Desmond Tutu's climate change boycott madness
If, heaven forbid, Desmond Tutu's having chest pains and calls the emergency services for help, perhaps he'll tell them not to send a fosil-fuelled ambulance. His arguments are very silly, but very revealing
If there's a fashionable political bandwagon to jump on, you can bet your boots these days that one-time anti-apartheid figurehead Desmond Tutu will jump on it.
He's already well known for that most cliched of all political causes for the vacant-minded and desperate -- irrational hostility against the State of Israel. Now he's on the climate change bandwagon. And guess what he's calling for? "Boycotts, divestment and sanctions." Sound familiar?
But this time it's against fossil-fuel energy companies. To save the earth, you understand.
If, heaven forbid, he's having chest pains and calls the emergency services for help, perhaps he'll tell them not to send a fosil-fuelled ambulance. If he's relying on medics on bicycles one hopes he doesn't live at the top of a hill.
But apart from the lack of perspective, it's the absolutism of his message that really leaves one shocked (though not overly surprised given the antics of most other alarmists). Savour this from his piece in Thursday's Guardian:
"...it is appalling that the US is debating whether to approve a massive pipeline transporting 830,000 barrels of the world's dirtiest oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico."
Did you spot that? "...it is appalling that the US is debating..."
You see, for people like Desmond Tutu and so many others on the climate alarmism bandwagon, debate is unacceptable. Even in the face of all the ambiguities and gaps in the science -- no-one is claiming there's a "proof"; no-one is sure whether whatever man-made climate change there may be is going to be trivial or devastating -- for Desmond Tutu it is "appalling" that people might even debate the issue.
That is the mind-set that has worried supporters of the open society for years. If climate change is a problem, it's a problem, and we must address it. But why are these people so afraid of debate? If the case is so strong, they can only gain from airing the matter in public. No?
No. They just don't see things this way, which can only lead us to one conclusion: their case is weak, they know that, and shutting down free discussion is the only way they can sustain it.
By clarifying that matter, Desmond Tutu has done us a favour.
We are wholly dependent on the kindness of our readers for our continued work. We thank you in advance for any support you can offer.