In Progress
Originally limits to growth were proposed as real things: such as available agricultural land, and available mineral and fossil fuel reserves. Germany, largely began the second world was to conquer territory in Ukraine, so enabling a German Empire to rival the USA in prosperity. The Nazis had genuine, and practical, Malthusian obsessions here.
Thomas Malthus' orginal idea began in 1798. It's very simple. Human population grows
Obsessions over limits returned in a big way in the 1960s with Paul Ehrlich's Population Bomb (1968), and Limits to Growth (1972, by the Club of Rome). Economist took a bet out with Ehrlich. Simon bet that no matter the scarce resource, that resource would be more plentiful in future, rather than less! Julian Simon won the bet. Most environmentalists now conceed to Julian Simon. For example, Bill McKibben, founder of 350.org, poo-poos limits to growth ideas. This gives modern enviros a pseudo-progressivism.
The Switch
Beginning in the 1980s, the response of eco-doomers to Julian Simon was to switch the limits to imaginary ones - such as "pollution" (which often isn't a limit).
What if a small group of world leaders were to conclude that the principal risk to the Earth comes from the actions of the rich countries? And if the world is to survive, those rich countries would have to sign an agreement reducing their impact on the environment. Will they do it? The group's conclusion is 'no'. The rich countries won't do it. They won't change. So, in order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?
- Maurice Strong
In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interaction these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned readers about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself.
- Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider, Report for the Club, The First Global Revolution
Constipating Energy
Consider the challenge of collapsing an industrialized civilization. This is where carbon dioxide (CO2) becomes the focus. The civilization the Club opposed comprised nations built on and driven by the energy provided by fossil fuels. It’s reasonable to compare these nations to a car, the very symbol of all they detest. You can stop a car engine by cutting off the fuel supply, but that would be extremely difficult and elicit quick anger in a country, as anger when fuel prices jump demonstrate. However, you can also stop a car engine by blocking the exhaust. Transfer that idea to nations and show that CO2, the byproduct of combustion of fossil fuels, was causing runaway, catastrophic, global warming to achieve the goal. What nastier image than the belching car exhaust or the even more dramatic chimneys of industry?
- Dr Tim Ball
This strategy to "stop a car engine by blocking the exhaust" has already been devised in the early 1970s at Friends of the Earth, but to stop nuclear power, not civilization as such. The called it constipating nuclear power.
Constipation
- Nuclear
- Fossil Fuel
- Pollution
- Pychological Terror
The greenhouse gas effect is way to constipate civilization by the application of psychological terror. It's particulary aimed at the young and impressionable. I began my investigation into the greenhouse gas effect by looking into books written about it.
The outstanding thing about Bert Bolin's book is it's all about conferences held from the late 1970s onwards to clarify and estimate the size of the problem. This is in stark contrast to other books on the history of science and technology. Normal books invariably begin by describing findings from empirical research. It's clear that with the GHGE - long before any empirical research has been done, a group of scientists had already decided they had to find an problem.
Examples: This switch,
(1) began with protecting the ozone layer by banning CFCs (1986).
(2) Then, in 1988, moved on to forcing renewables by demonizing carbon dioxide as a climate change vector. The EPA even coined the term "carbon pollution". This, in turn, led to the Zero Carbon cult.
(3) Today we hear of "plastic pollution". Ideas such as carbon pollution (CO2) and plastic pollution rewrite the meaning of "pollution" into a floating signifier swear word. These imaginary pollutions are generally quite complex pseudoscience which economists and laymen cannot debate or oppose because they're posed as models. Indeed by posing pollution as a model one can hide the precise cause as a sub-model inside your model, or just a parameter. WHO go even further than this by simply claiming a certain casualty level for particulate emission when the evidence (studies) show no fatalities at low to medium particulate levels commonly experienced.
(4) The WHO claim 8 million people die annually due to particulate emission "pollution". The US EPA, have actually funded at least $500 million in research to prove the particulate emissions are toxic. Steven Milloy looks at these pseudoscientific studies - which consistently failed to reveal any toxicity (at low particulate levels) https://www.amazon.com/Scare-Pollution-Why.../dp/0998259713
Why isn't pollution a limit to growth?
Because the natural world is more dangerous than the man-made world. For example
(1) the seas are full of mercury. We still eat fish. But sensible people limit themselves to 1 portion per week. If you want to eat more, then eat small fish (such as sardines) in preference to big fish.
(2) Fungal toxins are some of the most carcinogenic substances found in nature. Fortunately we can limit our fungal intake to cultivated mushrooms, yogurt, etc.
In practice - knowledge of the real world plus a little care - protect us from pollution.
Yet - pseudo-science: ozone killing chemicals, greenhouse gases, killer particulates, and now "plastic pollution" - today dominate policy agendas, and terrify large numbers of people. Ultimately, Julian Simon won a battle but lost the war.
- 1798. An Essay on the Principle of Population, by Thomas Malthus
- 1962. Silent Sprint, by Rachel Carson
- 1968. The Population Bomb, by Paul Ehrlich
- 1972. Limits to Growth, Club of Rome
- 1980. Julian Simon versus Paul Ehrlich wager
- 1981. The ultimate resource, Julian Simon
- 1986. The Montreal Protocol
- 1992. The Holes in the Ozone Scare, by Rogelio Madura and Ralf Schauerhammer
- 2016. Scare Pollution, by Steven Milloy
- 2017. Searching for the Catastrophe Signal: The Origins of the IPCC, by Bernie Lewin
- 2013. “Waste issue” is part of antinuclear movement strategy of constipation, by Rod Adams.
- 2010. A History Of The Science And Politics Of Climate Change, by Bert Bolin
