Young Environmental Activists: Pawns in a Larger Game?

In Climate Change, Colleges and Universities, Divestment, Environment, Life, Politics, The Big Picture by Megan Toombs Kinard0 Comments

Young people are the foot soldiers of change. We have the passion, fewer responsibilities competing for time, and as William Pitt said in the movie Amazing Grace, “…we’re too young to realize certain things are impossible. Which is why we will do them anyway.”

But many young people fall into the pit of passion without knowledge—supporting a cause they know little about because it makes them feel good, or they think it’s a good idea. We need to remember that with age comes wisdom, and so with youth comes a responsibility to seek it.

What is that supposed to mean? Research and learn about the issues you want to support. Don’t go with the crowd, be wise, be thoughtful, and always be open to learning from others.

The perfect example of youth impassioned for change on an issue most know little about is the climate change debate (and, spawned by it, the fossil fuel divestment debate). Young people think they are “saving the planet” from real dangers that will hurt not only “mother earth,” but people too.

But as the last week of the Paris Climate Conference is ongoing, the real agenda behind the global environmental alarmist movement is becoming more and more apparent. Despite the PR professionals’ best efforts, it appears no one is truly worried about climate change, or people in poverty.

Surprise, surprise.

The current 48-page document coming out of Paris so far leaves many issues unresolved. If negotiators can’t figure a way to compromise, the attempt at replacing the Kyoto Protocol will fail.

What’s the hang up? Island nations want stronger regulations to reduce global warming, either because they truly have drunk the alarmist kool aid, or they are trying to derail the negotiations, or maybe because they know only Western countries will abide by the agreement anyway — so it won’t do them any damage.

That’s right, no developing nations will abide by an agreement that dooms their populations to poverty — which is exactly what reducing CO2 emissions does. The only way to raise the populations of places like India, China, and Sub-Saharan Africa out of poverty is through high-density, affordable, reliable fuels: fossil fuels, nuclear energy, and, where adequate rivers are nearby, hydro are our best sources of that.

And so, it becomes obvious that Paris is not about helping poor people.

The two basic reasons they are even at the negotiation table is because Western countries have pressured them to do so, and those same countries have pledged (but with conditions that probably can’t be met) enormous amounts of money and technology to developing nations as “reparations” for past CO2 emissions and to subsidize hugely expensive “renewable” (lousy) energy sources.

Did you catch that? Reparations and transfer of wealth. The only reasons developing countries are even paying attention to climate alarmism is because we have pledged to pay them, with billions of our hard-earned dollars.

That’s socialism — take from those who have and give to those who don’t — except in this case, I doubt the money will ever reach the poor people. It will most likely line the pockets, and Swiss bank accounts, of oligarchs. Oh wait, that’s how socialism has always worked!

The ideologues discovered environmentalism was the perfect vehicle for the advancement of socialism decades ago. Never mind that socialist/communist countries have a terrible track record for environmental degradation, and human rights.

If Western countries agree to reduce CO2 emissions drastically, while developing countries continue to grow at exponential rates and, at the same time, transfer wealth from the West to the rest, we in the West will become poorer and poorer, and our death rates will rise, as inversely those in developing nations become wealthier (the oligarchs from our transfer payments, and the poor from their continued CO2 emissions).

This policy will have zero effect on climate change, but the world will be more “equal” and we can stop feeling “guilty” about having more than others.


We could stop the climate madness, encourage developing countries to do what we did (use fossil fuels, nuclear, and hydro energy) to pull their people from poverty and death, and support development policies that place money in the hands of entrepreneurs and those who will provide life-giving necessities instead of placing that money into the pockets of those in power.

We don’t have to promote an us-vs-them mentality. Western countries can continue to be wealthy and successful while supporting the growing wealth and success of developing nations.

Share this Post

This article was originally published on

Megan is the Director of Communications for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, and Editor of You can follow her on Twitter @MeganToombs.

Leave a Comment