Politics vs. True Environmentalism

The Heartland Institute http://news.heartland.org/print/156871 recently interviewed Dr. Alan Carlin, an environmental scientist who has been at odds with the Environmental Protection Agency. Carlin is by no means alien from the belief that the environment requires protection. In the past, he was a leader within the Sierra Club, and was involved in a number of key campaigns. He served as a scientist within the EPA itself, but became estranged from the federal agency when he criticized its support of extremist views not supported by science.

Dr. Carlin maintains that the EPA’s positions on climate change since 2009 are based on politics, not science. The problems pointed out by Dr. Carlin and others concerning the politicization of the EPA and climate change activists and organizations loom large in true efforts to protect the environment. While vast resources are committed to efforts to combat threats that may not exist, other, scientifically accurate needs may have trouble gaining the resources necessary for success. Frequently, global warming funds wind up enriching leftist politicians and institutions, but doing nothing to truly address real environmental needs. Al Gore and Solyndra come rapidly to mind as examples.
Order for these herbal cialis cipla pills can be placed under the tongue to dissolve, and are easily absorbed by the body. greyandgrey.com generic levitra Stress or low energy level is among the leading anti-aging supplements. Thus by providing adequate blood cheapest cialis generic supply to the main board. For them sports massage Dublin is also equally cialis tablets for sale important.
A truly unbiased examination of global warming extremists finds that their interests and goals are more geared towards providing greater power to federal agencies rather than meeting environmental challenges. Capitalism itself is frequently their target. They should examine the comparison between Eastern Europe during its period of Soviet domination, where there was exceptional damage, and their western European counterparts, with far cleaner records.

Quick Analysis

Putin’s Saber Rattling

Earlier this week, President Biden reversed his 2022 decision, authorizing the provision of antipersonnel land mines to the Ukrainian government. It follows an earlier Administration authorization to allow the use of an advanced American missile system capable of striking as deep as 100 miles inside Russian territory. The US election season may be ending, but both Russia and the West show no indication of stepping down the conflict. Russian propaganda continues to swell as the Kremlin increases its threats to use nuclear weapons against the West. Last week Andrey Sushentsov, program director of the pro-Kremlin think tank Valdai Discussion Club (VDC), published an article on growing nuclear tensions in the region. Official Russian language in the last few years has been threatening. Since the US election, rhetoric like that in the Sushentsov article, has approached the level of nuclear blackmail. The VDC article’s main theme centers on Russia’s intent to directly confront the West militarily if the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) becomes involved in Russia’s conflict with Ukraine. “On the one hand, these threats are intended to frighten the West, but on the other, Russian propagandists themselves are starting to believe in the inevitability of escalation,” according to Ksenia Kirillova of the Jamestown Foundation. On November 11, Sushentsov wrote that “The conflict will reach a completely new level, with unpredictable consequences for Europe and the entire world.” Kirillova points out that Putin’s distorted image of the world is divorced from reality and is causing the Kremlin to issue demands that are impossible to fulfill. Financial and other Russian resources needed to support Putin’s war are growing scarcer at the same time. This week the Kremlin announced a reduction of payments to its soldiers. Recently North Korea acknowledged it was sending soldiers to fight in Ukraine as Putin is running out of bodies to use as cannon fire. The war is not going well for Russia. One question floating around the Washington intelligence community is whether Putin will act out of desperation before President-elect Trump assumes office. In recent months the Russian propaganda machine is spewing out materials from fairly reputable analytical platforms inside the country. Kirillova says that “Kremlin ‘experts’ do not conceal that such threats are only intended to break the West psychologically, as they themselves are not prepared for full-scale nuclear war.” Despite Russia’s lack of preparation for an all-out war with the West, the expanding nuclear rhetoric carries with it an increase in the threat of a full-scale war in multiple theaters of operation. In June 2023 a founder of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Sergey Karaganov, called for “delivering a pre-emptive strike of retaliation” on Poland to force the West to surrender. In the previous month, Dmitry Suslov, a direct of research programs at the policy center proposed organizing “a demonstration nuclear explosion” aimed at intimidating the West. In September, President Putin announced a reappraisal of Russian nuclear doctrine after speaking earlier in the year at the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum and jokingly calling Suslov a “scary person.” Pavel Baev, writing in the European Daily Monitor, says “Putin intends his announcement to mark an escalation of nuclear brinkmanship and influence the proceedings of future Ukrainian peace efforts.” Putin is expanding the list of environmental conditions that are acceptable for using a nuclear weapon and incorporating it into Russian military doctrine. Baev adds that “The ups and downs of Russian brinkmanship are disconnected from the kinetic battles of the war, correlating instead with Ukrainian peace offensives, such as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s first peace summit in Bürgenstock, Switzerland.” Despite the increase in vitriolic language, in a You Tube video published a week before the US presidential election, Karaganov openly assured the West the primary goal of the escalation is to break the American spirit and that of the West, not outright nuclear war. By Election Day in the US, with political prognosticators predicting a win for former president Trump, Karaganov changed his tune and called for an increased role in nuclear deterrence. Kirillova points out that Western concessions to Russia are unlikely to reduce the risk of nuclear escalation. The distorted reality inside the Kremlin continues to push that President-elect Trump is an adherent of “world government,” that Ukraine will create a nuclear weapon, and Russia must prepare for a nuclear conflagration to achieve its ambitions for a new world order. President-elect Trump has indicated he will not agree to concessions that destabilize Europe, the Middle East or other regions. Going forward a strong US foreign policy may be the most stabilizing course the West can count on to restrain Putin and his intent to rebuild the Russian empire. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept. Illustration: Pixabay

Our Latest Television Program

War, Diplomacy and Human Relations

Have humans become less or more “tribal” in recent years? What are the implications for war, peace, and diplomacy? Watch our discussion with Professor John M. Ellis, author of “A Short history of Relations Between Peoples.” The stay tuned for a fascinating debate on the Ukraine crisis with Douglas Ernest, author of The Spirit of a True Patriot: The Inspiring story of Ret. Captain Douglas Ernest.” If you missed the program on your local station, watch it here: https://rumble.com/v5reraw-the-american-political-zone-november-19-2024.html