Should The Environmental Movement Be Relabelled A Cult?

I am sure the title of this post is bound to elicit a number of emotional responses by itself, though what if there is some truth to it?

Taking the position of Devil’s Advocate for a moment, consider the following similarities that all cults have.

  • Rational thought is discouraged or forbidden
  • The cults manipulate guilt to their advantage
  • Cults are apocalyptic
  • There is a duality of “us” and “them”, where those who don’t follow the doctrine are bad
  • Motive Questioning. When sound evidence against the group is presented, members are taught to question the motivation of the presenter.
  • Finger Pointing. Creating a false sense of righteousness by pointing to the shortcomings of the outside world

When was the last time that you saw any sort of rational debate about environmental change? Those who disagree with the majority view are labelled as sceptics and ridiculed in the media. Take public opinion of Christopher Monckton and the condemnation and contempt that he was shown or even the smear campaign of an alleged hidden agenda.  David Bellamy is another example, once wildly respected, he is now shunned by his peers for casting doubt upon the effects of global warming.

We all know that we cannot trust the media or the government on a number of issues, yet we are blindly following along with the claims that they make, subscribing to any theories that they may have. It seems that as soon as the word environment or green is mentioned we all loose the ability to think independently and following along with the way that we are told to think.

Take the whole emission trading scheme for example. This has been accepted without question as being a solution to the worlds carbon emissions. Yet nothing is being done to actually stop the carbon being produced in the first place. In much the same way that raising the price of beer and cigarettes has not stopped people smoking or drinking, putting a price on carbon is not going to stop or restrict it being produced, especially when the end cost can be passed on to the consumer.

Environmental credentials are thrown around all over the place, with people and companies trying to out do each other in the environmental stakes. Politicians are even starting to use past environmental policy as proof that they are in a better position to lead the state/country compared to the other contenders, even though other policies may be less than desirable.

When did the environment become sacrosanct and those with differing thoughts labelled as heretics?