Eco-Fundamentalists? Hate, Actually.

by Jimmy Akin

in Moral Theology, Other Religions, Science

Let me say up front that I have nothing against treating the environment in a responsible manner. It’s implied by the commission God gave mankind in Genesis 1. I also try to avoid fights about words, so whether one would call a responsible environmental position “conservationion” or “environmentalism” is a thing that does not need to be fought about.

But there is a very prominent strand in the environmental movement that takes matters to extreme and anti-human limits. In a previous post, I have referred to this position as environmental fundamentalism, to distinguish it from healthy concern for the environment.

I mean, nobody wants to make Iron Eyes Cody‘s iron eyes cry. Do they?

However that may be, the deeply misanthropic views and “convert-or-die” rhetoric of environmental fundamentalism was very clearly on display this week, with the release of a shock video produced by 10:10, an international initiative to get people to cut their “carbon emissions” by 10%.


Oh, and that is Gillian Anderson of X-Files fame at the end, now sporting long blond tresses.

According to the 10:10 initiative, the script for this video was written by “Britain’s leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis,” who is the director of the 2003 romantic comedy, “Love Actually.” What the video displays, however, is hate, actually. Hatred of those who disagree with you such that you find it funny to ironically lie to them (“No pressure”) and then depict their bloody and explosive deaths in graphic detail (shlurppp!) . . . even if they are children.

The Telegraph’s James Delingpole, “a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything” puts it well when he says:

With No Pressure, the environmental movement has revealed the snarling, wicked, homicidal misanthropy beneath its cloak of gentle, bunny-hugging righteousness.

Meanwhile, over at 10:10’s “media partner” The Guardian, we read the following from 10:10 founder Franny Armstrong:

“Doing nothing about climate change is still a fairly common affliction, even in this day and age. What to do with those people, who are together threatening everybody’s existence on this planet? Clearly we don’t really think they should be blown up, that’s just a joke for the mini-movie, but maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start?” jokes 10:10 founder and Age of Stupid film maker Franny Armstrong.

But why take such a risk of upsetting or alienating people, I ask her: “Because we have got about four years to stabilise global emissions and we are not anywhere near doing that. All our lives are at threat and if that’s not worth jumping up and down about, I don’t know what is.”

“We ‘killed’ five people to make No Pressure – a mere blip compared to the 300,000 real people who now die each year from climate change,” she adds.


Well, the blowback on this one was such that 10:10 swiftly pulled its own video and issued this completely inadequate and insincere half-apology:


Today we put up a mini-movie about 10:10 and climate change called ‘No Pressure’.

With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. We were therefore delighted when Britain’s leading comedy writer, Richard Curtis – writer of Blackadder, Four Weddings, Notting Hill and many others – agreed to write a short film for the 10:10 campaign. Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended.

As a result of these concerns we’ve taken it off our website. We won’t be making any attempt to censor or remove other versions currently in circulation on the internet.

We’d like to thank the 50+ film professionals and 40+ actors and extras and who gave their time and equipment to the film for free. We greatly value your contributions and the tremendous enthusiasm and professionalism you brought to the project.

At 10:10 we’re all about trying new and creative ways of getting people to take action on climate change. Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.

Onwards and upwards,

Franny, Lizzie, Eugenie and the whole 10:10 team

The casual, breezy tone adopted by Franny, Lizzie, Eugenie, and the whole 10:10 team makes it clear that they just don’t “get it.” Note also how “many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but . . . some didn’t.”

Yeah. Nice defense of your own filmmaking in the first clause. Nice dissing of the people you’re apologizing to in the second. You’re so sincere.

And this is by no means that eco-fundamentalism has revealed its misanthropic face in the media.

Delingpole helpfully provides a link to this threatening videogram delivered by Greenpeace, in which a wee bairn stonefacedly appears to make patricidal and matricidal insinuations:

Charming lad, that.

So . . . nice to see the mask coming off.

What are your thoughts?

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!

What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy


bill912 October 2, 2010 at 4:58 pm

Interesting “apology”: We’re not sorry we made this video, we’re just sorry some of you benighted fools are the way you are.

Foxfier October 2, 2010 at 6:15 pm

Wow. She… um. Has she been ill? (before the esplodie)
The rest:
disappointing, not really surprising beyond the openness, and of course they’re sorry the benighted rubes are upset. (It’s alright, you can have your own views, no pressure…right?)

The Masked Chicken October 2, 2010 at 6:40 pm

I can’t watch the video (dial-up). Can anyone post a sanitized summary? This type of attempted joke that backfires because of the harm caused to the audience’s sensibilities is called a humor-killer, if you want the technical name.
The Chicken

Skygor October 2, 2010 at 8:13 pm

Summary of the clip:
In a class room a teacher (normally) explains the 10:10 campaign normally. She makes some practical suggestions like insulate your house to save on heat, use energy efficient light bulbs. Then she asks the class who’s going to do this? All the kids raise their hands except two, who look grumpy. Hands goes down, the teachers asks again are you sure. They still refuse. Teach nonchalantly presses a read button, and the two children explode. Normal explosion with blood splatter, some of it gets on the other students. Teacher then dismisses class as if nothing.
Wash, rinse, repeat with office meeting, coach & soccer team, radio show interview.

Foxfier October 2, 2010 at 8:51 pm

Chunky, bloody globs, with lots of focus as they slowly drop down.
Oh, and the first one? Other children and the teacher are splattered with chunks.

Steve Smith October 3, 2010 at 1:37 pm

As I said on a comment I made on your previous post about “Go Green”, there are many “environmentalists” who would like to see a major cataclysmic event that would result in the destruction of the majority of the human population of earth. In their version of utopia the remnant population of humans left, would be them, and they would be the protectors of “mother earth”. These are the same people who support abortion, euthanasia, and are not shy about being some of the main proponents of the culture of death. Maybe now, after seeing some of these videos, people will start to believe me.

BobCatholic October 4, 2010 at 7:48 am

Just remember:
4 legs good, 2 legs bad
The environMENTAL movement is part of the culture of death.
And don’t forget the Voluntary Human Extinction movement

Leo October 4, 2010 at 1:32 pm

The advert was removed within 24 hours of uploading – this swift action speaks more loudly than any words can. This plus an apology is not what I normally expect from fascists or fundamentalists.
Jimmy thinks the original apology was “insincere”. I cannot look into the souls of the original apologizers. The Director of 10:10 global campaign has issued this updated apology
Last week, 10:10 made available a short film. Following the initial reaction to the film we removed it from our website and issued an apology on Friday 2 October.
Subsequently there has been negative comment about the film, particularly on blogs, and concern from others working hard to build support for action on climate change. We are very sorry if this has distracted from their efforts.
We are also sorry to our corporate sponsors, delivery partners and board members, who have been implicated in this situation despite having no involvement in the film’s production or release.
We will learn from this mistake. Today I have written to supporters and stakeholders explaining that we will review processes and procedures to make sure it cannot happen again. Responsibility for this process is being taken by the 10:10 board.
The media coverage of the film was not the kind of publicity we wanted for 10:10, nor for the wider movement to reduce carbon emissions.
If people have been in touch with us personally about the film, we will be replying to individual emails over the next few days. Meanwhile our thanks go out to all those who support 10:10 and who work to combat the threat of climate change.
Eugenie Harvey
Director, 10:10 UK

Supporters of the 10:10 campaign are appalled
The charities that backed a Richard Curtis film for the 10:10 environmental campaign said today that they were “absolutely appalled” when they saw the director’s four-minute short, which was withdrawn from circulation amid a storm of protest. source
and don’t think it represents their views
The climate skeptics can crow. It’s the kind of stupidity that hurts our side, reinforcing in people’s minds a series of preconceived notions, not the least of which is that we’re out-of-control and out of touch — not to mention off the wall, and also with completely misplaced sense of humor. source
A surreal bad-taste advert does not alter the scientific basis for anthropogenic climate change or the need for action.
On a lighter note, I did find these comments about the disproportionate reaction to this advert quite amusing.

BobCatholic October 4, 2010 at 2:23 pm

When have we ever seen leftists want to kill those who disagree with them? C’mon people, we never seen that happen before, right?
Besides, Pol Pot, Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Mao…..
Oh never mind…. :)

Karl Keating October 4, 2010 at 5:47 pm

Apparently I took the video in exactly the opposite sense from what the producers intended. I thought it was an argument AGAINST the proposal to reduce carbon emissions because it made the proponents of that position look like eco-nazis. But the producers thought they were advancing that position rather than retarding it? Weird.

bill912 October 4, 2010 at 6:32 pm

Hey, they were just engaging in a little humor. People joke about blowing up children all the time. I know I do. Doesn’t everybody?

The Masked Chicken October 5, 2010 at 8:54 am

This sort of did happen on Saturday Night Live when Mr. Bill was used. There, however, it was framed as play. In this case, it was not.
The Chicken

Charlene October 5, 2010 at 10:33 am

I’ve sent this video to everyone I know and posted it to my facebook. This is the REAL environmentalist movement. We got involved with the “Roots and Shoots” a few years ago–with the kids. It was horrible. This is exactly what/how they think. It has nothing to do with stewardship. It’s all self-congratulatory “I’m right, you’re wrong” stuff and a serious desire to kill off those who don’t “get it”. I’ve even been in touch with (in the past) a local professor who ADVOCATES ecoterrorism to “bring the humanity to its senses”.
And so, in response to that, and I agree it is inadequate, apology, I’ve sent this to the 1010 movement complaints department:
Dear Responsible Parties,
After viewing this awful advertisement via a link on a news site, I want to say that a written statement of apology is not nearly enough. I find this attitude offensive. I am so repulsed that I have absolutely no intention of participating in any “green” movement activity in the future. You can call this a “mistake”, but I doubt it really was. I doubt this because it echoes the sentiments I’ve heard from the environmentalist community before.
Thank God your kind don’t have “buttons” yet. I’m pretty sure that you are the sort of people who would like to hit the button and turn 90% of the population to pulp (Ted Turner has said as much in the past).
Apology not accepted. I hope to pass this video on to everyone I know or come in contact with as an example of what the “environmental” and “go-green” movement is really about.
No doubt, it won’t mean anything to anyone. But, just seeing this video made my blood boil. How dare they even suggest that this murderous garbage is something to laugh at?

Charlene October 5, 2010 at 10:47 am

This is the same tactic that has been used before. First, they put out an overtly offensive video or other media advertisement, then, they say, “Oh, sorry, we didn’t MEAN to be offensive.” Meanwhile, the ad is out there. Once released, it runs off to have a life of its own all over the internet.
Those that agree still get to “wink, wink, nudge, nudge” and those that disagree… well, here we are.
Nevertheless, it is what they think and what they intended or they wouldn’t have done it. If my children pulled something like this and then “apologized” only to do it again very shortly thereafter, I would call the apology insincere.
You see, it is insincere to do something offensive, intentionally, then apologize, all while fully knowing you intend to do it again in the future. Look at the track record.
Release offensive material. Say woops. Release more offensive material. Say woops. Release offensive material. Say woops.
What do they release next? So far we’ve got murderous children, kids getting hit by runaway trains, blowing up kids, hundreds of planes flying into New York a la 9/11… honestly, after this one, what’s left? Eco-friendly torture porn?
AGW is a misanthropic concept. Just look at the name. Anthropic. It’s in the title.

Leo October 5, 2010 at 3:45 pm

Dear Charlene
First, they put out an overtly offensive video …
Who are “they”.
You seem to take this as some global conspiracy theory – or perhaps I misread you.
The only ‘they’ in this I can see is
- a campaign group (trying to get a 10% CO2 reduction)
- being approached by a famous comedy producer (Richard Curtis of 4 Weddings and Blackadder fame)
- who offers to make an advert free of charge.
- the campaign group gratefully accepts the generous offer
- and does not see any need to get executive committee or focus group approval before posting it, (because someone of the calibre of Richard Curtis will, of course, make a good advert)
- too late they realise that Curtis is experienced at comedy but not adverts
- they pull the advert within 24 hrs and apologize.
This seems to me to be more cock-up than conspiracy.
What do you think is the purpose of this video? Some sort of serious threat that ‘they’ will blow you up if you don’t reduce your CO2 by 10%? If ‘they’ had the power to blow you up for disagreeing with AGW ‘they’ would have been able to reduce CO2 by 10% already – as well as have a lot of people on their list to blow up.
I think that the purpose of this video is arty people trying to show off their ‘artiness’ by pushing the boundaries of taste and intelligibility.

Charlene October 5, 2010 at 9:56 pm

They, as in: “this type of people/group/campaign”. I don’t have time to Google it extensively, but if you look, there are multiple recent examples of poor taste in advertisements by similar eco-campaigns, etc. followed by fairly meaningless apologies.
How, specifically, the “cock-up” came to pass, is kind of irrelevant. Mainly, because the “cock-up” was letting slip some of the darker thoughts within the people involved. Freudian slip, of sorts.
Quite frankly, I think it is a mindset. And I do think that this serves as a “wink and nudge” to that mindset. The sort of wink/nudge that says “we all know we’d really like to just be rid of the dead-weights that don’t agree with us and aren’t we funny and clever for saying it out loud”.
It is a dangerous mindset. Maybe they were trying to push their arty boundaries, but I think they were/are also trying to convey the message of “look, we just said what you all were thinking out loud, it’s okay”. It tests the waters and lays the foundation for more “pushing of boundaries”.
I’ve been around some pretty kooky, out-there types on the left. And some of the bunch really would like to crush the opposition and outlaw religion, too. (Nothing is too great a sacrifice to ‘save mother earth’…religion is oppressive and we must stop the oppressors). It’s not a joke or an over-statement. They’re out there; I’ve met them.
Picture every bit of weirdness you see in religious people and you’ll find it in the eco-nut, atheist crowd, too. Zealots and fundamentalists and jihadists… they’re all present in every group. That’s because it’s all part of human nature to take things “too far”.
I’m not trying to suggest a conspiracy to literally blow people up. I’m suggesting that, if you publish this garbage often enough, you slowly remove the stigma from the idea. And then, stigma-free, the idea can gain legs by way of people who are already headed in a bad direction.
Not to mention the fact that there are people with a lot of money and clout who already wish there were a lot less of us plebs around.
It’s not a conspiracy. It’s just business as usual, really.
As for climate change, the climate has changed in the past and will change in the future. What direct role we have in the process, I don’t know. That being said, we need to be good stewards of our resources: recycle, use agriculture responsibly, etc.
AGW makes it sound as though humans are a cancer on the planet–as though if not for the “anthropic” part of the anthropic global warming, nothing bad would ever happen. Take a look at the geological record and say *that* again with a straight face…

Tim J. October 6, 2010 at 9:05 am

The Warmies have been slowly but surely losing the public debate – which baffles and offends them – and the resulting frustration has increasingly addled their brains.
The one thing they can’t bear is being ignored.
I kept waiting for a disclaimer “No carbon was used in the production of this video”…

Foxfier October 6, 2010 at 10:32 am

They’re at it again….
This time with a lovely little ad that has a little girl in a pink tu-tu being hung.

Tim J. October 6, 2010 at 11:15 am

“This time with a lovely little ad that has a little girl in a pink tu-tu being hung.”
I don’t think the intent of the little girl ad was to threaten children (at least, not consciously), but to say “If you don’t agree with and support our Climate Change Hysteria, you hate children and don’t care if they die.”
Incidentally, it’s no longer “global warming”, or even “climate change” they are wetting themselves over now, but “climate instability”… like, when has the climate ever been “stable”?

The Masked Chicken October 6, 2010 at 1:05 pm

Whatever happened to rational debate? Why is the debate limited to climate change experts, anyway? Like chemists and physicists don’t know how to interpret thermodynamic/fluid dynamic data? Tell me when we had that rational debate among scientists, because I never heard or was a part of it.
The Chicken

BobCatholic October 6, 2010 at 5:48 pm

It seems that there are those who think that environuts really don’t hate children and don’t hate humanity. No matter how much proof the environuts give us.
Who cares about splattering videos, or girl being hung, or wackjob writing a COLLEGE TEXTBOOK who then becomes a presidential appointee, or or or or or.
There’s just not enough proof for some people.
In the meantime, reasonable people know that extremist movements always telegraph their intention years before they get into power and put it into action. And the odd part is people thought Hitler was joking. And Pol-Pot. And Stalin…..
Then they buried their family members and found out too late.
The environMENTAL movement is part of the culture of death. Period.

Charlene October 7, 2010 at 2:58 pm

@ Tim J: It’s never been stable. And I’m not sure how anyone on earth can frame “You’re either with us or you hate children and want them to die” as a rational argument. Except in the case of abortion where, if you aren’t pro-life you really are killing children.
But in the loopy-ubber-environmentalist mind, that position is reversed in that abortion leads to children dying but it is somehow better for the children in the long run???? Hmm…

Previous post:

Next post: