If you listen to the media, Al “I invented the Internet” Gore, and many of the self-appointed expert witnesses we call Hollywood stars, you’d count Chicken Little as an underachiever. It seems that, every other day, we get another politician telling us that we must limit carbon emissions, or that the pollution on our planet is all our fault (humans in general, and America, specifically). According to the prevailing wisdom:
- America is the big villain when it comes to carbon footprints, global climate change (nee: “global warming”) and the destruction of the planet
- The only way to save our planet is to allow the government to tax us out the wazoo
- All the experts are in total agreement on the causes and effects of global warming and climate change.
Let’s look at the last one first. Any time – any time – someone tells you that all the experts agree, there’s one thing (and only one thing) you can count on: somebody’s tellin’ a whopper. Most scientists agree that 100% agreement is a red flag that somebody’s cooked the books. In fact, there is no consensus on either the causes OR effects of global warming (whoops…”climate change”), but you might think so, if only because all scientific debate has been squelched by those in power. If you are a scientist and have the gall and audacity to speak out against the prevailing wisdom, you can pretty much kiss your career goodbye. Now you’d think that scientists would be the very last people on Earth that would allow groupthink to trump investigations into the evidence. And you’d be wrong. Sadly, the fix is in – and we’re about to find out just how much this will cost us all.
The idea that America is the root of all evil in the world is not just wrong-headed…it’s illogical. Let’s think – who are the biggest polluters in the world today? There’s China, Japan, Russia, and way further down the list…the USA. So if we were to suddenly reduce our carbon footprint, would it make a significant difference in the world? Nope. But it would give a significant competitive advantage to China, Japan, Russia, et all. It’s like this – if we play by the rules, but nobody else does, how is that fair – or make any sense.
Here’s the bottom line: I’m sure that we humans contribute to pollution. That much makes sense. There are practical things we can do to help reduce that problem. Use less. Waste less. Recycle when practical (and by “practical,” I mean recycling that takes less energy than producing new products). The idea that we must somehow atone for the world’s ecological sins is just stupid.
Here’s an example of why that those extremist plans are bad for America: The Anointed One President-Elect Obama has let it slip that he plans to implement a cap-and-trade system that is guaranteed to bankrupt anybody who uses coal for power – no matter how clean it may be. That’s not just wrong – it’s dangerous. According to the enviro-Nazi’s own experts, the effect of reducing our “carbon footprint” to Kyoto Treaty levels would be a change of 1/10th of 1%. That is statistically insignificant by anybody’s standard (including the Left’s). However, when quizzed about this, they universally reply “we need to do this, even if it’s not effective, because it’s the right thing to do.” How’s that? To bankrupt an entire industry (the coal industry) because it’s the right thing to do is insane. So let’s recap – none of this nonsense makes any sense, and will not make any difference, but we should all allow the government to put a plan like this into place, just to make some bleeding heart liberals feel good about things. Therein lies the problem – in their book, it’s more important to do symbolic things that feel good, than it is to actually solve a problem. If we even have a problem.
I feel sorry for the sheeple that have bought this eco-nonsense hook, line, and sinker. I’d laugh it off as this generation’s version of the Heaven’s Gate cult, except that they are determined to drag us down into the abyss with them. Part of the problem is that the left deals in absolutes and polarizations. It’s all binary for them – you’re either with ’em or agin ’em. While I can acknowledge that there is some (not much, but some) points that make sense in their eco-logic, they are more into an all or nothing at all posture. That’s unfortunate, because they hurt their cause by insisting on total fealty. I’ve never met anyone who was 100% right about everything, all the time. Not me. Not them. Not anybody. People that acknowledge their own fallibility are realists. Those that insist that they are infallible are not just misguided – they are dangerous…and ultimately gullible, as they have succeeded in fooling themselves above all else.