Green ink

Right wing commentary on the environment is like klan lit on civil rights - it's just wrong

October 15, 2005

 

 

MYTH: The Right has a clue about the environment

This coming winter will be the coldest in recorded history. Last winter, previous records for frigid weather and massive snowstorms fell like ... well ... a heavy snowfall. If I'm right, we ain't seen nothing yet. ...

What could make me believe that this warming planet could continue to produce weather increasingly frigid and increasingly violent?

It's really simple. To begin with, the world's glaciers are not retreating. As Robert W. Felix, author of "Not by Fire But by Ice," has demonstrated on his iceagenow.com Web site how fully 75 percent of the planet's glaciers are growing.

Moreover, many scientists believe that the summertime melt, far from being an ominous development signaling global warming that is melting the ice cap itself, is actually a cyclical development – a phenomenon that comes and goes over long periods of time. It is also a symptom of the oceans being heated, but more about that later.

--Philip V. Brennan, “The Next Ice Age is on the Way,” NewsMax, 10/12/05

“We are in an unusually long interglacial period right now, and another interesting but unresolved question is whether humans, without forethought, have inadvertently kept Earth out of the next ice age by altering its energy budget”…. The next time I see an SUV I am going to say a little prayer of thanks that we are not living in an ice age.

--Adam Rickel, “Humans (and Their SUVs) Have Saved the Planet,” Human Events Online, 9/20/05

REALITY

Last month wingnuts were expounding on the idea that SUV-driving Americans are delaying the appearance of the next ice age, and now this month the Right is stating the next ice age is quickly coming upon us. The amazing, and not surprising thing, is that neither of the above wingnuts are scientists. How are either of these two gentlemen remotely qualified to publish such utter folly? This is akin to Jack Kemp writing about economic issues. And the policy implications are perhaps more dangerous.

The real truth revealed by these articles is that the Right is clueless about the environment and global warming. Remember these are the same people, along with their Grand Pooh-Bah, that question whether global warming actually exists at all. It is this kind of confusion and ignorance that leads to the United States’ rejection of participation in the Kyoto Protocol, but the creation of another climate control pact with some of the other largest polluters on the planet.

That’s right, instead of joining the rest of the free world in supporting the Kyoto Protocol, the United States agreed in July to a 6-nation global-warming reduction pact between the US and 5 Asia-Pacific countries (Australia, Japan, India, China, and South Korea). Australia and the US are the big players in this pact, as they are the two developed countries which decided to opt out of the Kyoto protocol, taking issue with the fact that developing countries did not have to adhere to the emissions reduction standards. [Just a fun side comment, shouldn’t the developed and technologically advanced nations of Australia and the US have just a bit easier of a time cutting emission than a developing nation that can barely keep its industries open, let alone clean? Isn’t that one of the advantages of being a developed nation?]

Basically, the pact is between the 2 largest polluters in the world (the US and China) and another country that questions whether global warming even exists. As was reported in The Australian very recently:

[T]he Howard Government has denied global warming exists, or that burning coal releases greenhouse gases that lead to climate change, in court documents defending its approval of two Queensland coalmines. The denial comes a fortnight after Environment Minister Ian Campbell released a report warning that climate change is inevitable as a result of rising greenhouse emissions and that the impacts must be considered in all future government decisions. Senator Campbell signed off on the Isaac Plains and Sonoma Coal projects in May, determining that neither needed assessment under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act. The two mines will produce a combined 48 million tons of coal over their lifetime.

Of course, the Bush Administration is no stranger to global warming denial.

Basically we now have the biggest polluters, and hence the largest consumers of oil, in the world crafting an environmental treaty with a government that doesn’t believe that the burning of goal is harmful to the environment. Talk about hawks guarding the henhouse.

So, what does the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate actually specify as their goals and new course of action? Basically they want to cut greenhouse emissions in half by the end of the century. Details of the pact, however, will not be finalized until November. These nations are giving themselves 95 years to make their nations 50% more responsible towards maintaining a global ecosystem that can support life? Well that should be easy—oil-guzzlers China, the United States, and India will probably cause the world to exhaust its petroleum reserves years before 2100, so that should give these 6 countries a really good shot at meeting their projections….

In case you are still on the fence about whether you think global warming is real or just more lefty propaganda, check out the Sierra Club’s website, which has a lot of information on the impact of America’s cars and light trucks on greenhouse emission. The website of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), admits that global warming is a very real and dangerous problem that the world must face and develop a solution in order to combat. I may not be an expert on the science behind global warming, but these organizations certainly have better information than a magazine marketer, don’t you think? The point is that there is an overwhelming agreement among legitimate scientists (ExxonMobile hacks not included) that: a) global warming exists; b) it is a serious problem with potentially dire consequences; and c) human activity, including but not limited to the burning of fossil fuels is a significant factor in global warming.

The economic arguments against renewables are as bogus as the junk science used to refute global warming. Innovation creates jobs. Always has. Not only that, but the external costs of polluting industries are only starting to be factored in the the economics.

So keep hugging those trees, and please keep a constant vigil towards wingnut environmental science and economics.

MYTH: People who want to save the wilderness from development are just selfish people

An editorial in a recent issue of the National Geographic's Traveler magazine complained that kayakers in Maine found "residential development" near national parks and urged its readers to use their "influence" to prevent such things. "You are the stakeholders in our national parks," it said.

Really? What stake do kayakers and others of like mind have that is not also a stake held by people who build the vacation homes whose presence offends the kayak set? Homeowners are just as much citizens and taxpayers as kayakers are, and they are even entitled to equal treatment under the 14th Amendment….

The essence of bigotry is denying others the same rights you claim for yourself. Green bigots are a classic example.

The idea that government is supposed to make your desires override the desires of other citizens has spread from the green bigots to other groups who claim privileges in the name of rights.

--Thomas Sowell, “Spoiled Brat Politics,” Human Events Online, 10/11/05

REALITY

You gotta like wingnut jujitsu, like trying to call environmentalists bigots. Funny as it seems, comparing people dedicating to preserving vital natural resources and parks to people who lynched other people because of the color of their skin is a bit off. And here's why.

Development is an increasing problem all over the United States and it has serious implications. Of particular concern is the over-development that is occurring in and near National Parks, beaches, lakes, rivers, and on the outskirts of a metropolis. While aesthetics play a large role in peoples’ motivation to keep some these areas pristine, general safety and sheer access to these wonders is also a concern.

The fact of the matter, whether libertarian wingnuts admit it or not, is that residential and commercial development is a problem. Countless organizations and articles have been written about the problems associated with urban sprawl. Anyone who lives in a somewhat-metropolitan area knows what I am talking about. Housing developments and shopping centers are currently being built further and further away from the city center. As this happens, the environment of these areas changes immensely and populations that never had to interact (i.e. animals and humans) are forced to co-exist. This has occurred in numerous areas around the country, including North Bend, WA, which is about 25 miles outside of Seattle and in Southern California, where people are increasingly moving into mountain lion territory, leading to an increase in the number of humans attacked by mountain lions. The other problem with more people building and moving to houses further and further outside of town is the increase in their vulnerability to forest fires. In fact, urban sprawl has changed the nature of forest fires so greatly that in 2001 the USDA Forest Service had to change Smokey the Bear’s famous phrase “only you can prevent forest fires” to “only you can prevent wildfires” because of the number of people moving into forested areas. Forested areas are generally considered to be, well, forests—areas that exist far away from where people live.

Aside from these individual problems, are the problems that society has to deal with because of increasing private development in formerly public areas, like pollution. The Sierra Club has put together a great website about the dangers associated with urban sprawl. One major problem is the pollution and traffic problems caused by the sprawl. The further outside the city people live, the more roads need to be built or expanded to accommodate the traffic. This leads to more gas-guzzling, emissions-releasing cars driving through areas that were once free of these pollutants. The increase in the distance between work and home also means that people are now driving longer distances to work and, therefore, burning a greater amount of fuel. All of these problems together can create a great negative impact on the native flora and fauna that exist in these areas.

Another problem related to urban sprawl and increased development in previously unspoiled areas is that of access. The more people who build houses on previously public or untouched land, the less opportunity the public has to enjoy these resources. This is a big issue in Malibu, California right now, where citizens are constantly clashing with authorities over their right to spend time on the public beach, which is difficult to access because of the paucity of public access points amongst the million-dollar houses lining the beach. One state that has gotten this issue right, and that could be used as a model for other states, is New York and with its treatment of the Adirondack Mountains. Over a third of the 6 million acre Adirondack Park is part of the Adirondack Forest Preserve, in which development is prohibited. Therefore, one can still go to a lake in the Adirondacks, gain access to the water, and enjoy untouched scenery while canoeing in its wetlands. Is it wrong for canoers and kayakers to enjoy and want to preserve this? To preserve the land as it has existed for thousands of years? On the flip side, what right does a single person have to take this nature away, build a house, and potentially alter the nature of the land? He may enjoy the view and his sanctuary now, but what happens when 10 more people come and build right next to him? How will he feel about a person’s right to develop then?