Posts

Why Greens Love to Invoke the Holocaust

By nathalie / July 9, 2009

Perhaps Al Gore, while preparing for his speech this week at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment in Oxford, England, laid down on the lawn of his multimillion dollar Nashville mansion, gazed at the cloud formations above, and thought that one of them looked remarkably like Hitler.

Because in Oxford, Gore said that, when it comes to global warming, politicians should follow the lead of Winston Churchill, ‘who aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilisation in World War Two’.

This is not the first time that Gore has evoked the spirit of Churchill and the threat of Hitler to describe world leaders’ apparent apathy in the face of climate change. In his acceptance speech for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, he said: ‘[D]espite a growing number of honourable exceptions, too many of the world’s leaders are still best described in the words Winston Churchill applied to those who ignored Adolf Hitler’s threat: “They go on in strange paradox, decided only to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity, all powerful to be impotent.”’

As for his Oxford speech, it is not surprising that Gore’s insistence that world leaders DO SOMETHING about global warming and fight CO2 emissions as if they were bombs falling out of Luftwaffe aircraft became the headline grabber. ‘We have everything we need except political will’, said Gore, ‘but’ – as he has quipped many times before – ‘political will is a renewable resource’. (Gore sure knows how to recycle jokes. Another of his favourites is to introduce himself as follows: ‘Hi, my name is Al Gore. I was the next president of the United States.’)

In his Oxford speech, Gore also talked of the importance of entrepreneurs showing leadership in the fight against global warming and the steps that can be taken to ensure global energy efficiency. He told of how some countries have started constructing zero-carbon buildings, and warned of the dangers of deforestation, industrial emissions, soil carbon and more.

Still, nothing beats a not-so-subtle hint at the N-word to ram home an alarmist message about impending global climate chaos. In fact, though some environmentalists have argued that Gore’s shrillness in Oxford might have been counterproductive, the Nazi comparison is the green movement’s trump card.

Environmentalists constantly conjure up Holocaust imagery – on the one hand to stress that climate change is a simplistic moral issue, and on the other hand to shut down debate on the matter. We all know the Holocaust happened, we all know it was wrong, we all know who were the villains and who were the victims. Well, replace the Jews with flora and fauna, the Nazis with Big Business, and racist revisionists with ‘climate change sceptics’ and, voilà, you have a ready-made morality tale which will demonstrate the urgency of tackling global warming and the outrageousness of ever questioning the environmentalist agenda.

This twisted reasoning can even lead experienced scientists to compare coal-fuelled electricity generation to the systematic extermination of Jews by the Nazis. The NASA climate scientist, James E Hansen, once said: ‘If we cannot stop the building of more coal-fired power plants, those coal trains will be death trains – no less gruesome than if they were boxcars headed to crematoria, loaded with uncountable irreplaceable species.’ Think of that next time you leave your television on standby – you might be implicit in killing off Jews, or some other ‘species’, just like the SS officers in charge of the mass transportations to the Nazi concentration camps.

If you question the severity of the climate threat, or argue that how humanity should handle it is up for debate, you are likely to be called a ‘climate change denier’. One green went so far as to advocate Nuremberg-style war crimes trials for those who question anthropogenic climate change. Another commentator wrote: ‘I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.’

So, contesting the irrefutable evidence that six million Jews were murdered by the Nazis is put on a par with questioning events that have not even happened yet. To demand that policies which affect our everyday lives should be put up for critical inquiry and debate is likened to falsifying history.

In his Oxford speech, Gore admitted that it is difficult to persuade the public that the threat from climate change is as urgent as the threat from Hitler was in the 1930s. Yes, that’s because the majority of sensible people can tell the difference between the manageable challenges posed by changes to the environment and the global havoc wreaked by the Second World War, the rise of fascism, and the Nazis’ attempt to annihilate the Jews.

Nathalie Rothschild is commissioning editor of spiked.

POST A COMMENT

  • Ron Lewenberg
    By RonL 7/20/09 at 10:51 p.m. UTC

    Otherwise someone may notice taht Hitler was an environmentalist and a vegitarian.

  • Dennis Tielmann
    By Flashy8 7/16/09 at 7:12 p.m. UTC

    I agree that Gores comments are becoming more and more counter-productive. Nobody likes panic sounding alarmists. It almost sounds like he’s grasping for straws now. I do believe that humans play part in the current climate change but only minutely so I can’t really understand his behaviour. I used to be a follower of his actually and for the intelligent and wide-sighted person he always appeared to be I’m surprised he hasn’t calmed down a biy by now and adjusted his message to the more bigger picture, like solar activity and cosmic gamma rays.

     

     

  • By jer 7/14/09 at 6:51 p.m. UTC

    It also occurs to me that it might even be a good thing that people are so quick to compare current events to the holocaust. After all, the whole lesson we’re supposed to have learned is "never again", so I think it speaks well of us that we’re so scrupulous in trying to make sure that any potential future holocausts are nipped in the bud. I do wish we’d be more careful in actually evaluating how like the holocaust a given crisis actually is, but if our rhetoric is anything to go by, at least you can’t say we don’t care.

  • By jer 7/14/09 at 6:45 p.m. UTC

    Look, I agree it’s silly to try and cast everything in terms of the holocaust, but this is something everybody does. Godwin’s law exists for a reason. Whenever a politician advocates talking with Hamas, or Iran, or Saddam (way back when), there was a chorus every-ready to call out "appeasement!". As in, failure to invade Iraq, or Iran, or bomb Gaza, or whatever would allow a second holocaust to occur. I just googled the phrase "next Hitler", and guess what? It’s not just environmentalists who are convinced that inaction might lead down the road to results so terrible as to justify comparison to the Nazi’s genocide. Hell, Margaret Thatcher invoked Chamberlain in the fucking Falkland War. WWIII that was most emphatically not. So, lighten up, maybe? It’s an analogy; you highlight similarities between two entities in order to prove a point. People didn’t act in time, something bad happened therefore, if we don’t act in time, something bad will happen. I agree it’s not exactly logically airtight, but far more useful than decrying the use of one of the most over-used rhetorical tactics would be to explain why the analogy doesn’t hold. 

  • Chris Nicholls
    By Cruisin_80 7/13/09 at 9:55 p.m. UTC

    What a ridiculous article.

    The author must have really thought long and hard about how she could link Al Gore to "holocaust denier" … and she did! Amazing… but absurdly so. The fact that Al Gore referred to Churchill and Hitler in the context of global warming debate had absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with the Holocaust.

    If anyone was responsible for ‘using’ the Holocaust to try and prove a point, it’s this author. How dare she use such a frightful and horrific event to attack another person and their beliefs. She should be ashamed of such a piece of journalistic conjecture and fabrication.

    Whether you believe or don’t believe in Global Warming and man’s infuence on that, is one thing – but emotively linking the unlinkable as a substitute for good journalism is entirely another. 

    SHAM… don’t fall for it.

  • By Alcove-One 7/10/09 at 9:51 a.m. UTC

    Calling people "deniers" is a cute trick. They left hates debate and trys to silence dissenters and this is a tried and true tactic.

    Climate change is a scam and another way for government to control our lives. There is a reason why it is embraced by the far-left in this world.

    They cannot predict if it will rain the day after tomorrow but they will predict the temperature 20 years from now.

    SCAM…don’t fall for it.

  • Chase Hill
    By chase4hill 7/9/09 at 5:11 p.m. UTC

    I feel that people (especially Americans) don’t want to be bothered with something unless it JUST bit them in the ass. Most of the US has been unaffected by climate change. However you go to parts of Africa and the Middle East where a few degrees in temperature has completely ruined crops and the livelihood of thousands of people. But hey- we’re Americans, we’re far away, what do we care? Like the Holocaust; oh it can’t be THAT bad, nothing has happened to us Americans yet.

     

    Most people need to get their heads out of their ass!

Wanna post your own comments?