credibilit)’. VV’hv? Because I was thinkingrnas a scientist, not as a political activistrnimplementing a socioeconomicrnrcxolution.rnWhile scientific truth is not establishedrnbv vote, political “reality” is. Inrnpolitics, perception is reality. Or tornquote Niccolo Machiavelli describingrnthe basis for deception, “Most peoplernhave eves and can, therefore, sec. However,rnfew people have the ability to reason.rnTherefore, appearances are everything.”rnEnvironmentalists made surernthat people did not have the ability tornreason.rnAfter screaming in the early 80’s thatrnacid rain was an invisible horror rainingrndeatli out of the skies, environmentalistsrnmaintained strict censorship throughrnthe “reign of terror” described above.rnThey then went on to create more environmentalrn”crises.” And after tenrnyears of blather about global warming,rndioxin, stvrofoam, wetlands, asbestos,rnalar, spotted owls, ozone depiction, etc.,rnthe public no longer remembers thatrnacid rain was supposed to have sterilizedrnthe Northeast by 1990. All we rememberrnis the “crisis” of acid rain, not itsrndetails. It was then I realized that whatrnwas happening in the area of acid rainrnwas also happening with other environmentalrnissues.rnhi 1989 I worked at the Central AnalyticalrnLaboratory of the national acidrnrain monitoring network located at thernUniversity of Illinois. Here we had onernof the world’s fie General CirculationrnModels, commonh known as globalwarmingrnmodels. The llnitcd Nationsrnhad set up its Intergovernmental Panelrnon Climate Change to see what globalrnwarming means to the world. In 1989.rnits findings were presented to us at thernUniversitv of Illinois.rnAssuming that these models are representativernof reality, scientists using firstrnprinciples predicted that a doubling ofrnatmospheric carbon dioxide, and thernpresumed climatic changes associatedrnwith it, would increase agricultural productivitvrnbv 15 to 40 percent, dependingrnupon the region of the world. Similarly,rnglobal warming should increaserna’crage forest productivity as well as waterrnresources (a warmer world is, on average,rna wetter world). I nearly fell outrnof my chair. But then I realized thatrnthe reality-check of world history supportsrnwhat these scientists were tellingrnus. Historians and palcoecologists callrnthe warmer period of the recent pastrnthe “Climate Optimum.” The worldrnwas a much better place to live in whenrnit was warmer. The historic fact is that,rnrelative to today’s world climate, globalrnwarming is “good” and global coolingrnis “bad.”rnHowever, as with acid rain, the goodrnnews about “global warming” was censored,rnalong with information showingrnthat global-warming models—like thosernof acid rain—do not work in the firstrnplace. “Wc the People” hear none ofrnthis. Instead, wc hear the United Nation’srnMaurice Strong indict globalrnwarming as the “primary risk to the humanrnfuture” and Vice-President Gorerncall for a New “Green” World Order.rnIn other words, within ten years afterrnearning my Ph.D., 1 came to know thatrnenvironmentalism is fundamentallyrnflawed.rnAs C.S. Lewis observed, the greatestrnevils are committed by perverting virtue,rnor, as I like to say, by abusing a justrncause. In world history’s long string ofrnabused just causes, the latest failed experimentrnin socioeconomic revolutionrn—communism—illvistrates the fundamentalrnflaw of environmentalism. Asrnnoted by Francis Sehaeffer among others,rncommunism attracted man wellmeaningrnadherents with its idealisticrnlanguage about the dignity of man, thernend to the exploitation of man by fellowrnman, and so on. However, communismrnhad to borrow this ideal from the West.rnMarxist philosophy was incapable ofrngenerating the concept of personal dignity.rnWhat is amazing is that peoplernseriously attempted to do the absurd—rnto use communism to implement anrnidea that it was incapable of generatingrnin the first place. The results were disastrous.rnAs Russian President BorisrnYeltsin told the United States Congressrnduring his 1992 visit, “There is no humanrnface of communism.” Solzhcnitsyn’srnestimate that the Soviet Unionrnmurdered over 66 million of its own citizensrnfor purely political reasons—tornend the exploitation of man by fellowrnman—appears to be essentially correct.rn’Ibday’s environmentalism also suffersrnfrom an inherent incompatibilityrnbetween its goal of wise use—borrowedrnfrom the West’s Judeo-Christian valuesrnof stewardship—and its core philosophyrnof the perfect “Natural State.” Freernmarkets in free societies compel us, inrnthe most direct manner (increasingrnprosperity), to use nature ever morernwisely. This is the real “Green Revolution.”rnHoyvever, the profit motive thatrncompels us to produce more from less isrncalled “greed” bv environmentalists.rnScience that shows us how to use andrnwaste less is called “unnatural.” Its technologicalrnapplication is called “exploitation.”rnEnvironmentalism’s corernphilosophy of the perfect “NaturalrnState” is therefore killing the real GreenrnRevolution because it is incapable ofrnconceiving that man has any right tornuse nature, no matter how careful he is.rnIronically, as with communism beforernit, environmentalism attracts man’rnwell-nicaning adherents with its idealisticrnlanguage about liing in harmonyrnwith nature. What is amazing is thatrnpeople have seriously attempted to dornthe absurd—to use environmentalismrnto implement an idea that it was incapablernof generating in the first place.rnThe results are predictably disastrous.rnFnvironmcntalists—whether admittedrnor not—will alwavs find somethingrnwrong with, and ultimately oppose,rnwhatever mankind does.rnTake energy as an example. Becausernof acid rain, coal is now a “dirty fuel”rnthat will have to be replaced. But withrnwhat? Certainly not another fossil fuel.rn(‘I’his leads to global warming.) Nuclearrnpower? No, they say. It’s unsafe.rnAnd we don’t want anyone trying tornmake it safe cither. Wc only want to usernrenewable sources of energy. But tryrnputting in a dam someplace. Geothcrmal?rnThey oppose it on aesthetics.rnCharles Kuralt did a Christmas special arnfew years ago titled “Gifts We Gi’crnOurselves.” One of these “gifts” wasrnstopping geothcrmal in Oregon. Howrn”nice.” The televised May 12, 1992,rnhearing of the Senate Energy Committeernshowed that environmentalists arernvery “slick” in opposing geothcrmalrnwherever it is feasible and supporting itrnwherever it is not. Windmills? Againrnaesthetics, and in California thcv evenrncomplain that windmills kill birds. Environmentalistsrnhave even opposed coldrnfusion, which, if true, would be a totallyrnunpolluting source of encrg-. PaulrnEhrlich said, “the prospect of cheap, inexhaustiblernpower from fusion is ‘likerngiving a machine gun to an idiot child.'”rnJeremy Rifkin warned, “It’s the worstrnthing that could happen to our planet.”rnRalph Nader and Barry Commoner alsornheaped abuse on it. Their objection?rnNot pollution. If true, it would be ablerneffectively and cheaply to generate power.rnThey were against power generationrnlUNE 1993/45rnrnrn