Eco-Justice, EPA Style
In the early 1970s, a trendy role-playing exercise, the “Lifeboat Game,” presumed to clarify students’ values in public school classrooms. It works like this: As a group of survivors, lost in rough seas, cling to a dangerously overcrowded rescue boat, they reason that some of them must be sacrificed for others to live. Based on its self-acclaimed moral authority, derived from decades of ecological restoration, who better than the EPA to make the cut? To this end, each survivor is rated by his or her value to society. In a reenactment of this provocative game, let’s imagine the Environmental Protection Agency is charged with the following life-death decisions.
Women and Children: Ann Bressington and Neonate Non-Person
Designated decision-makers ponder the golden standard of conduct for shipwrecks – namely, “women and children first.” Though arguably chivalrous, the code is determined to be myth that “went down with the Titanic a century ago.”
Since all agree that saving “ladies first” is archaic, Australian politician Ann Bressington is fast fingered for ejection. In her view, Agenda 21 effectively (and inappropriately) controls every aspect of life. She objects to big-project spending that ignores lack of funds and horrific debt while, at the same time, requiring ordinary citizens to tighten their belts. Finally, Bressington rejects belief that private land ownership unfairly concentrates wealth and thereby contributes to social injustice. Because social equity and “environmental justice” justify the EPA’s very existence, Bressington is first to go.
The next easy nix is a nameless, neonate non-person, inflicted with a visible birth defect. All concur, the surviving child, attended by its elderly grandmother, is an unsustainable, useless eater, hardly qualified as one of the 250-300 million populace judged ideal for sustaining the planet. Hence, bye-bye, baby. Referencing the “I Have Lived a Good Life” campaign, whereupon smiling seniors admit to having used up their share of earth’s resources, the EPA nixes Grandma, too.
PC Sensitive Ejections of Dr. Ben Carson and Tiger Woods
Next under consideration, a distinguished African-American, Dr. Ben Carson gained international notoriety for his innovative technique in separating even adult conjoined twins. Technocracy is rule by scientific experts over an economic system designed to replace capitalism and free enterprise, as we know it today; but Carson will have no part in it. If for no other reason than his conservative politics, the good doctor-scientist is targeted for ejection; however, in moving forward, it’s agreed, extreme care must be taken not to appear racist.
Under similar consideration, the “World’s Greatest Golfer” Tiger Woods is yet another famous person of color; however, the Global Biodiversity Assessment directed by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) calls for urgent action to reverse the effects of unsustainable human activities on global biodiversity, including but not limited to golf courses.
Therefore, along with Carson, Tiger goes down.
Pro-life David Green
Fundamental Christianity is no friend to bio-centricity. Nor is David Green. Founding CEO of Hobby Lobby, David Green is an obvious cut. A Christian of unwavering conviction, Green defied the Obama Care mandate supporting “women’s reproductive health.” Though constitutionally correct, Green is by no means an advocate of zero population growth. Don’t let his PC name fool you: Down he goes, along with the others!
EPA’s Own: Alan Carlin
A midlevel EPA employee might expect favor, but not Alan Carlin. In March 2009, Carlin wrote a critical, 98-page report backed by peer-reviewed science, which concluded, “We believe our concerns and reservations are sufficiently important to warrant a serious review of the science by the EPA.” Carlin’s supervisor, an Obama appointee, quelled the report and warned Carlin via email not to spend additional EPA time on climate change. Be sure the EPA condones no dissent to its contrived mantra of man-caused global warming, and apparently Carlin’s no exception. He goes down with Green.
NASA’s Dr. Roy Spencer
Former head of NASA’s Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer Unit, Dr. Roy Spencer has shown clearly that the theory of man-made global warming rests on incorrect assumptions. Furthermore, the EPA “did not fully meet the independence requirements for reviews of highly influential scientific assessments”; and an Inspector General’s report was based on procedural, not scientific matters. Despite his being principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, Spencer is no “yes man.” Hence, he’s history.
Tom Harris is likewise a marked man. An articulate spokesman for the growing camp of scientist skeptics – i.e., “realists” – Harris challenges the increasingly discredited dogma attending climate alarmism. Executive Director of the International Climate Science Coalition based in Ottawa, Canada, Harris wrote an opinion piece on the EPA’s new power plant regulations that recently appeared in the New York Post. The title alone (“How the EPA Ignores the Public and Science”) cinches Harris’ fate.
By now, EPA decision-makers feel quite smug about ridding the planet of undesirables. Their attention turns to “winners of the draw,” survivors handpicked to remain safe on the proverbial lifeboat.
Who, then, can (and will) be saved?
More to come in Part 2.