truly shock me to read about their hypocritical behaviours and lifestyles. Reading about their excessively large homes and vehicles makes me wonder why they would bother to preach the gloom and doom message if they don’t believe it themselves. Perhaps it is so they can buy more excessively large homes and vehicles.
There is no excuse for them to not have modest, 100% solar powered homes, and just-large-enough vehicles powered entirely by ethanol.
The more I think about the whole topic of the environment, the more I feel compelled to take whatever steps I can to preserve and protect the ecosystem in which I live. I think it’s a good idea to be conservative and careful about the environment and for each person to take the responsibility to do what he or she can. However, when I hear these things about Suzuki and Gore themselves, I must admit it’s discouraging.
Let's not forget that David McGuinty is also in favour of buying carbon credits from other countries in order to meet Kyoto.
Which, in my view, misses the point: the point of Kyoto is not sending money to countries that don't have to make reductions to begin with. The point of Kyoto is to reduce our own emissions (this is why carbon trading is fundamentally wrong).
David McGuinty is no different than his brother Dalton. When talking to either one, I'd check twice to try and figure out which of their faces I'm actually talking to.
we are headed to a two-tier environmental system, where the rich and powerful will be able to purchase their "right" to pollute to no end while any REAL environmental action will be forced and hoisted on the shoulders of those who are not able to purchase "carbon credits" in order to feel better about their environmental sins.
The Beatles visited the Marahisnu (Probably spelled wrong) of India in the late 60's while on their LSD/religion haze...They had brought a huge entourage of groupies and helping hands and stayed as guests with the Marahisnu for a few weeks.
(Prior to this Lennon and Harrison had met this guru and had nothing but praise for him.)
At one point during the visit, Lennon noticed that the Marahisnu was getting quite friendly with the female invitees...One girl complained he tried to take her to bed.
That was enough for John Lennon, he and the rest quickly packed and left. Lennon stated shortly afterwards that organised religions are mostly sham.
All this to say that Gore and Suzuki have no more rights than the average Joe when it comes to their claim on preserving mother nature's health.
If we are to adhere to this new religious nonsense, rule number 1 should be that we all strive to make due with essentials. No need for a 1/2 mile wide 3 story mansion and 6 Hummers when you can be comfortable with less.
Buying carbon credits to offset is hypocritical.
Socialist/Hypocrite/Fascist - is there a difference?
Their lifestyle isn't the hypocritical part; it's their promotion of the global warming agenda that is hypocritical.
Or are such questions considered to be an act of heresy?
I would be proud to be called a heretic by Al Gore, David Suzuki et al.
I wonder if Suzuki and Gore will apologize when their dire predictions fizzle?
Post a Comment