Monday, February 8, 2010

Questions for the self-righteous climate-obsessed

Local Sierrans held a vigil outside the local store one Saturday morning to register their impatience with lack of action on climate change. The following questions came to mind:

Why isn't there a vigil outside the store about this: Or do we not think stratosphere fossil fuel prices are imminent and will destroy our ability to feed more than a fraction of humanity?

Why isn't there a vigil outside the store about Peak Everything? About biodiversity loss? About what underlies all of it—overpopulation. About the dangerous problems right around the corner?

Why is global warming our obsession when the Canada Research Chair on Energy and the Environment, the much acclaimed Dr. David Keith, said recently that while climate change is very serious, "there is no credible science" to back up the belief that it is this "apocalyptic, existential threat" that must be addressed "in years rather than decades".

Why has climate change hijacked the environmental agenda? Was there no environmental degradation before Al Gore?

Why do environmentalists care so much about GHG emissions and nothing about the number of GHG emitters?

Why don't environmentalists realize that birth control is five times more cost-effective in reducing GHG emissions than green technology?

Why is it that the BC Sierra Club produced 10 "things you can do to fight global warming", the David Suzuki Foundation another 10 "ways to fight global warming" and Guy Dauncey 101 "solutions" to fight climate change, and not one of them, not one recommendation in a grand total of 121 tips to fight climate change, mentioned birth control? How can these green NGOs insist that climate change is a result of human activity when they apparently won't acknowledge that the number of "humans" has something to do with human activity? Why did they remain silent when an Abbotsford couple had their 18th child? Was that not a "teachable moment"? Is that at least as important as replacing incandescent bulbs? Who drives SUVs or generates waste? Chimpanzees? Gremlins? Ghosts?

It is it just a coincidence that between 1970 and 2004 America's population grew by 43% while its GHG emissions grew by 43%? Do environmentalists and politicians believe that there is a technological "fix" for unchecked growth and greed? Do they think that we can decouple GHG emissions and environmental damage from economic and population growth? That we can decouple ice cream consumption from weight gain and starvation from lack of food? That we can we reduce landfills while increasing the number of land-fillers? Hello?

Could it be that green NGO silence about population and economic growth (it's OK if it is "smart") has something to do with their corporate benefactors? Financial institutions who have a vested interest in growth? Do their members choose not to know? Do they not read the financial reports of the organizations they support? Are they wilfully blind? Or so lazy as to be satisfied with the spoon-fed filtered information they get from their club's newsletters? Is the name of the game attacking root causes or is it addressing symptoms? Is it about taking on taboos or just focusing on easy politically correct targets? Are symbolic protests and cosmetic lifestyle adjustments really about feeling good about yourself? Penitence perhaps for taking the carbon footprints you gave birth to or sired to Bali or Mexico by jet aircraft at Mother Nature’s expense.

Tim Murray
December 16/09

1 comment:

A said...

Well done Tim! Kudos!