That's not very different from the position of many environmental groups who seem to make money from all sides when it comes to prospective eco-catastrophes. Environmental groups get grants and contributions to study the "catastrophe," and they get funding to coordinate "solutions" too. And there seems to be no end to the circle game.
Without regard to their relative scientific merits (there's at least a grain of truth to everything), here is a smattering of catastrophe theories:
Catastrophes - Global Warming/Climate Change, Olduvai Theory, Peak Oil, Malthusian Catastrophe, Societal Collapse, White's Law, Holocene Extinction, Genetic Pollution, Club of RomeThe irony is that many greens are psychologically invested in, if not secretly longing for, the inevitability of the eventuality of ecological collapse. Think of the retribution and depopulation it will inflict on the hated human race. Nevertheless, the prospect of ecological mayhem has served as an excuse for the creation of top-down global solutions that reach un-democratically into the nooks and crannies of our individual lives. Here are some:
Global Solutions - Agenda 21, Millenium Development Goals, ICLEI - Local Governments for Sustainability, Smart Growth AmericaMany people think the listings above are "conspiracies." I don't think so. I think they are worse than conspiracies. They are full-fledged state-funded economic programs based on process and control ... of us ... and it's all fueled by the thought of eco-catastrophe. Even if there were catastrophe headed our way, there's no guarantee that un-democratic "solutions" would do anything but earn money for those in control while the rest of us twirl down the drain.
The Friends and their friends herald catastrophe at every turn. If there are any data suggestive of a potential problem, they exaggerate it. If there are no data, they assume a grand unseen threat. If the data show a healthy ecosystem, they proclaim the ecosystem to be fragile. No matter what the data say, they promote the specter of fragility, threat, overpopulation, and collapse. That drives in the contributions and grants like mad, especially from the nature woo crowd. Grabs headlines too. It also shores up advocacy for the steamrolling of more and more land use (and water) controls, which just hands the Friends more tools to bully and sue, finds more "problems," reinforces their image as ecological saviors, and brings in more grants and contributions. It's never ending, and the Friends and their friends have no interest in peaceful coexistence between nature and people. It would be bad for business.
Catastrophe and the ultimate solution of driving people away from the islands are very profitable. It's not as if the Friends are economically connected to the local community anyway, not as much as they're connected to other environmental groups, the tribes, grant-making institutions, and off-island (eco-tourist) contributors who buy into the destination marketing image of the San Juans as a threatened natural paradise. Why should the Friends care if they destroy our home while pretending to save it?
Promote the phony fix for the phony catastrophe; laugh all the way to the real bank and to the real "we all got together and gave ourselves awards for saving the planet" ceremony. That's the Friends. It's a win-win for them and a lose-lose for everyone not in their "money ecosystem." The CAOs are part of the faux-dependent Eco-Arms Race that makes winners of the Friends and their friends and leaves the rest of us with nowhere to hide.