November 2017 is the 21st anniversary of the release of a letter by the Union of Concerned Scientists warning all mankind—or humankind for the gender-neutral crowd—to bring an end to “environmental destruction” in order to avoid the inevitability of “vast human misery.” Using intentionally vague language, this group of scientists documented a laundry-list of apocalyptic predictions that even Al Gore would love—and just like Al Gore’s predictions, they failed to come to pass.
So, how does the scientific community commemorate such an auspicious document? They double-down and they do it again, bigger and better with even more scientists and more dire predictions.
As was the case in the original letter, the sequel focuses on nine issues: ozone depletion, air and water pollution, collapse of fisheries, soil depletion, deforestation, loss of species, carbon emissions, global warming, and overpopulation.
While it would be easy to dismiss the second letter as simply another round of environmental hysteria, a leading voice behind the document, Oregon State University ecologist, William Ripple, delivered the frightening motivation behind its intent.
"We are jeopardizing our future by not reining in our intense but geographically and demographically uneven material consumption and by not perceiving continued rapid population growth as a primary driver behind many ecological and even societal threats."
So, according to Ripple, free market capitalism and having babies are the primary of environmental destruction. Yeah, I know what you’re thinking. He’s an environmental wacko. But before we go there, consider this; liberals have long promoted socialism over capitalism, an ideology that continues to grow in the Age of Bernie Sanders. Additionally, abortion has been defended as a way to reduce global warming as we learned from Barack Obama and Planned Parenthood.
When you consider that our country continues to drift towards becoming a post-Constitutional America, what’s to say that socialism and abortion won’t become official government policy in the near future—all in the name of saving the planet?
Ripple also stated how “some people might be tempted to dismiss this evidence and think we are just being alarmists” and how he hoped that this second warning would “ignite a widespread public debate about the global environment and climate.”
Ripple is correct; he is just being an alarmist. And as far as holding a public debate about the global environment and climate is concerned, the only way to have a debate is to consider an opposing point of view—something that environmental extremists like Ripple refuse to consider.