“Sustainability” is the great leftist byword in the summer of 2023. Democrats and other Communists are determined to force Americans to give up much of what we have invented and worked for, in order to transform our economy and society to states of “sustainability.” This also means that the work, inventiveness, science and engineering of the most “successful” peoples (in terms of wealth and standards of living) may have to be thrown away due to the color of their skin or the dominant religion(s) in their traditions.
White-skinned people, especially Christians and Jews, must renounce their successes and civic structures because they were “stolen” over the course of history, whether 200, 500 or 1,000 years ago and even more. Nothing those groups ever accomplished can remain in their possession. To do so would be “unsustainable.” As would be most of their “racist” and “supremacist” ideas… things like private property, Constitutional limits on government, and free speech, religious freedom and equal application of the laws.
Sustainability appears to require conformity. That is, the jumbled non-regulation of independent liberty is “unsustainable” in the views of leftists; conformity is more permanent and “sustainable.” First, everyone has to think the same thoughts, of course. Religious thoughts don’t conform.
The whole world, now, must conform to “sustainability” as if some activities – and politics – are sustainable and some not. America is not sustainable, we’re told, because we use too much clean water, too much electricity, too much oil and natural gas and way, way too much coal… as in, any. China, on the other hand, is the model of conformity and therefore sustainability. They use millions of tons of coal to bring modern electrification to their industries and to people who would otherwise be oppressed by white people. Plans to begin figuring out how to reduce coal-fired electricity 20 or 30 years from now in China, are examples of excellence in sustainability; actually reducing coal-fired electricity, today and for the past 30 years or so, in the United States, are examples of failure to conform to the planet-saving zero-carbon-emissions model. Whose “model” is that, actually?
Mostly, it seems to be a political model rather than a scientific one, and one that even ignorant children and older persons can become agitated about. All that are needed are a few chemical terms and scientific-sounding phrases and a whole political movement can be created and, better, sustained. The zero-carbon-emissions model of “sustainability” is, itself, sustainable! How cool is that? Despite the fact of lots of private-jet travel and ritzy accommodations, (high-carbon emissions activities, all) sustaining the zero-carbon political movement is vastly more important and sustainable than all other methods of improving living standards and sustainable economies across the developing world as both it and the developed world invent ways to operate and grow economies and social well-being. Suddenly the only “sustainable” model for humans appears to be allowing for far, far FEWER humans, altogether. Humans are not sustainable.
To maintain and sustain the numerous articles of faith that underlie the carbon-free climate-control model, many untruths must be sustained as well. One of these is that CO2 is causing global warming which would be, needless to say, unsustainable if true. That premise is not provable but it certainly has its adherents. The earth, the oceans, weather and plant-life have efficient means of removing carbon-dioxide (one of those important chemical terms) from the atmosphere. Over geologic time there have existed both higher concentrations of CO2 and lower than we have right now. During cold periods, ice periods, warm periods and very warm periods, the atmosphere has held more and less CO2. Sometimes the CO2 increases before a warming period; sometimes it increases afterwards. It is definitely an indicator of global changes, but the case for its being a cause of those changes is merely sophisticated speculation and, sadly, some of even that is disingenuous. [See: https://www.prudenceleadbetter.com/2017/07/20/a-home-on-the-beach/]
Given its 3 to 4 Billion-year age, the Earth-Moon binary system has proven highly sustainable. Even giant collisions involving the formation of the moon couldn’t knock the system off track. Additional materials, including comets with trillions of tons of water, added to the Earth while the Moon sort-of protected the new planet from other impacts and collisions, resulting in a remarkably stable binary planet system in a remarkably stable Solar System orbiting a remarkably stable star. But, “stable” doesn’t mean “static.” Our Sun is a nuclear engine, constantly accumulating Hydrogen and constantly fusing it into Helium, while, bit-by-bit, accumulating heavier elements including carbon and metals as the deep inner core of the Sun ages and “dies.” Sometimes the Sun puts out more energy, sometimes less. Eventually, some billions of years into the future, the Sun will become UNSUSTAINABLE and blow itself to bits like every star eventually will. Not even the entire Democrat Party and its Antifa troopers will be able to prevent it. OMG!
There should emerge a certain perspective on the likelihood that about 7/10ths of a billion tons of humans, including the few hundred thousand pounds of bureaucrats and committed Communists, can change the tax system enough to significantly modify the future of the Earth. Oh, they might force people to breath less, procreate less and mow their lawns less… they might even get more of them to eat bugs instead of beef (the ones with “Love is Love” signs), but they won’t – and can’t – shift the processes of Earth-sustainability in any significant way. They do, however, manage to change the meanings of perfectly good words… words like “freedom,” “rights” and “racism,” for examples… along with “climate,” “family” and “education.” Oh, yes: “peaceful,” too.
It used to be that hydro-power was “green” and sustainable, but no longer. Now it’s only “solar” and “wind” power that’s green enough. Collateral damage to animals, birds and humans along the way, is easily ignored for the “greater good.” That sounds wicked nice: “greater good.” Who wouldn’t sacrifice a few dozen whales or 62 million pre-born babies for the “greater good?” Put another way, “The end justifies the means.”
The other day, speaking at Coppin State University in Baltimore, Vice-President of the United States of America, Kamala Harris, a brilliant economist and historian, she, stated, “When we invest in clean energy and electric vehicles and reduce population, more of our children can breathe clean air and drink clean water.” (Emphasis added)
The official White House transcript shows Harris misspoke. She had intended to say “reduce pollution,” not “reduce population.” The transcript provides this correction in brackets alongside the original wording, which is crossed out. This is a process in which the Biden White House is well-practiced: modifying official statements. Back in 2020, while Joe Biden was “campaigning” from his basement, he stated that the Democrat Party had the most sophisticated voter-fraud operation ever. Of course, we were told that what he meant to say was “voter-fraud prevention,” but he needed modification. Recognizing how frequently Mr. Biden says the opposite of what he has been told to say, Prudence is not so sure that he hadn’t told the truth the first time he described the DNC’s voter-fraud operation. This is bolstered by the evidence of a very sophisticated voter-fraud operation employed in the 2020 elections.
Ms. Harris may have heard about the sophisticated population-reduction efforts and intentions of forces like the World Economic Forum, Planned Parenthood, Bill Gates and his ilk, and others, and inadvertently let slip a truth bomb. “Population / Pollution…” they are mildly alliterative, as is she, as is “Planned Parenthood.” Maybe she hadn’t proof-read or practiced her talk. The more one learns about mRNA shots pushed so diligently around the world, the words, “reduce population” may very well have been heard among the circles in which she unravels… err, travels… travels, I meant to say. The World would be a great place to live in if it weren’t for all the relatively useless people over-populating it, now. We are simply unsustainable.
The global Communist philosophy… ideology, is based on the end justifying the means, even if the means include the deaths of a hundred-Million people, or so. They had to go for the greater good because they did not think or believe correctly.
Humans have done and still do many foolish, if not stupid things. We dirty our own homes, neighborhoods, cities and lands, air and waters. We could avoid these errors and clean up what we’ve done and Prudence believes we will, in fact. Economics has distorted our values but, we can change our thinking about what is most important. Current economics is not sustainable – $32 Trillion in debt, indeed! Operating industry, living, transporting, modernizing can all be done cleanly; those who do so should be rewarded economically. Only then will we actually do something good for the environment. Only then will things become “sustainable.”