Liberal environmentalists tout their left-wing thinking as being progressive, but that’s certainly not the case when it comes to global warming.

I wrote several weeks ago about the environmentalist-created climate of fear around the use of nuclear plants. Relatively cheap, clean and efficient, these marvels of technology beat anything else available to us today. Submarines are powered with nuclear fuel. NASA has launched space probes powered with nuclear fuel. But to liberal environmentalists, nuclear is dangerous and potentially dirty. Just look at Chernobyl or Three Mile Island, they’ll tell you. Hence, no nuclear plants have been built in the last 30 years.

In much the same way nuclear plants are off limits because of environmentalists, coal and other fossil fuels are now on the hit list. Carbon dioxide, the atmospheric gas used by plants everywhere for sustainability, is killing our world. Glacier growth, starvation, hurricanes (or not), floods, rain, cannibalism, heat, disease and earthquakes are all caused by the man-made release of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

But there’s a bigger problem here.  Environmentalists are not progressives.  They want us to stop using our existing energy base, fossil fuels, without having another viable alternative.  Al Gore recently called for the complete elimination of unclean fuel sources in 10 years.  Yet wind, solar, hydrothermal and geothermal sources just aren’t ready for prime time.  If Gore’s plan succeeds and our nation is indeed pulled from the oil that sustains us but the clean and renewable sources aren’t completely online, what happens?  More rolling blackouts, except this time they’ll be across the country?  Will employers simply shut down because workers can’t make it to the job?  How will food be distributed to the masses without means of fuel?  Gore’s plan is ambitious, I’ll give him that, but does he expect for technology to suddenly catch up with his clean alternatives, or will we be forced to grow our own gardens, hunt our own food and live off the land, just as they did in the stone ages?  This is how liberal environmentalists define progressive.  Anti-economic growth, anti-transportation and vast communities working to sustain each other and give to the government the fruits of their labor.  We call this socialism in America.  And it’s anything but progressive.

Did you like this? If so, please bookmark it, about it,
subscribe to my RSS Feed in your reader or
subscribe to my RSS Feed by email.
Or you can follow me on Twitter.
Tags: progressive

• Who Needs Electricity? (0)
• Telegraph (0)
• Study Finds Campbell Carbon Tax Will Hurt Who? The Poor (0)
• Global Warming ‘Anti-Capitalist’ and ‘Anti-West’ (0)
• And if Global Warming Turns Out to be a Myth, So What? (8)