There are those of us that resist calls to over-react. We prefer to calmly and logically analyze problems than jump to conclusions and take action before we fully understand the problem--or if there is a problem at all.

Modern environmentalism is a perfect example. Over the last decade, the whole debate over "climate change" has reached a fervor pace. Claim after claim is made, the IPCC issues report after report, and heat waves and hurricanes are promptly blamed on global warming. Satellite evidence of a lack of global warming is twisted to supposedly support global warming, extremely cold winters are attributed to "localized cooling that is a part of global warming," droughts and floods are all blamed on global warming. It can be downright humorous to read news articles and observe the absolutely vast range of problems that are trying to be attributed to global warming.

Of course, there is and always has been the crowd of skeptics. When we see extreme claims of "the sky is falling" or "we need to halve CO2 production in five years or the planet is doomed," we rightfully become suspicious. Given our relatively limited understanding of all the dynamics that effect our environment, the relatively short temperature record that is adequately accurate for tracking changes in the climate, and based on the solutions that some environmentalists propose to solve the problem, it is not unreasonable to question the real intentions of these people.

A classic example was the Kyoto protocol . This was an international agreement that aimed at reducing CO2 production, but excused two of the largest CO2 producers: China and India . Since that list was created, China has become the #1 total CO2 producer, overtaking even the United States. If the goal of the Kyoto Protocol was really to reduce CO2, why would the now-#1 producer of CO2 be excluded from the limits?

It has been logical contradictions such as this that have lead skeptics to be rightfully skeptical not only of the science involved, but of the intentions of this group of people.

Then, on July 6th, 2007, there was an article on CNN about the Live Earth Worldwide Concerts that were launched to apparently raise awareness of the global warming problem--as if there was anyone that hadn't already been absolutely saturated with that message. In this article, there was a most interesting quote:

"The path to a solution lies with policymakers in this country taking action, not you and I changing our light bulbs," said Chris Miller, director of global warming for Greenpeace.

The significance of this quote cannot be overstated. This quote indicates that the global warming proponents are more concerned about passing mandatory legislation forcing their views on society than convincing society itself that their views are correct and inspiring society to voluntarily use energy-saving light bulbs, turn off lights as much as possible, try to consolidate errands to reduce gas consumption, buy more efficient vehicles, maybe walking to the corner store rather than driving, install solar panels on their house, etc. These are all useful tactics that, if everyone implemented, would have a significant effect on our country's energy consumption without any new legislation whatsoever. This is precisely where the path to a solution lies: In convincing society to change their habits because they are aware of the consequences of their actions and actually believe that the sacrifices are worthwhile.

However, it would seem that the environmentalist movement has now shown its true colors. They are no longer interested in making their case to the public. Convincing the public requires no legislative action, no bureaucracy, and no fundamental changes to our economy. It just involves convincing people of the environmental message and inspiring them to take voluntary action.

But that's not what the environmentalists like Green Peace are apparently interested in. That's not the purpose of the Live Earth concerts. The purpose, apparently, is to motivate lawmakers to take action. In other words, they want to compel lawmakers to pass laws making their views mandatory. They don't want to inspire people to take action, they want to use government to compel people to take action.

When I read that quote, I couldn't believe it. This is essentially confirmation of the suspicions that a lot of us have had of the modern environmental movement. In the case of Kyoto, it really wasn't about reducing CO2 emissions--if it had been, China and India wouldn't have been excluded. And, now, the director of global warming at Greenpeace has stated that the solution doesn't lie in the actions of individuals but in the passage of mandatory legislation by lawmakers.

I have long believed that modern environmentalism--which is purportedly most concerned about CO2 emissions and global warming rather than real pollution of our air and rivers--has hijacked the true environmentalist movement and is using it as a tool to institute the social and economic changes they want. Kyoto, when logically analyzed, would have had no significant output on CO2 production but would have transfered industry (and, thus, wealth) to countries such as China and India. And now, apparently, the environmental movement doesn't care about the individual actions of people but wants to codify their proposals into mandatory legislation.

While the intent of many individuals in the environmental movement are certainly done with an honest desire to 'fix' our environment, the ringleaders of the movement have shown once again that their interest is in wealth redistribution and power. Those that don't share this belief have labeled those of us who do as cynics or that we are simply trying to deny reality. However, one must look at the statements made by these environmentalists, the proposals they offer, the potential results of those proposals, and take a rational look at what it all means on balance.

On balance, I honestly believe that the policies of the environmental leaders are less about our environment than they are about forcing lifestyle changes on all of us and attempting to engage in indirect wealth distribution.