Sunday, March 11, 2007

Mandated Environmentalism vs. Good Stewardship

Watching the rise of Al Gore to the status of Prophet of Environmentalism, and observing his personal hypocrisy in his own energy usage has given me a jaded and skeptical view of his message.

Don't get me wrong - Americans are very wasteful! We use energy like we own the planet with no thought of the negative consequences of such over use. We consume and discard goods and resources at a record rate. The methane from our trash piles alone has the potential of making a significant dent in our oil consumption. The grease we use to fry our fast food can easily be converted to biodiesel - only emitting water and the pleasant smell of French fries. The food we waste and throw away could have fed several third world countries. There is much we can change, and we should.

Environmentalism, in itself, as well as the looming threat of Global Warming, has become the religion of the left. The Czech President Vaclav Klaus made this statement this week: Environmentalism is a religion that is based more on political ambitions than science

"Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences," much like the idea of communism or other "-isms" such as feminism, Klaus said, adding that "environmentalism is a religion" that seeks to reorganize the world order as well as social behavior and value systems worldwide.

As for government spending on global warming studies, the former finance minister and of the Eastern European nation and trained economist said that such efforts were a "waste of money," adding that there was already sufficient scientific evidence for those seeking policy change to back up their proposals.

Meanwhile, he pointed out that those seeking to protect the environment could do a great deal under the existing political framework and with existing technologies, such as importing less goods from far-flung regions that require enormous jet fuel use."

Richard Linzen is not so friendly in describing Gore's claims:

"given that the question of human attribution largely cannot be resolved, its use in promoting visions of disaster constitutes nothing so much as a bait-and-switch scam. That is an inauspicious beginning to what Mr. Gore claims is not a political issue but a "moral" crusade."

I would rather make the personal choice to cut back on my energy consumption rather than have environmentalism become a Gore-driven government policy by a man who craves the political limelight.

....I wonder where Tipper is nowadays?

UPDATE: Here's a Video you may want to watch relating to this subject:

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Another Sad Sack global warming story.

Look at both sides and make up your own mind, I always say!

Finally - For your Amusement:

I'm not a huge Limbaugh fan, but he has an AlGore Doomesday Countdown clock on his homepage in the upper right hand corner that is worth a grin.


Ed Kohler said...

It seems to me that someone could live a somewhat hypocritical lifestyle yet still do more good than harm in the long run. As I understand it, Gore offsets his carbon emissions with carbon credits, but I don't think that was reported by the dumpster divers.

I find Bush's speeches on the subject of oil dependency almost unwatchable. He talks the talk but achieves nothing.

Jim said...

Ed, I basically agree with you--I personally don't care very much about Al Gore's lifestyle. It's not much different from other people in his income bracket. (I'm glad that he pays for carbon offsets, solar panels for his house, and green power, though.)

As for Bush, as far as I know he still subscribes (at least publicly) to the notion that global warming is real, but that we don't know what's causing it; thus, it's "premature" to do anything about carbon emissions.

The appropriate question is not "Is Al Gore a hypocrite?" We should be asking: What are the likely consequences of anthropogenic climate change if we do nothing about it? What will be the cost (economic and otherwise) of making change to stop it or slow it down? Which will be worse, doing something now, or waiting until later? I recommend reading the most recent reports by the NAS and the IPCC to get a sense of what the scientific community thinks.