JBG
Liberal democrat
- Jan 8, 2012
- 474
- 301
I have excerpted an excellent article Here are some links to the cited article which my be paywalled, which is sourced at bottom of quote (link) and (link).
The "intellectual" movement was largely ineffectual in changing anything. Thus, an emergency had to be conjured where we were doomed if we did not take "action," however futile. As this article points out, the fulcrum which the "movement" uses is keyed to control, not effectiveness.
During the 1970's and before a belief developed that our consumption-based society was unsustainable. This philosophy of life was expressed in the U.S. via books such as the 1950's classic by John Kenneth Galbraith, The Affluent Society. This was foreshadowed by other authors and thinkers, such as Travels with Charley: In Search of America by John Steinbeck. In Travels Steinbeck rails against conspicuous consumption and other signs of affluence. There was also the Club of Rome report, written over a period between 1968 and 1972, affiliated with MIT (link). This was at the end of the sunshiny era of the 1950's and early 1960's, a halcyon ear when grown was promoted. It was mostly a "let the good times roll" era, until it wasn't. The "Arab Oil Embargo," for example, was seized upon as an excuse to limit highway speeds to 55 m.p.h. and the "Club of Rome" mentality became general.various articles by Gerald Cotton said:*************
The theory that CO2 contributes to "global warming" is a very clever one, because CO2 is said to comprise approximately 80% of all greenhouse gases, both natural and man-generated. Thus by implicating it as a potential threat to the environment, it gives totalitarianism exactly the occasion it seeks to control the vast sphere of industry which could produce it.
*******************
Neither the Green New Deal nor its predecessors give an honest, definitive limit as to how much CO2 is acceptable, and how much is too much. Instead, it sets arbitrary, yet progressive restrictions, allegedly based on what they say is an "acceptable" or "unacceptable" trend in the weather and climate. This of course is a completely unrelated, inaccurate reference. The use of such hazy, undefined boundaries is what allows the "experts" to always subject industry to whatever degree of control they so desire- control which supersedes legislation.
************
The introduction of the ozone depletion theory in 1974 gave the student environmental movement of the 1960's and 1970's a reason to raise its gaze to the skies. Rather than the movement being limited to real problems that were easily understood and verifiable by the public, such as smog, deforestation or contaminated water, the ozone theory gave it the opportunity to extend its influence across all spheres of industry by operating in an unknown scientific realm, where information on both industry and nature alike could be controlled, fabricated, suppressed or distorted- yet believed.
On March 15th, 1988, Robert Watson of the Ozone Trend Panel announced that the ozone layer had been depleted. According to Watson, the ozone layer had decreased by more than 3 percent in northern latitudes between 1969 and 1986. The announcement was heralded in newspapers with headlines about expected new epidemics in skin cancer, and it generated the expected public hysteria. *****
*Joseph Scotto, Gerald Cotton, Frederick Urback, et al., 1988. "Biologically Effective Ultraviolet Radiation: Surface Measurements in the United States, 1974-1985," Science, Vol 239 (Feb.12), pp. 762-764.
**Joseph Scotto, 1988. "Global Stratospheric Ozone and UVB Radiation," Science, Vol 239 (Nov. 25), pp. 1111-1112
The "intellectual" movement was largely ineffectual in changing anything. Thus, an emergency had to be conjured where we were doomed if we did not take "action," however futile. As this article points out, the fulcrum which the "movement" uses is keyed to control, not effectiveness.