The ‘Green Movement’ is Killing Wildlife
I T’S ALL ABOUT THE MONEY. It always has been and always will be.
The cash cow of the “green movement” and its singular focus on climate change has birthed a monster that is bilking billions from the public.
It is also directly taking funds that might otherwise do things that can be tangibly measured—such as purchase South American rainforest to save it from commercial ranching. Another possible use would link habitat corridors to establish safe travel ways for tigers in Asia.
Does anyone really think any of the money going toward “climate change” is making a difference or ever will?
Even if America were to acquiesce to even the strongest emissions standards do you really think China and other developing countries will?
When is the last time (other than two paragraphs ago) you heard anything about saving the rainforest? It was the thing to save 25 years ago.
The rainforest is even more endangered now as are its inhabitants, but public interest has waned. Now corporate environmental saviors in various charities and governments around the world have found something more lucrative—climate change.
Ironically, the rainforest loss is linked to climate change, but you can’t get poor countries in South America to pay billions for protecting forest lands. You can however syphon billions out of the western world for the grandiose idea of reducing carbon emissions.
Remember—it’s all about the money.
We are allowing animals including all subspecies of tigers, all varieties of rhinoceros, the vaquita porpoise and a host of other highly vulnerable animals to slip into extinction with little or no mainstream interest in funding their protection.
The so-called “green movement” people constantly say they care about wildlife and the environment, but if they had been watching more closely, species such as the vaquita would not be down to 30 specimens. Their problem is poaching, and if someone had jumped on the issue 20 years ago things would be radically different.
But that was about the time focus shifted from the rainforest to “global warming” which has now morphed into “climate change”. That way if they find out temperatures are actually decreasing they can save face. “Climate change” gives them a lot of leeway.
I have nothing against trying to reduce carbon emissions. It needs to happen across the board.
I do have a problem with some of the rarest animals, plants and habitats disappearing when just a fraction of the funds fattening the pockets of the climate change hierarchy would make a radical difference in their survival.
Stop being naive.
We will not make a dent in actual carbon emissions, but many will have a dent in their pocketbook because you believed the sales pitch of people with agendas other than true conservation.
I highly advise investing in small conservation projects that are directly saving habitat from destruction, aiding anti-poaching crusades and funding research that could save endangered species.
“Aim small, miss small” is a key tenet of accurate shooting.
It’s also a good way to think about efforts to save the planet’s rarest animals and habitats.
Email Chester Moore at email@example.com