Some Environmental Musings
OK. We have all heard about this global warming thing, and if you haven't you either need to come out of your coma or just die. That type of ignorance is just inexcusable. Al Gore released a "documentary" this summer titled "An Inconvenient Truth" in which he essentially portrays our doom at the hand of our own industrial ignorance resulting in global warming and then Armageddon. Funny, the Republicans said Armageddon will come when Jesus comes back. Perhaps he'll be surfing on the waves of melted glaciers drowning Manhattan. Now I haven't actually seen this movie, since I usually avoid preachy self-inflated entertainment from uncharismatic Ex-Vice-President/Presidential Candidates, but what I do know was pieced together from the random images I have seen of this film in previews.
The reason I decided to bring up this environmental forecast of our self-imposed destruction is because as I read endless tripe on internet blogs, video game websites, self-help don't kill yourself sites etc. I always run into vehement jabs at the Bush administration whether it be in the criticism of the war, No Child Left Behind, or a complete lack of interest in environmental control. Now, I am no fan of the Bush Administration. The mistakes of this presidency are glaringly obvious at the least and crushingly tragic at the most. I do not need to go into the specifics of the failings of this administration (and at least half the American public), but the environmental criticism always got to me. I grudgingly agree with some criticisms of the craptacular domestic and foreign policy set forth by W, but when it comes to the environment I can not find the "strength" to lay all the environmental woes of the Earth on the hands of the current administration.
The fact is that despite the claims of the violently angry environmentalists, the Bush Administration can only be blamed for a small portion of the fabled global warming that might be looming over the horizon. We, as a nation, have been driving gas guzzling cars and burning chemicals for a century under numerous presidential administrations. It was the American public in its need to better its life that built the industry that supposedly inflicted the nightmarish destruction of the ozone layer. People wanted the ability to go to work or somewhere on a whim, hence the car. Sure, it could have been electric, but through whatever series of events, the electric models were never pushed onto the consumers, and for whatever reason, no other automobile manufacturer seemed to care until 1996, when California imposed strict regulations that forced GM to produce electric cars if they wanted to maintain their market in the Golden State. The electric car conspiracy theories aside, Bush himself had buttkiss to do with the nation's dependence on environmentally damaging industry and transportation. Furthermore, the office of the American Presidency has little or nothing to do with the environmental policies of other nations, particularly emerging juggernauts like India and China.
And herein lies my problem with the environmental frustrations over W's apathy toward the environment. Suppose tomorrow that the Bush Administration decided to impose strict environmental controls on the nation, reducing industrial output and the number of gas-guzzlers on the road to 10% of their current value. Now also suppose, that W also decides to use the military to force anyone who will not comply. "What? You don't want to take the train." KABOOOOOM!! "Well now you have no choice since we just blew up your infernal gas powered car. By the way, in 10 days the trains won't be operating because the coal power-plants that provide electricity will be shut down. So you better get used to walking 10 miles to work everyday." In this scenario, the United States is reduced in industrial output and overall productivity. But the environment is saved, right? Wrong!
Remember those emerging behemoth nations like India and China. In 20 years, China's industrial output will equal that of 3 billion SUVs. Thats right, 3 fucking Billion. That's one SUV for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. today 10 times over. Other nations ramping up their industrial output to match and eventually overtake our own yields a new problem. Any void left by our industrial absence will be easily filled by other developing nations. Plus, China is not going to bow to some hippie American president willing to relegate his nation to throwing their feces at each other in trees. The only thing keeping the people of China from eating each others brains out of sheer hunger is the newfound power of the "Communist" government bolstered by the nation's somewhat recent advances in industry. So what will the militaristic environmentalists say about ol' China? "Let's shoot 'em all and let poor mother Earth sort 'em out!"
Of course, this leads to another paradox in the environmentalist's desire for more control of mankind's destructive impact on nature. If the U.S. goes to war over the environment with China, the ensuing nightmarish apocalyptic results will of course cause further harm to poor Mother Earth . But for advocates of strict environmental control, the ends justify the means. "Sure, the war might burn up more of the precious ozone layer, but in the end it will be worth it."And this, ultimately, is what it comes down to.
Militant environmentalists don't care about humanity. If they had their way, we'd be eating our own waste while dying at the age of 20. A war over the environment would only cause them to lament the resulting destruction on nature and not the deaths of untold men, women, and children. The only reason these enviro-nazis don't kill themselves now to help mother nature is because they need to exist in order to force their will down the throats of their brethren.
So next time you read something vilifying the Administration or even the United States for it's apathy regarding the environment, think of a prospective war with China before agreeing with it. Do the ends justify the means? I think not.
The reason I decided to bring up this environmental forecast of our self-imposed destruction is because as I read endless tripe on internet blogs, video game websites, self-help don't kill yourself sites etc. I always run into vehement jabs at the Bush administration whether it be in the criticism of the war, No Child Left Behind, or a complete lack of interest in environmental control. Now, I am no fan of the Bush Administration. The mistakes of this presidency are glaringly obvious at the least and crushingly tragic at the most. I do not need to go into the specifics of the failings of this administration (and at least half the American public), but the environmental criticism always got to me. I grudgingly agree with some criticisms of the craptacular domestic and foreign policy set forth by W, but when it comes to the environment I can not find the "strength" to lay all the environmental woes of the Earth on the hands of the current administration.
The fact is that despite the claims of the violently angry environmentalists, the Bush Administration can only be blamed for a small portion of the fabled global warming that might be looming over the horizon. We, as a nation, have been driving gas guzzling cars and burning chemicals for a century under numerous presidential administrations. It was the American public in its need to better its life that built the industry that supposedly inflicted the nightmarish destruction of the ozone layer. People wanted the ability to go to work or somewhere on a whim, hence the car. Sure, it could have been electric, but through whatever series of events, the electric models were never pushed onto the consumers, and for whatever reason, no other automobile manufacturer seemed to care until 1996, when California imposed strict regulations that forced GM to produce electric cars if they wanted to maintain their market in the Golden State. The electric car conspiracy theories aside, Bush himself had buttkiss to do with the nation's dependence on environmentally damaging industry and transportation. Furthermore, the office of the American Presidency has little or nothing to do with the environmental policies of other nations, particularly emerging juggernauts like India and China.
And herein lies my problem with the environmental frustrations over W's apathy toward the environment. Suppose tomorrow that the Bush Administration decided to impose strict environmental controls on the nation, reducing industrial output and the number of gas-guzzlers on the road to 10% of their current value. Now also suppose, that W also decides to use the military to force anyone who will not comply. "What? You don't want to take the train." KABOOOOOM!! "Well now you have no choice since we just blew up your infernal gas powered car. By the way, in 10 days the trains won't be operating because the coal power-plants that provide electricity will be shut down. So you better get used to walking 10 miles to work everyday." In this scenario, the United States is reduced in industrial output and overall productivity. But the environment is saved, right? Wrong!
Remember those emerging behemoth nations like India and China. In 20 years, China's industrial output will equal that of 3 billion SUVs. Thats right, 3 fucking Billion. That's one SUV for every man, woman, and child in the U.S. today 10 times over. Other nations ramping up their industrial output to match and eventually overtake our own yields a new problem. Any void left by our industrial absence will be easily filled by other developing nations. Plus, China is not going to bow to some hippie American president willing to relegate his nation to throwing their feces at each other in trees. The only thing keeping the people of China from eating each others brains out of sheer hunger is the newfound power of the "Communist" government bolstered by the nation's somewhat recent advances in industry. So what will the militaristic environmentalists say about ol' China? "Let's shoot 'em all and let poor mother Earth sort 'em out!"
Of course, this leads to another paradox in the environmentalist's desire for more control of mankind's destructive impact on nature. If the U.S. goes to war over the environment with China, the ensuing nightmarish apocalyptic results will of course cause further harm to poor Mother Earth . But for advocates of strict environmental control, the ends justify the means. "Sure, the war might burn up more of the precious ozone layer, but in the end it will be worth it."And this, ultimately, is what it comes down to.
Militant environmentalists don't care about humanity. If they had their way, we'd be eating our own waste while dying at the age of 20. A war over the environment would only cause them to lament the resulting destruction on nature and not the deaths of untold men, women, and children. The only reason these enviro-nazis don't kill themselves now to help mother nature is because they need to exist in order to force their will down the throats of their brethren.
So next time you read something vilifying the Administration or even the United States for it's apathy regarding the environment, think of a prospective war with China before agreeing with it. Do the ends justify the means? I think not.
posted by Blackthorne at 5:53 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home