(no subject)
It’s a bad time to be a knee-jerk anti-green conservative, because it’s become obvious that they’re mostly wrong. We really are facing serious problems which we could have prevented (or at least blunted) with common-sense precautions. So they’re reduced to a sad new form of backlash: criticizing environmentalists for daring to bring it up in the first place.
Some people have always said that environmentalists are misanthropes who get off on micromanaging others’ lives, but I’m hearing the accusation more often lately, and I think it’s partly because the accusers have nothing else left. They can no longer deny that the oceans are dying and that resource depletion is looming, but they’re not willing to openly admit they were wrong, so they dodge the question by casting aspersions on environmentalists’ character. OK, maybe mass-marketed Hummers really were a stupid idea (the 70’s weren’t that long ago, people-how did we forget the gas crisis?). But it was churlish of those eco-nuts to point it out. Who do they think they are?
They’re not 100% wrong, of course. There are jerks and wingnuts in every movement, and some people do get a little evangelical in their green fervor. I don’t agree with every so-called green cause, and I'm not willing to ruin the economy for half-baked green schemes. I’m glad ANWR has been off-limits until now, but it may be time to open it up to drilling, especially since people are beginning to appreciate the value of a gallon. If ANWR had been online five years ago, we would have wasted it anyway; its oil would have vanished into SUV tanks. Pretty soon, though, we’re going to genuinely need that oil as opposed to merely wanting it. My impression is that drilling technology has improved lately, to the point where it will be less environmentally intrusive (albeit not harmless) to drill there. Too many people also have a reflexive resistance to nuclear power, although environmentalists are hardly the only ones who’ve opposed it; plain old NIMBYism is just as bad for nuclear as Greenpeace. (And yes, if you’re curious, I would be OK with living near a nuclear plant, especially the newer, safer models.)
So yes, some people turn green living into an odd form of pseudo-fundamentalism, but for most of us, it's not a moral crusade; it's common sense and simple cause-and-effect logic. You get rid of wetlands, and you wind up with more flood events and hurricane damage. You dump fertilizer into the oceans and the fisheries die. You build an entire civilization around a finite resource (fossil fuels) and then waste that resource like it’s infinite, and you’re setting yourself up for a bad, bad crash.
I'd rather not waste my time worrying about what kind of car my neighbors drive. If gas were free and infinitely renewable, you could buy an H12 that gets negative twenty miles per gallon, and you wouldn't hear a peep from me. As it is, I'm still not going to knock on your door and chew you out for it in person or anything like that. But come on now: we're talking about a finite resource which we all need, and when you waste it, you're helping deplete the supply and drive up the price. That means I pay more for everything from transportation to food, and ultimately it even threatens national security (when everyone does it, anyway). It's OK for you to do that, but it's not OK for me to complain about it? I'm supposed to roll over and take it, rather than daring to suggest that your actions may have consequences? Give me a break.
Most of the major economic and political problems right now are ultimately environmental problems, so can we stop being stubborn and just start listening to ecologists, please? If someone points out that the beef industry is awful for the ecosystem, instead of eating more Big Macs to spite them, how about just reaching for a salad once in a while? When someone suggests that turning down the thermostat might be a good idea, instead of bellowing about how Rachel Carson killed more people than Hitler, how about just turning down the damn thermostat and putting on a sweater? Are your pride and minor comforts really worth more than our health and economic well-being?
Some people have always said that environmentalists are misanthropes who get off on micromanaging others’ lives, but I’m hearing the accusation more often lately, and I think it’s partly because the accusers have nothing else left. They can no longer deny that the oceans are dying and that resource depletion is looming, but they’re not willing to openly admit they were wrong, so they dodge the question by casting aspersions on environmentalists’ character. OK, maybe mass-marketed Hummers really were a stupid idea (the 70’s weren’t that long ago, people-how did we forget the gas crisis?). But it was churlish of those eco-nuts to point it out. Who do they think they are?
They’re not 100% wrong, of course. There are jerks and wingnuts in every movement, and some people do get a little evangelical in their green fervor. I don’t agree with every so-called green cause, and I'm not willing to ruin the economy for half-baked green schemes. I’m glad ANWR has been off-limits until now, but it may be time to open it up to drilling, especially since people are beginning to appreciate the value of a gallon. If ANWR had been online five years ago, we would have wasted it anyway; its oil would have vanished into SUV tanks. Pretty soon, though, we’re going to genuinely need that oil as opposed to merely wanting it. My impression is that drilling technology has improved lately, to the point where it will be less environmentally intrusive (albeit not harmless) to drill there. Too many people also have a reflexive resistance to nuclear power, although environmentalists are hardly the only ones who’ve opposed it; plain old NIMBYism is just as bad for nuclear as Greenpeace. (And yes, if you’re curious, I would be OK with living near a nuclear plant, especially the newer, safer models.)
So yes, some people turn green living into an odd form of pseudo-fundamentalism, but for most of us, it's not a moral crusade; it's common sense and simple cause-and-effect logic. You get rid of wetlands, and you wind up with more flood events and hurricane damage. You dump fertilizer into the oceans and the fisheries die. You build an entire civilization around a finite resource (fossil fuels) and then waste that resource like it’s infinite, and you’re setting yourself up for a bad, bad crash.
I'd rather not waste my time worrying about what kind of car my neighbors drive. If gas were free and infinitely renewable, you could buy an H12 that gets negative twenty miles per gallon, and you wouldn't hear a peep from me. As it is, I'm still not going to knock on your door and chew you out for it in person or anything like that. But come on now: we're talking about a finite resource which we all need, and when you waste it, you're helping deplete the supply and drive up the price. That means I pay more for everything from transportation to food, and ultimately it even threatens national security (when everyone does it, anyway). It's OK for you to do that, but it's not OK for me to complain about it? I'm supposed to roll over and take it, rather than daring to suggest that your actions may have consequences? Give me a break.
Most of the major economic and political problems right now are ultimately environmental problems, so can we stop being stubborn and just start listening to ecologists, please? If someone points out that the beef industry is awful for the ecosystem, instead of eating more Big Macs to spite them, how about just reaching for a salad once in a while? When someone suggests that turning down the thermostat might be a good idea, instead of bellowing about how Rachel Carson killed more people than Hitler, how about just turning down the damn thermostat and putting on a sweater? Are your pride and minor comforts really worth more than our health and economic well-being?