By Jonah Goldberg, LA Times
I admit it: I’m no environmentalist. But I like to think I’m something of a conservationist. No doubt for millions of Americans this is a distinction without a difference, as the two words are usually used interchangeably. But they’re different things, and the country would be better off if we sharpened the distinctions between both word and concept.
At its core, environmentalism is a kind of nature worship. It’s a holistic ideology, shot through with religious sentiment. “If you look carefully,” author Michael Crichton famously observed, “you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths.”
Environmentalism’s most renewable resources are fear, guilt and moral bullying. Its worldview casts man as a sinful creature who, through the pursuit of forbidden knowledge, abandoned our Edenic past. John Muir, who laid the philosophical foundations of modern environmentalism, described humans as “selfish, conceited creatures.” Salvation comes from shedding our sins, rejecting our addictions (to oil, consumerism, etc.) and demonstrating through deeds an all-encompassing love of Mother Earth. Quoth Al Gore: “The climate crisis is not a political issue; it is a moral and spiritual challenge to all of humanity.”
Plastic grocery bags are being banned all over the place, even though they require less energy to make or recycle than paper ones. The whole country is being forced to subscribe to a modern version of transubstantiation, whereby corn is miraculously transformed into sinless energy even as it does worse damage than oil.
Conservation, which shares roots and meaning with conservatism, stands athwart this mass hysteria. Yes, conservationism can have a religious element to it as well, but that element stems from the biblical injunction to be a good steward of the Earth, rather than a worshiper of it. But stewardship involves economics, not mysticism. Economics is the study of choosing between competing goods. Environmentalists view economics as the enemy because cost-benefit analysis is thoroughly unromantic. In the broadest sense, the environmental movement has won. Americans are “green” in that they are willing to spend a lot to keep their country ecologically healthy, which it is. But now it’s time to save the environment from the environmentalists. Read more here.
AccuWeather.com’s senior meteorologist Joe Bastardi sent an open letter to the 2008 presidential candidates. Excerpts from that letter follow:
Dear Sir or Madam,
The nonsense that is the global warming debate can be likened to a Don King production, where the two main antagonists, well deserved ones at that, are still hours away from the main fight. Instead, we have under-cards that leave us simply wondering if we will ever get to the real deal. I use the fight game because in boxing in past days, guys went right at it. Jake La Motta and Sugar Ray Robinson once fought each other within a few weeks of a fight. There was no dancing and ducking and big mouthing, just the fight against the guys that deserved to be in the ring.
This is exactly how this should be handled. Mr Obama, can the Al Gore as an advisor on the environment. Mr. McCain, quit succumbing to pressure because you want to look nice or moderate. Both of you, get the people that can give this debate its true merit in front of you. Hillary, if you are elected, the same thing (you got to admit, she is showing some Lady Thatcher or Golda Meir spunk these days). But stop with watching people that aren’t the main event.
Within the first 100 days of office, get the top five SCIENTISTS on both sides of the issue in front of you in the oval office and let them argue it out. No cameras, no press, just you, your closest advisors, and the people that are qualified to do this. Have trusted members of both sides of the aisles, but get the politics out of it. The polar bear situation should push Americans over the edge. The long term population has increased. In addition, the cold this winter may simply be a preview of what is coming.
This is not a matter of politics, it is not a matter of feelings. It is a matter of science and facts and educated men squaring off and displaying their knowledge. A non-conclusive answer in this matter is no answer at all, and no mandate to perhaps send us on path that could affect the chance for the very people we should have the most compassion for, to improve their lot. Read the full letter here.
By Richard W. Rahn, Washington Times
What do you think was the most costly intelligence failure of all time? No, was it is not the world’s leading intelligence agencies’ failure to notice that Saddam had few, if any, weapons of mass destruction. It was the failure of many leading climate model builders to be modest enough about their predictions, and the politicians’ and media’s failure to ask the tough questions of these climate experts. As a consequence of what we now know was an overblown global-warming scare, everyone on the planet is paying substantially more for food and fuel than is necessary. Despite the prediction of all the major climate models, the Earth has been getting cooler since 1998. At first, it was not considered a big deal because temperatures fluctuate from year to year. However, the drop has now been going for a decade, with another big drop last year. The global warming zealots have just been handed another rude shock, when the peer-reviewed journal, Nature, reported on May 1 that according to a new (and hopefully improved) climate model, global surface temperatures may not increase over the next decade. Roger A. Pielke, environmental studies professor at the University of Colorado, and not previously a global warming skeptic, reacted to the Nature article: “Climate models are of no practical use beyond providing some intellectual authority in the promotional battle over global-warming policy.”
Hudson Institute environmental economist Dennis Avery said: “The Earth’s warming from 1915 to 1940 was just about as strong as the “scary” 1975 to 1998 warming in both scope and duration - and occurred too early to be blamed on human-emitted CO2. The cooling from 1940 to 1975 defied the Greenhouse Theory, occurring during the first big surge of man-made greenhouse emissions.
As a direct result of the global-warming hysteria, which, as noted above, was grossly overblown to say the least, governments reacted by restricting energy production from traditional sources, such as oil, gas and coal, and by enacting very costly regulations on CO2 emission sources. Governments also quickly jumped on the fad of “biomass” production, which, at least in the case of corn, does not result in less CO2 but more than standard oil and gas wells produce - a clear “intelligence” failure. The restrictions on oil and gas have greatly increased the cost of gasoline and home heating oil, and the production cost of almost everything else, especially plastics and food. See story here.