Tag: sustainability

Sustainability Does Not Exist

Oh, boy. Now I can sit back and wait for the Bangs, Whistles, Whammos, Biffs, and Bongs that the environmental and climate change anointed will be throwing at me. Notice the use of onomatopoeia in the previous sentence. But, I digress.

As I was cruising around the blogosphere, I made my regular stop at Watts Up With That, the most popular scientific website in existence. I found an article titled, “UNESCO: We Must Redesign Global Literacy Programmes to Incorporate our Climate Propaganda“.

The article is about a UNESCO worldwide literacy proposal, “International Literacy Day, devoted this year to the connection between literacy and sustainable development, provides us with an opportunity to remember a simple truth: literacy not only changes lives, it saves them.

OK. I will buy that literacy helps save the lives of ignorant people the world over, but what does sustainable development have to do with that? Perhaps Wikipedia can help.

Sustainability:  “In ecology, sustainability (from sustain and ability) is the property of biological systems to remain diverse and productive indefinitely.”

Now that everyone has had a chance to see the definition of sustainability, I have to point out that nothing is forever. The context of the word, indefinitely means “without ending”. Wow, mom and dad. They have found infinity.


Do you suppose that our ecologists really think that infinity exists? Their definition of sustainable ecologies makes you wonder if any have ever been to high school, much less college.

This article is all about trying to find a connection between literacy and sustainability. It appears that there is none. A bunch of PhD’s probably originated this fallacy, but it’s not hard to prove that they are either completely wrong, or are trying to perpetuate a scam on the American people.

Nothing is sustainable. Period. Every physical system takes energy, work, supplies, water, effort to continue to exist, etc. An infinitely sustainable system, by definition, is impossible.

How about short-term sustainability? This is what we work for everyday, and we apply all our energy into surviving, or sustaining life for another minute, hour, day…

That, my good friends, is sustainability, but the goal of the ecologists is for some sort of stasis, or death, because nothing is sustainable by their definition. As improbable as it seems, death is exactly what the extreme ecologists advocate. Mankind, according to them, is bad and does not deserve the resources necessary to survive and prosper on the planet. Kill, baby, kill the bad human.

Dr John Holdren, his colleagues and coauthors, Drs Paul and Ann Ehrlich, and a large contingent of ecologists believe that planet Earth is better served by decreasing the human population. In educated circles this idea is called genocide. John Holdren is the personal science advisor to President Barack Obama. Now you know where Obama gets his infantile ideas on environment.

There is no reality about ecological sustainability. There is no connection between ecological sustainability and literacy, unless by becoming literate you can judge this ecological scam accurately. That’s the only connection. Smart people don’t believe ecological sustainability exists.

The idea of sustainability is political, not scientific. The UN, a rogue political body, wants to indoctrinate children with this fallacious idea.


Sustainability – The New Buzzword

picture of polar bears
Polar bear population is greater now than fifty years ago.

Welcome to the newest meaningless buzz word, sustainability.

We hear the word being bandied about all the time, but have you ever really sat down and thought about what it really means?  Our environmental kooks have given the word, sustainability, the following definition.

From Dictionary.com : Sustainability – Environmental Science . the quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources, and thereby supporting long-term ecological balance: The committee is developing sustainability standards for products that use energy.

There you have it. Something that is sustainable supports ecological balance. The problem is that nobody knows what ecological balance is. They just make it up as they go.

The World Wrestling Federation  World Wildlife Fund demonstrates this ability to make stuff up with the following.

Ecological Balance:  Ecological balance has been defined by various online dictionaries as “a state of dynamic equilibrium within a community of organisms in which genetic, species and ecosystem diversity remain relatively stable, subject to gradual changes through natural succession.” and “A stable balance in the numbers of each species in an ecosystem.”

First of all, equilibrium as postulated does not exist. Relative numbers, and the stability of populations change all the time, especially if viewed from a historical standpoint. The problem, here, is that the WWF nutto’s have created something that does not exist, dynamic equilibrium. There is no guaranteed, or normal, state of equilibrium in  nature. All we see, now, are simply snapshots of nature at a given time, and we don’t even see or understand the whole picture.

The eco-whacko’s tell us that the use of oil as a primary energy source is unsustainable. OK. I will buy that. But, it is sustainable for at least the next century.

Where did I get the 100 years? Well, some sources say it will be only twenty or thirty years before oil gets so expensive we cannot afford it. However, we have recently discovered major reserves in the oil sands beneath Canada and the United States. Great Britain has discovered huge amounts of natural gas in shale rock formations.

Here is the problem with the sustainable idea, and it doesn’t take an Einstein to see it. Nothing in this world is sustainable forever. Even with the eco-whacko definition of sustainability, the environment changes so much naturally, that we cannot define the equilibrium points.

So, the word sustainable in the environmental sense is a contrived concept that conveniently fits into a Marxist agenda.

In the long-term, nothing is sustainable. In the long-term we are all dead.