Let me state for the record that, while I would not be labeled an environmentalist - at least not by those on the left (most of whom, by and large, do not truly understand or embrace environmental issues) - I do care about the environment. I care about the environmental legacy we leave our children, and our grandchildren.
Oh, did I mention I'm going to be a grandpa in November? Every kid needs a curmudgeonly grandparent, yes?
I'm one of those guys who, when hiking, picks up other people's litter and packs it out. I don't litter, myself. My car is "greener" than most, getting about 35mpg. (Take that, Al Gore.)
I once worked with a woman who smoked, and I'd go outside with her on her smoke breaks and we'd talk. She was liberal, and very keen on environmental issues, as she'd point out while she puffed away. Then, she'd flip her spent cigarette butt into the flower beds outside our building.
Yes, I believe we should continue producing fossil fuels, because that's what drives the world, still (as the climate change fanatics prove in their energy consumption habits). I believe there are significant risks related to nuclear power (see Chernobyl), I believe wind farms are a blight on the landscape, and solar is great, but expensive.
I don't, however, subscribe to some Ayn Rand notion of development as the highest and best use of all resources. (For the uninitiated, Ayn Rand was an uber-libertarian author who penned the classic, "Atlas Shrugged," a great read. In it, she postulates this notion to the point of asserting that all of our mountains, streams and other natural treasures should be put to productive capacity in order to maximize output.)
Maybe, but I disagree with the notion. I love the mountains, the beaches, the forests, the fertile valleys, and the land in between. And, as a still-occasional cyclist, I like clean air. (This is the basis for my objection to wind farms: ever drive from San Bernardino to Palm Springs? The otherwise beautiful mountain landscape is marred by those ugly white windmills. Should we sacrifice the aesthetics of the environment for wind power? I say no.)
I don't believe the sky is falling, but I do believe we need to continue to address these issues - but rationally, and with a sense of economic balance. I also believe that advances in technology will make sources like solar energy more affordable, and I'm all for heating and cooling my house with the sun.
Especially if said house is a shack on a beach on some idyllic island.
Having said all that, I don't get the hoopla over President Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord. Let's unpack the issue.
First, those who are screeching about it likely haven't read the agreement. This article provides an excellent recap, for those who are willing to take the time to read it objectively, rather than just screaming that the world is going to end from global warming in five years (take that, too, Al Gore): http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434412/paris-climate-agreement-americans-foot-bill-no-effect-climate
In short, the biggest polluters in the world - China and India - are party to it. However, they basically agreed to nothing in terms of their emissions. In fact, taken as a whole, the agreement - according to the experts, not Fox News - would only reduce global warming by a minuscule amount in the long run, if at all. And, of course, the U.S. - which has already taken a leadership role in the strides we've taken to address environmental issues - is expected to make the biggest commitment, in terms of reducing emissions and ponying up money (yours and mine, let's not forget) to subsidize the rest of the world. To the tune of $100 billion.
No, thank you.
Yet again, those decrying the withdrawal haven't read the agreement, wouldn't understand it if they did, and don't walk their own talk.
Those same people likely heat their homes with natural gas, or electricity that in part comes from coal. Many of them use wood-burning fireplaces and/or stoves. They love their fire pits. They drive gas-burning cars, even for short trips - say, down to the mailbox.
They decry the impact on the glaciers - the glaciers! - but have they ever seen one in person? I have. I visited the Athabasca glacier in Alberta, among other glaciers I've seen in Canada and Alaska (by the way, I highly recommend a trip to the Banff/Lake Louise area in Alberta - indescribable beauty). Signs there (which, incidentally, didn't grow there naturally) indicate how much the glacier has receded over time - a total of a little less than a mile over the last 125 years. The horror. I'm getting warmer just thinking about it.
Well, for one, the glacier is nearly four miles long still, so - if we hadn't done anything to slow down climate change, which we have - it would theoretically be gone in about 500 years.
I rarely agree with Keynes, but I do agree with his assertion that, in the long run, we're all dead. In fact, 500 years from now, my grandchildren's grandchildren will be long gone. For perspective, 500 years ago, Columbus had barely discovered this rock.
Moreover, this is a straight-line extrapolation of the last 125 years, which is folly for a couple of reasons. One, as noted, we are addressing climate change, and will continue to do so. And two, this may not be a linear function. Places where glaciers exist are still damn cold, and they're not likely to turn into temperate deserts in the next 1,000 years, no matter what Al Gore says.
And there are a lot of glaciers; Athabasca is but one of them. Fly from Anchorage to Seattle and you'll see dozens on a clear day. (I've done that, and have the photos to prove it. The Paris-Accord-withdrawal-screechers probably haven't.)
Look, climate change happens. There was an Ice Age, if you remember your history classes. It ended. (There were also dinosaurs. Does anyone on the left bemoan the extinction of the velociraptor?) Does man influence climate change? You bet. Is that influence as dire as Al Gore would have you believe, as he flies from stop to stop in his fuel-guzzling jet to preach his nonsense? Nope. Should we just eliminate man altogether, and hope that the velociraptors come back? I'd rather not, for my grandchildren's sake.
The climate change-istas always cite "the science," and label anyone who disagrees with them a "denier." (Ah, how the left loves their labels.) The vast, vast majority of them couldn't understand the science if they took the time to educate themselves on it. But Bill Nye says it, they believe it, that's that. Seems kinda silly to get your science education from a pseudo-Captain Kangaroo, but if that's all you can understand, go for it.
Yes, climate change is real. No, it's not our biggest threat (take that, Bernie and Hillary). I still shovel a foot or so of global warming off my sidewalks every other winter or so.
Free-market mechanisms will do more to address the issue than government mandated initiatives or ridiculously ineffective multi-nation "accords." (In fact, the Honda Accord has done more to slow climate change than the Paris Accord ever could.) Driverless cars are an example of a market disruptor that will have a positive influence.
So in summary, this is like any other issue the Left screams about: they haven't read the source document, they don't really understand the issue, they don't practice what they preach.
But President Obama got us into the Paris Accord, which makes it sacrosanct to them, and Donald Trump is pulling us out, which automatically makes it a bad decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment