Of the groups previously mentioned, none made a serious attempt to tie the repeal of DACA to actual environmental concerns. The Sierra Club didn’t try to explain how secure borders cause ‘toxic pollution’ or climate change. It wasn’t necessary. Their donors understood the point: good people support the environment, oppose a president who wants to defend our borders, and protect illegal immigrants. They don’t need to hear arguments about cause and effect. The Sierra Club, established to maintain our natural environment, now takes a vigorous position in favor of transgenderism and taxpayer-funded abortion. Here ‘man’s politics’ takes a detour from ‘God’s politics’. Their website dedicated to saving nature now includes a section on “Equality, Inclusion, and Justice”. How nice of them to take such a stand for ‘animals’.
In the summer of 2017, the Sierra Club signaled its opposition to the “unsustainable whiteness” of environmentalism. Environmental racism had been a long time theme at the Sierra Club. The term first became popular at the tail end of the traditional environmental movement, when it was clear that most of America’s dirty rivers were finally getting cleaned up. The concept was the brainchild of Robert Bullard, an energetic non-scientist with a degree in sociology. He had written more than a dozen books on the topic…why not, there was money to be made on such a unique subject. In an interview with Earth First! Journal , he explained that the fight against environmental racism isn’t directly related to the environment…doesn’t take a ‘rocket scientist’ to figure that out. It is “more of a concept to address power imbalances, lack of political enfranchisement, and to redirect resources so that we can create some healthy, livable and sustainable types of models.” This has always been a ploy of those wishing to utilize ‘man’s politics’ to attain a goal sane people would never approve of.
Redirecting resources has always been a major part of the efforts of environmental racism. In March of 1990, dozens of self-described civil rights leaders wrote an open letter to the heads of America’s ten biggest environmental groups accusing them of “racist and genocidal practices.” They claimed these organizations, though claiming otherwise, play a role in disruption of minority communities. Their proposed remedy…what else…cash payments. It’s amazing how money donated or granted for environmental purposes, can be used to solve ‘racial problems’.
In 2013 the administration’s EPA administrator Gina McCarthy told the Congressional Black Caucus that combating environmental racism was her agency’s “core issue”…?? She later explained that EPA regulations purportedly aimed at climate were really about “justice” for “communities of color”…??? This to me is a clear-cut case of using federal funds for pandering. Millions of agency grants went to fight environmental racism. What does this have to do with clean air and water? Obviously nothing. Here ‘man’s politics’ faking as ‘God’s politics’, posing as a theology, speaks deeply to American elites. Its moral absolutes affirm them, adding meaning to their otherwise secular world. A collapse of mainline Protestantism would leave a void in the hearts of America’s ruling class. The environmental movement fills it. The movement’s new priorities start to make sense…especially for those who are conflicted by ‘God’s politics’. Environmentalism as a religion is more compelling than environmentalism as a means to save birds or clean up some river. Details about the natural world begin to seem irrelevant. Compared to questions about virtue and salvation, they’re not that interesting. Besides those who profess dedication to the environment from the upper echelons do not feel the restrictions they encourage politicians to put into place. Let’s take a look at just a few.
We will end this week by taking a look at a well known environmental ‘hypocrite’. By the way since ‘hypocrisy’ is addressed in the Bible, might it not be a subject worthy to be addressed from the pulpit and certainly we see much of it in our ‘environmental crusaders’. We will look at what could well be the ‘king of environmental hypocrisy’. Leonardo DiCaprio has done much to earn this title. He is both a famous actor and perhaps the world’s best-known climate activist. He doesn’t speak on the subject of carbon emissions so much as he preaches. “Humans have put our entire existence into jeopardy”, he thunders. Climate change is “the most urgent threat facing our entire species.” Those who question climate policy, he declares, should be banned from public office. As far as he is concerned “the argument is now over.” I must agree with him. This earth has been experiencing climate change for millions of years…we can thank ‘climate change’ for the Great Lakes. Few politicians live up to the standards they set from the halls of congress. DiCaprio is no exception to setting standards and not living up to them. In the summer of 2016, he was scheduled to receive an award from the environmental group Riverkeeper. He was in Cannes attending the film festival at the time, so he chartered a private jet to fly from France to New York and back. That’s an eight thousand mile round trip with an accompanying gargantuan carbon footprint, bigger than the average African might emit in a lifetime. Why didn’t he take the ‘high speed train’…oh, that’s right, it wasn’t in service yet? For DiCaprio it was just another Cannes Film Festival. His carbon foot-print was no big deal! The year before, he was photographed off the coast of France meandering alone on the deck of a 450-foot, $200 million yacht, which he had rented as an accommodation for the week…probably so he could have some quiet time to write his next global warming/climate change speech. What cost carbon?
DiCaprio is just one of many who feel qualified to tell us how to live using rules that apparently do not apply to them. And yes, for the aspiring politician…I will not mention a name…who believes that the extra hour of daylight from daylight savings time will add to/speed up global warming, have no fear. The ice in your martini will cool down the difference. I have always believed that a subject addressed in the Bible is worthy of the pulpit, whether it offends or not. If the truth offends, so be it! Next week we will look at the rogues gallery of climate change hypocrites.
– Bob Munsey
“Giving frees us from the familiar territory of our own needs by opening our mind to the unexplained worlds occupied by the needs of others.” – Barbara Bush