Environmentalism, and environmentalists, have earned a bad rap in recent decades, and increasingly deservedly so. But, in my view, “environmentalism” is an umbrella term that encompasses many divergent ideologies and groups which are worth disentangling.
One corner of the overly broad “environmentalist” movement is a leftist populist one of deluded adult children (mostly Zoomers) who stage cringe protests (like desecrating Western cultural artifacts and stopping traffic) because they’ve been genuinely convinced through pop culture and public education that carbon is evil and anyone or anything that emits carbon is an enemy combatant.
Then, on top of them, orchestrating the farce, are the cynical technocrats who deploy these adult children as a sort of new-wave Red Guard in the best traditions of Maoism. This faction is comprised of the “you will own nothing and be happy” elites of the WEF breed.
BREAKING: World Economic Forum publishes plans to forcibly reduce the number of personal vehicles globally from 1.45 billion to 500 million by the year 2050. https://t.co/zRNm9Cy41q
— Keean Bexte (@TheRealKeean) June 8, 2023
I join enthusiastically the chorus of denunciation of both of these groups. The former is delusional and (perhaps hopelessly) propagandized; the latter is, in my view, literally genocidal with depopulation as its ultimate objective.
Another, more earnest subset of environmentalists is of the RFK Jr. variety — who I consider the embodiment of the best traditions of environmentalism decoupled from any sort of delusions or ulterior motives of the kind that consume the previous two varieties.
It’s true that he previously espoused draconian “climate change” positions. He has since disavowed them and, rather than deserving criticism for once having held them, in my view, he should be lauded for publicly admitting that he was wrong and reversing course. That’s what leaders do when they realize they have erred in judgment.
More to the point here, they are conservative in the truest sense of the term — a term which, stripped of its modern political context that obscures its original denotation, means “to keep in a safe or sound state” or “to avoid wasteful or destructive use of.”
This original conception of conservatism, in addition to supporting the third brand of environmentalism as I have described it previously, is also Biblical in nature.
“And I brought you into a plentiful land to enjoy its fruits and its good things. But when you came in, you defiled my land and made my heritage an abomination.” Jeremiah 2:7 (ESV)
Where I depart from conventional libertarians of the peculiar American variety (libertarianism outside of the U.S. is quite different from its American counterpart, creating a semantical mess) and conservatives on the issue of environmental preservation is that I believe some resources of immense public import should, accordingly, remain in the public domain.
America’s waterways, for instance, belong rightfully to the American people, not special interests. The state, to the extent that it justifiably exists at all, should be tasked with enforcing this ethos. No entity should be permitted to contaminate them with impunity — the state, private commercial enterprises, or individuals. The interest in protecting their integrity outstrips any economic interest or notions of individual autonomy.
Contrary to framing within certain circles, much like the oft-employed, overwrought “anti-vaccine” smear soaked in deception, RFK Jr.’s positions on environmentalism are often (sometimes intentionally) misrepresented; his philosophy is very much of the third sort as I have described it.
His positions are, in fact, by and large, common sense that most people not ideologically predisposed one way or another would agree with. And regarding his stances that aren’t common sense — like his prior draconian “climate change” positions — he has acknowledged and disavowed them after learning more about the issue.
RFK Jr: Bill Gates & WEF Are Using ‘Climate Change’ to Control Population – Slay News https://t.co/9vKme1mifn
— Kat (@katsmit403) June 11, 2023
To my mind, this sort of reassessment of previously held beliefs on his part is not evidence of flimsiness or duplicity but a willingness to change course when personal integrity (and the evidence) directs him to.
As a candidate, RFK Jr. is very much an “open book,” honest and open to persuasion by good-faith arguments on any given issue. He is free to adjust his policy prescriptions because he is not affixed to any policy position by special interests — unlike most mainstream, national-level politicians of either party (with the arguable exception of Trump). We can know he is not bought in this sense because of the vehemence with which the Democrat Party leadership, in collusion with the corporate state media, universally and disingenuously attacks him.
For what it’s worth — not that anyone should blindly follow the assessment of any one pundit or even conglomeration of pundits — many bona fide conservatives ostensibly in good standing with the populist right have begun to see things, to varying extents, my way in this regard.