This past weekend’s stunning confession by Nobel prize-winning author Gunter Grass that he was once a member of Hitler’s elite SS, and that he had lied about his involvement for the past 60 years, again reminds us of the hypocrisy found in the Leftist-leaning environmentalist movement. Herr Grass’s biographer was reportedly “dumbfounded” by this revelation. So were we. A leading German historian Joachim Fest told Der Spiegel magazine, “After 60 years, this confession comes a bit too late. I can’t understand how someone who for decades set himself up as a moral authority, a rather smug one, could pull this off.”
Perhaps, the Gunter Grass case can offer us insights into the key personality characteristics of those involved in the U.S., and perhaps the worldwide, environmental movement: smug, leftist-leaning, self-righteous, holier-than-thou and secretive. But there is also a Nazi-like totalitarian bent to the modern-day U.S. environmentalist, one who opposes the peaceful spread of civilian nuclear power to an energy-starved planet.
Let’s talk about specific environmentalists and discover how some developed their nuclear-contrarian philosophies. For instance, why won’t Hillary Clinton’s “energy guru” Amory Lovins join members of a more scientific club, which includes Dr. James Lovelock, Patrick Moore and Stewart Brand by endorsing nuclear energy? Here’s one of Amory’s best quotes on the subject: “It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy because of what we might do with it.”
A former nature lover in Wales, Amory Lovins got his start as an author by writing a book paid for by David Brower, then president of Friends of the Earth (FOE). Brower liked Lovins’ book about an endangered Welsh park that the FOE paid him to write a few more books. Hardly registering a pulse on the world’s radar screen, Lovins moved back to the U.S. and became a tour guide in New Hampshire. He made a name for himself with the anti-nuclear crowd by writing a book called Non-Nuclear Futures. It was only after the 1973 energy crisis, and especially after he hooked up with L. Hunter Sheldon, an attorney (whom he wisely married), when Lovins was taken seriously. His marriage to Hunter, though, didn’t erase one of his more famous mathematical miscalculations, in which he was quoted as saying, “Phasing out nuclear power should make our electricity cost not more but less.”
In a similar vein, another ‘scientific environmentalist’ and thrice-nominated for the Nobel Prize, Paul Ehrlich once said, “Giving society cheap, abundant energy… would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.” Ehrlich was best known for his 1968 environmentalist cult classic, The Population Bomb. The book argued for zero population growth and was later revised because of Ehrlich’s numerous errors and poorly conceived forecasts. Again, it was written after encouragement by (guess who?) David Brower. Both Ehrlich and Lovins owe their career launches to David Brower, who critics called a radical and militant environmentalist. He was the mentor for each of these anti-nuclear characters, as well as many others.
Some environmentalists owe their ‘blind faith’ to a single individual, especially when the individual enriches his life, either financially or through some other means. Brower was the true driving force behind Lovins and Ehrlich for many years. An admittedly zealous environmentalist, David Brower helped start many environmental organizations. These included the Sierra Club Foundation, John Muir Institute for Environmental Studies, Friends of the Earth, League of Conservation Voters, Ecological Council of America, Earth Island Institute and others.
Before he died in November 2000, Brower was the chief proselytizer for the environmentalist movement over more than four decades. That seems to coincide with the rise of the anti-nuclear movement. He ticked off his peers by arguing against overpopulation and immigration. Some called him very bad names. Perhaps they were being too gentle in their appraisal of Mr. Brower. He forever left his mark on the environmental movement as eulogized by a CNN reporter after his death.
Having lost his job in a candy factory, Brower moved on to office work for Yosemite National Park. He found his true life’s calling in the publicity department of that national park. Without missing a step, PR-savvy David Brower took a quiet, concerned non-profit organization, The Sierra Club, and quickly built up its membership. As a result of Brower’s fanaticism, the organization overstepped its boundaries and lost its tax-exempt status in 1969. Brower’s best friends, including fellow board member and world renowned photographer Ansel Adams, helped kick him out of the Sierra Club. In one commentary, it was reported Brower had committed the Sierra Club “to positions that the board had never taken – and was financially irresponsible to boot.”
Apparently, Brower never learned his manners. Rejected by the Sierra Club, he started Friends of the Earth (FOE), to pursue his radical environmentalism. Ten years later, the FOE didn’t want him as their friend anymore. They tossed him out. By 1982, Brower got around to starting the Earth Island Institute, where he remains idolized by this reportedly radical Berkeley-based group. In 1999 and as his last hurrah, Brower made a final stab at heading up the Sierra Club again. He gave it up after he realized hardly enough members wanted him to lead this group. And then he died.
But Brower’s legacy was not really one of having created a better or cleaner environment. Witness the global rising of carbon dioxide emissions as one testament to his militant philosophy. It was for naught. If Brower had truly cared about the environment, he would have used all of his fury to shut down the nation’s coal mines and to demand utilities rely mostly on nuclear energy. He did not take that path. Instead, Brower fought to save a few national parks and stir up a lot animosity.
A closer look at the roots of the environmentalist movement demonstrates its foundation is built around being ‘anti-people.’ The modern-day environmentalist is not truly eager to create a better environment. His secretive wish is to reduce the world’s population. All fine and well – sounds like a great idea to reduce the population, eh? But, who shall offer up his life in order to save the life of a seagull or spotted owl? Certainly not the environmentalist.
As magazine columnist Lowell Ponte wrote, “For many political Leftists, environmentalism is merely a pretext through which private property and capitalism can be regulated, strangled, and finally replaced with totalitarian government ownership of everything.”
Is this far-fetched or a simplistic analysis of the environmental movement? Let’s take one of David Brower’s key philosophies. Brower had some very strong opinions about the family unit. One famous quote his fellow environmentalists probably wish Brower had never made was, “Childbearing (should be) a punishable crime against society unless the parents hold a government license.” Brower didn’t leave it at that, but insisted on taking his philosophy to the next level, “All potential parents (should be) required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
It certainly wouldn’t be the man in the family unit taking this antidote. In other words, Brower wanted women to take chemicals, which would prevent them from bearing children. A married woman would then be given an ‘antidote’ for those chemicals in order to become pregnant, but only if the ‘State’ issued her a license. Does this sound like Huxley’s novel, Brave New World? This is pure totalitarianism. (By the way, Brower left three children behind and grandchildren. I guess his philosophy only applied to others, not himself.)
Some say Brower supported and advocated Marxist regimes. Brower’s totalitarian spirit was embraced by the Sandinistas in Nicaragua. The Soviets used him for propaganda purposes during the tail end of the Cold War. Totalitarian politics welcome population reduction theories, especially when it comes to reducing the populations of an enemy’s territory. Ehrlich’s “zero population” theory, which Brower encouraged Ehrlich to pursue, came from an 18th century mathematician.
Cambridge University professor Thomas Malthus was called “Pop” by his students because he advocated population control. Malthus refused to have his portrait drawn, until the year before he died, because he’d spent his entire life feeling ugly – he had a cleft palate and hare lip. It is interesting to note David Brower grew up being called “the toothless boob.” Falling out of his carriage as an infant, he injured his baby teeth and damaged his gums. Not until he was eleven years old did his second set of teeth grow in. Brower told his biographer he grew up afraid to smile. No kidding. Perhaps being deformed and rejected by one’s peers can engender a lifelong cynicism about people.
First published in 1798, Malthus’ Essay on the Principle of Population predicted the world’s population would outgrow its food supply. Malthus calculated the world’s food supply would continue growing at an arithmetic rate unless geometric population growth was somehow controlled. Malthus solution was for the poor and working classes to stop, or postpone, their creation activities by marrying late in life and abstaining from sex until then. He believed certain ‘positive checks’ would help prevent excessive population growth. These included war, famine, infanticide, diseases and homosexuality.
As often happens, Malthus’ essay was misinterpreted, in this case to blame the poor and working class for most of society’s ills. But his admirers were worldwide and also continued into the next few centuries. One such fan, economist John Maynard Keynes, advocated government intervention in the financial markets (perhaps because he had nearly wiped out his entire fortune during the 1929 stock market crash). The basic premise of Keynesian economics is to “reduce want.” This goes in hand with Keynes’ most popular quote, “In the long run, we are all dead.”
None of this implies that all environmentalists are bad people. However, you should be aware of the philosophies which have influenced the modern-day environmental movement and from whence they came. Over many long and philosophical telephone conversations with uranium insiders, we discovered many were more environmentally motivated than the radical rabble rousers living in urban DC, San Francisco or Santa Fe, New Mexico. Take for example Craig Bartels, president of HRI, a wholly owned subsidiary of Uranium Resources Inc. (OTC BB: UREE). He admitted he and his wife were both card-carrying environmentalists. He refused to become involved with the coal mining industry and admired the low-impact footprint of the environmentally friendly In Situ Recovery (ISR) method of uranium mining. This method is so low impact that many industry insiders believe it is not uranium mining. Instead, they refer to ISR facilities as ‘water treatment plants.’
One benefit the radical environmentalist movement unintentionally brings to the uranium mining industry, and something we look forward to nearly every week, is the rising spot uranium price. As environmentalists pester uranium mining companies, they slow down the exploration, development and mining process. This helps create a perceived scarcity of available uranium for U.S. utilities and spot prices rise.
And rising uranium prices attract a greater number of uranium exploration and development companies. This number has increased by 1000 percent over the past 36 months. This could lead to higher uranium prices, more mining companies and more production centers. Eventually, this provides more sources of uranium to power the world’s nuclear reactors. Now, how is this bad?
As we discovered with Gunter Grass’s sixty-year old skeleton-in-his-closet, the leftist-leaning, smug, “intellectual,” and totalitarian-minded anti-nuclear personality might not have the best quality of life in mind for us ordinary folks.
