Video: Crowder visits Cancun
posted at 1:36 pm on December 17, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
Steven Crowder is back, both on YouTube and from the global-warming conference in Cancun, Mexico, where he did a little of his own investigating into the claims — and practices — of the delegations at the conference. He found calls for rationing by Western nations on the order seen in World War II, while they travel in style and feast on the finest food available to rich tourists. Barack Obama committed the US to a reduction in carbon emissions that would take us back a century, which Steven points out was a time when most homes had no electricity and the average life expectancy was a green-friendly 47 years. What would living like that entail? Steven travels to a small village in Mexico which demonstrates exactly what it would be like.
Be sure to watch it all, especially his conclusion. To paraphrase Charlton Heston, we know what “going green” in the AGW mandated sense is made of …. it’s made of people.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
C…O…Co2? Is that it?
Good Lt on December 17, 2010 at 1:43 PM
What the heck is Dora The Explorer doing at a global warming conference?
pilamaye on December 17, 2010 at 1:45 PM
That small town looks familiar- dozens of LA neighborhoods look exactly like it.
LASue on December 17, 2010 at 1:50 PM
Oh but what about the Polar Bears????????? How will they ever live to see another day??
flytier on December 17, 2010 at 1:50 PM
Finding stupid in Cancun is like shooting trout in a barrel.
John the Libertarian on December 17, 2010 at 1:53 PM
Aha! Dora has gone back to Cancun to party with her family. After the holidays she will sneak across the border to work at PBS, and deny poor, hard working, American born, cartoons a chance to feed their family.
Those of you who watch Dora, (AP) enable this illegal behavior.
Meanwhile, Deputy Dog hasn’t had a good gig in years.
Think of the poor, hungry, puppies before you watch Dora the illegal explorer.
LincolntheHun on December 17, 2010 at 1:57 PM
For a moment I thought Crowder was in East LA.
GarandFan on December 17, 2010 at 2:00 PM
PEACE PRIZE!!
abobo on December 17, 2010 at 2:04 PM
LOL at the chick flipping off the camera. Liberals are such a charming lot.
NoLeftTurn on December 17, 2010 at 2:06 PM
Sweet video. The money the idiot Mexicans spent on this dork-orgy would have fed those people Libertad for 10 years.
Jaibones on December 17, 2010 at 2:09 PM
But, But, But we are doing this FOR the children, for future gener…oh, wait…it is actually just for the polar bears and a world that is a degree or two cooler.
TturnP on December 17, 2010 at 2:12 PM
Excellent Steve!
Bob's Kid on December 17, 2010 at 2:14 PM
It has never been any secret that the greens are for reducing population. It’s just that they never say what they’re willing to do to accomplish it.
Norman Borlaug was one of the fathers of the green revolution, developing new strains of grains and food plans that had higher yields, would grow faster and in dry climates. It was estimated that he had saved 3 billion lives which would otherwise have been lost to starvation. But at the end of the 70s and thereafter, his funding sources dried up as “green” organizations lobbied congress and corporations to hold off encouraging “overpopulation.”
Just as Steve points out, for the cost of one of these conferences, and the costs of transporting people to them and lodging them at resort prices, you could buy a lot of things to make peoples’ lives easier, but that’s not what greens want. They come from an intellectual traditions that has advocated sterilization of poor people, eugenics and still promotes abortion.
flataffect on December 17, 2010 at 2:14 PM
I wish Crowder had gotten a count of the number of attendees that hitch-hiked in, slept on the beach, and wore sackcloth during the event. I’m guessing that the vast majority of true believers wouldn’t dare fly in and stay at a ritzy hotel, because the optics would be too bad.
Vashta.Nerada on December 17, 2010 at 2:17 PM
1905 was a great year.
Ted Torgerson on December 17, 2010 at 2:18 PM
Haha did ya see the look on the girl’s face when he said “How did you get here?” PRICELESS!
Tony737 on December 17, 2010 at 2:22 PM
Someone start a fund to send the little girl to school and post the address plz.
BruceB on December 17, 2010 at 2:23 PM
“The Carlton”. awesome.
cjtony97 on December 17, 2010 at 2:24 PM
These people also advocate going back to ‘sustainable’ agriculture which is nothing more than subsitsence farming, which is a VERY cruel existence.
Monoculture agriculture & modern farming methods have allowed the human race to flurouish.
It’s so easy for these people to deny other their life.
They live in lands of plenty.
Reducing agricultural production in the US would be nothing less that the condemning of millions of 3rd world people to death.
These people are evil.
Badger40 on December 17, 2010 at 2:24 PM
Thanks again to Mr. Crowder for exposing the rank hypocrisy, insanity and stupidity of the “climate change” crowd. He’s absolutely right that their plans simply cost far too much and, worse, would not help even if vigorously pursued.
I’ve said it before and I’ll continue saying it: global warming is a HOAX and Kyoto is a SCAM. If I could afford it, I’d take out a full-page ad in the New York Times saying this. I pledge eternal resistance to this potential catastrophe.
KillerKane on December 17, 2010 at 2:27 PM
I’m not taking lifestyle advice from brain-dead imbeciles who sign petitions to ban water.
CantCureStupid on December 17, 2010 at 2:28 PM
The current levels of use of resources is unsustainable. The revolution of industry (aka the industrial revolution) has increased earth’s population from 1B @1800 almost 7-fold to 6.7B @2010.
In the context of the tens of thousands of years in which humans had been on earth, this is tantamount to a sudden explosion. It’s an unprecedented amount of life to sustain, and the earth cannot adapt to this fast enough. Changes on earth happen over millions of years, not hundreds. So, there isn’t enough resources, and the amount that’s being used is too much for the earth to “metabolize” properly. No wonder there is tensions over resource ownership and use.
To reduce said tensions, and to reduce the unacceptable pollution (it’s not about determining whether AGW is real or not… it’s about having clean air, clean drinking water, and not destroying other species’ habitats) a reduction of population has to occur.
By that, I don’t mean Stalin’s gulags or anything like that. Just the luxuries and certain habits that the world has become accustomed to in the past few decades (e.g. frequent airplane travel) will have to be given up.
This won’t happen by any government order because people just won’t have it. It will happen on its own when the population explosion will reach a critical mass and something will happen to make the quality of life reduced drastically, and the population levels will go down.
AlexB on December 17, 2010 at 2:41 PM
Yeah, that eco home is something to be proud of – not even a washing machine, just a washboard.
And don’t forget, these are the people who signed a petition banning water.
Naturally, Ted Turner called for a global one-child policy, in addition to the WW2 style rationing and zero economic growth for two years.
BTW, they opened the thing with a prayer to the Mayan goddess Ixchel. Wonderful…
jdawg on December 17, 2010 at 2:45 PM
Sorry, that’s twenty years of zero economic growth.
jdawg on December 17, 2010 at 2:47 PM
.
Oh no Zombie Malthus has come back to warn us our folly!
Idiot you were wrong then, your prophet Erlich was wrong in 1966, and you’re still wrong.
Your “science” belongs on the trash heap of junk science along with astrology and phrenology.
LincolntheHun on December 17, 2010 at 2:58 PM
Let’s take a vote:
Who here thinks that the global warming science was manipulated in order to justify their wealth transfer plans?
I vote a most resounding YES!
KillerKane on December 17, 2010 at 3:23 PM
First step is to ban that most prevalant greenhouse componant dihydro monoxide.
If we ban that we solve the AGW problem.
Kuffar on December 17, 2010 at 3:34 PM
AlexB Says
Go shoot yourself in the head Alex. That would be leading by example and a good start.
Kuffar on December 17, 2010 at 3:36 PM
Not only does the green Jonesian religion want people wiped off the face of the earth there’s some who willingly drink the blue Koolaid and or force their children to drink it, already.
Speakup on December 17, 2010 at 3:36 PM
The current levels of use of resources is unsustainable.
Unsupported assertion #1.
It’s an unprecedented amount of life to sustain, and the earth cannot adapt to this fast enough.
Unsupported assertion #2.
To reduce said tensions, and to reduce the unacceptable pollution (it’s not about determining whether AGW is real or not… it’s about having clean air, clean drinking water, and not destroying other species’ habitats) a reduction of population has to occur.
Unsupported assertion #3.
Gotta love this style of argumentation: assume your premises to be true, then force your interlocutor to defend their point of view. Of course, the correct thing to do is force them to prove their assertion, or at least provide some evidence for such unknowable things.
JamesS on December 17, 2010 at 3:43 PM
Assume for a second (without giggling) that Kyoto was enacted.
What would happen with the money the developed world give to the developing world? Would it not pass through the hands of local elites? If so, what measures exist to prevent corruption?
There are billions of lives at stake – people who need fresh running water, access to food, improved health care, and most of all, jobs. If corrupt forces interfere, they would not only harm these people, but undermine efforts to fight climate change. Double if not triple whammy.
Just another in a long line of reasons to reject Kyoto.
KillerKane on December 17, 2010 at 3:53 PM
lol!
Did you not read my post? I’m not advocating anything – I’m saying that this will happen organically without any government action.
All these silly “one child policy” proposals, or the dishonest “cap and trade”, or the retarded hybrid cars who cause more environmental damage within its lifecycle than a regular car, or the unrealistic pie in the sky Kyoto protocol, it’s just politicians lying to their constituencies with multi-decade promises that they don’t have to deliver on personally.
Any “solutions” will be incremental in nature and useless. And even those will be greatly agitating to the public, and won’t last longer than a year or 2. Peoples’ behaviours won’t change, and leaders won’t enact changes, so the current trends will continue until they’re no longer unbearable. THEN we will see changes.
Relax folks, no one is asking you to give up on your Hummers and air conditioners.
AlexB on December 17, 2010 at 4:18 PM
I just realized that you thought I’m a sock puppet of a banned member… I’m not.
AlexB on December 17, 2010 at 4:19 PM
And somehow we’re not only growing enough food to accomodate this unprecedented amount of life – we’re actually producing more than we need!
And somehow we still have gazillions of square miles of unused space on the planet!
In other words, not only is this sustainable, but we’re not running out of any resources at all… are we? Name one. There are places that are in need of something (eg: parts of Africa need water), but that’s a perpetual need – the folks that lived there back in 1800 – hell, back in the year 18 – needed water. That didn’t mean that the planet was running short back then, and it doesn’t mean it is today either.
wtf are you smoking?
Midas on December 17, 2010 at 4:23 PM
Do you happen to be in Bungalow E? I just had this conversation night before last.
John the Libertarian on December 17, 2010 at 4:26 PM
I want to live the way they do in Bolivia.
Bolivia is my favorite country./
FOWG1 on December 17, 2010 at 4:28 PM
It’s an unprecedented amount of life to sustain, and the earth cannot adapt to this fast enough.
Simply put, the earth is going to do what the earth is going to do. I am pretty sure when the earth was coming out of the ice age, it certainly wasn’t due to global warming, or maybe it was but it wasn’t brought on by mankind. You cannot stop mothernature no matter how much carbon emissions you reduce. The planet will find a way to rectify itself and there is nothing that anyone can do about it. The next time we have an earthquake or a tsunami or flooding rains and mudslides, please explain to the people caught up in those events how reducing carbon emissions or rationing is going to help them.
TturnP on December 17, 2010 at 4:31 PM
Do you know how cattle, produce and milk (just for example) are produced in order to meet demand? It’s quite a lengthy subject to reduce to a few sentences here, but suffice it to to say that supply is not meeting demand in the world. The richest countries don’t feel any shortage because food’s abundant there (but what kind of food?… see the start of this post), but it’s not like that generally.
Also, despite the massive amount of unused land, there is much less arable land. It’s actually a big issue in Canada where we have more empty land than the US and less people and yet we have much less arable land, and have to import food.
Water: the total amount of drinking water, and the per-capita amount of drinking water are decreasing. Even with desalination plants, it’s not enough. As pointed out above, I’m not talking about any place in the rich world. I’m talking about India, the Middle East, South America…
This amazing first-rate living standards that the first-world countries have gotten used to in the past few decades (just decades out of thousands of years of civilized culture!) are something relatively very new and short, and extremely destabilizing.
It is unsustainable, and will be short lived.
But I don’t care because it’ll either happen after I’m gone, or I’ll just get used to it just like people get used to anything eventually.
AlexB on December 17, 2010 at 4:35 PM
Exactly. As George Carlin said once, “mother earth isn’t going anywhere —- WE are!” But not in my life time, so I don’t care! And future generations won’t know what they’ve been missing, so it’s all good.
AlexB on December 17, 2010 at 4:39 PM
AlexB is from Canada. Perfect.
The Left in Canada tried to force Kyoto through without any debate or review for one simple reason: their plan exempted their major political base, Ontario’s auto industry, while dumping all of the costs on to Alberta’s energy sector.
Gee, how good could Kyoto have been if Greenpeace and the NDP were willing to grant exemptions to their biggest supporters? They may have hesitated at times, but their willingness to override democracy itself must never be doubted.
Fortunately, by a miracle granted by God himself, they lost power in 2006. In January of that year, Stephen Harper and his moderate Conservative government took over. He opposed Kyoto for over a decade, calling it a wealth-transfer scam. Yet, to remain in office with a minority government, he had to offer an alternative climate change plan. He did, but his purpose was to prevent the leftist opposition from returning to power and implementing Kyoto.
And so it has remained for four years. Canada dodged a major bullet since, like all developed nations, has a large economy and a government service network to support. Kyoto would have risked it all, but worse: it would have divided southern Ontario’s wealthy auto sector from the rest of the country. Alberta would have had to choose whether or not to secede from Canada to protect its precious energy sector. Mr. Harper saved the country from severe challenges to its existence and the largest energy supplier to the US. Pray that he remains in office for a long time.
KillerKane on December 17, 2010 at 5:08 PM
Alex B is from Canada. Perfect.
KillerKane on December 17, 2010 at 5:16 PM
She’s not. Watch the video and you’ll that this is where he was invited to the village.
ButterflyDragon on December 17, 2010 at 5:17 PM
Really? Which book did you get this out of? Or, is this based on your expertise in the matter?
oakland on December 17, 2010 at 5:23 PM
How would you “get used” to a de-stabilized climate?
oakland on December 17, 2010 at 5:26 PM
The earth will find a way to adapt. You shouldn’t be worried about that. The big question is: will we adapt? Some will, no doubt, others won’t. That’s the way it always has been, and the way it will always be.
With global warming and scarcity of resources, population levels will stabilize at some lower level than at present (after rising to a critical level). This process has occurred over and over again for species as long as life has been on this planet.
oakland on December 17, 2010 at 5:35 PM
Going by VDH’s column this week, I believe that was Selma.
roy_batty on December 17, 2010 at 5:48 PM
It seems “Green” energy can only supplement at best our energy needs and is in no way, shape or form capable of replacing conventional power sources let alone the disaster it would be trying to impose it on 3rd world/developing nations. If “Green” can only supplement at best our energy needs, why on Gods GREEN Earth do these nutjobs think it can do everything for developing nations at HIGHER cost which they can’t afford anyways. The official color of hypocrisy must be Green methinks.
Yakko77 on December 17, 2010 at 6:35 PM
00:23 – I swear, it looks like the musician’s guitar is made from the scooped-out inverted shell of an endangered sea turtle!
00:34 – wow, these Enviros are more advanced than us common proles! They even have garbage receptacles for used pets (its on the far left of course). I reckon Soylent Ol’ Blue is meant to complement Soylent Green.
CatchAll on December 17, 2010 at 6:56 PM
Big effing deal. All he did was state a few basic facts and some people went into “OMFGSTATISTGREENIE!” mode.
Between the greenies and the guzzlers, it’s a wonder there’s any intelligent debate on resource use.
Dark-Star on December 17, 2010 at 7:53 PM
It’s not that “supply is not meeting demand,” it’s that many countries have “governments” that are more interested in enriching themselves than they are in providing the basics of life for their people. North Korea can afford nukes but can’t feed their people, and you believe that’s because there’s not enough food?
That’s because Canada is way up north, where it’s cold and the growing season is short. A little more global warming and you’ll be growing corn and wheat from March through November with no problem. Just hang on!
The “shortage” of drinking water is directly due to pollution, control of which energy-poor countries find hard to implement. A few more coal-fired or nuke electrical power plants would take care of that problem. Desalination requires a lot of energy, something that the current greens would prevent if they get their way.
“Destabilizing”? Why then, are the world’s worst problem areas where “first-rate living standards” don’t exist? Get electricity to those people — and decent governments that are interested in improving the lot of the citizenry and not lining their own pockets — and you’ll see them stabilize very quickly.
That’s been the chorus since Malthus’ time. How much longer are you going to keep singing it?
JamesS on December 17, 2010 at 8:41 PM
WHAT effing basic facts? The idiot buys into the lies. The reality is most of the issues with resources do not have to do anything with numbers of people but rather the misuse of resources and also with corruption.
Why do people who live in Hong Kong where they are packed tight live so well than so many across Africa where there is plenty of land?
If AlexB is such a believer why doesn’t he leave?
You’re an idiot.
CWforFreedom on December 17, 2010 at 8:49 PM
One Canadian paper carried letters to the editor from a guy who wanted anyone who dissented from Kyoto or climate change in anyway prosecuted before the World Court. He is only one of the more radical ones – all ‘warmers’ are radicals bent on violating every human right in the book. They must be stopped.
KillerKane on December 17, 2010 at 9:13 PM
oakland on December 17, 2010 at 9:57 PM
Cute kids, hurts your heart to see them suffer.
Alden Pyle on December 17, 2010 at 10:05 PM
Here’s a site that talks about the myth of overpopulation. They touch on the fact that starvation is not due to a lack of there being enough food and how poverty is not caused by overpopulation.
Overpopulation is a myth
Katec on December 17, 2010 at 10:59 PM
Wow it’s fun to watch the “overpopulation” types get taken apart.
I hope Alex B. keeps trying. He has a couple of limbs left and I want to see them lopped off. “It’s just a flesh wound!”
bonnie_ on December 17, 2010 at 11:34 PM
So, the more the better, Katec and bonnie? 10 billion? 15 billion? 20 billion?
As one who is degreed in biological science (but not counting myself as an expert), I understand basic population dynamics and the concept of scarcity (as all true conservatives understand the latter concept). When given all the resources required for growth (and concentration of waste is minimal), populations increase exponentially before peaking. After the peak, there is normally a very abrupt drop-off in the populations. This general trend is seen in organisms all the way up from bacteria to deer. Malthus basically used this concept, extending it to humans.
As you two think that overpopulation is mythology, I would like a connect-the-dots explanation, if you would, concerning why us humans are somehow exempt from population dynamics that afflict the lower creatures. And, please do so from the realistic standpoint that scarcity is the governing force in all things (as George Will so aptly said, “conservatives understand that EVERYTHING is scarce”).
oakland on December 18, 2010 at 8:58 AM
Alex and Oakland, population will peak out in the next few decades because humans can control their birth rates, unlike animal populations. The more educated women become, the less kids they have. We’ve been in the exponential phase of growth for about 70 years, the rate of increase is now already slowing in every country except a few in Africa. It won’t be lack of resources that eventually curbs population, it will be the education of women. See the latest issue of Nat’l Geographic for a nice graphic of this.
Allahs vulva on December 18, 2010 at 12:39 PM
Thanks, Allah. It’s refreshing to read intelligent responses such as yours.
I understand that there are different scenarios concerning population growth. Some scenarios have the population continuing to increase into the 22nd century. Others show drops in mid-century. The scenarios that have population decreasing sooner, rather than later, are problematic, as there is the issue of fewer young people caring for the many older ones.
Nevertheless, we humans, like you say, have choices regarding reproduction. I agree that education is one factor in reducing the rate of population growth.
I submit that, if population decreases later this century, it will be generally because of the understanding among folks that there are limits to population, and that these limits are due to the scarcity of resources on this planet. Just as families have limited resources, so do populations.
In the region in which I live, we are already having squabbles with other, neighboring states about how to ration between us the limited water that we have. This is not only true of this region, but others as well.
Those who don’t heed the cautions of Malthus are destined to be like the critters in the test tube.
oakland on December 18, 2010 at 2:00 PM
Thanks Stephen for taking one for US who mind the store while he’s away. I am not sure I could take an association with that many environmentalists at one time.
All environmentalists claim excess Carbon Dioxide is the direct cause of Global Warming, and reducing it will cut the impact.
I just added approximatively 5 cubic feet of CO2 responding to the article, and, I had no real control over it. Well that is not entirely true. I contributed to Global Warming by simply breathing.
So let’s all do our part and start holding our breath, at least until we turn blue.
MSGTAS on December 19, 2010 at 8:49 AM
3:49… “We flew… but…’ And I’;ve been told many times that everything after ‘but’ is BS… In this case… It’s all bull…
-
RalphyBoy on December 19, 2010 at 10:35 AM