It would seem to me that the principles of economics should be applied to environmentalism so that each can support the other. The environmental aspect can remain financially sound and industry can be tempered with a healthy knowledge that everything has a consequence. That way everyone wins.
But I must be crazy as much richer wiser heads than mine have determined that industry must be stamped out to eliminate all forms of carbon emissions. Namely the orator Al Gore and his infamous plan to initiate a “Carbon Freeze” on America.
Now don’t get me wrong. I am not a knee jerk right winger who spits on Al Gore’s syllables. I am in favor of a strong economy but suggesting that we destroy what so many generations have done for us gets my ire. I will list a few points that seem to conflict with the very progressive ideology that spawned it. I compiled this list of grievances from an article published with great praise for Al Gore by the pesn.com, an advocate of clean energy systems. Oh, and why do I keep reading that “the debate is over?” Since when does Al Gore get to decide that? Isn’t that a collective decision?
1. The economic implications of an carbon freeze are staggering, frightening, dangerous, and irresponsible to ignore. What Al Gore proposes is economic suicide. A sudden halt in industry means no research (green tech), innovations, production (cars), jobs, and outsourcing like the world has never seen before. Like every company in America would move to another country to avoid extinction.
If you have a perspective that dislikes capitalism and all it’s ways then you might see this as a good thing. The Man, getting what has been coming to him for trashing the environment. And sure, there might be a shred of truth to that. What goes around does come around. But the people who are really going to pay the huge price for such an action is us, the middle class. As much griping that goes on about the big corporations we have to acknowledge that they are responsible for ALL the research, innovation, production, and economic development that put us in the position to discuss this issue. That is a good thing. Economic success should not to be taken lightly. Lets call a rose a rose shall we?
How can we castigate a economic system that has provided the wealth this country is founded on, despite it’s weaknesses? Disagree? Look at other countries living standards, namely those who are not capitalistic. There is an undeniable poverty in the lower class. But I digress.
I do not attempt to demonize Al Gore. Nor am I saying Al Gore is absolutely wrong. If you can provide incontrovertible proof of apocalyptic change that threatens man’s existence due to our industry or whatever I would agree with you. So far that has not done. So far I am unenthusiastic about a fatalist policy on skewed shaky data that threatens 300 million people’s way of life and, indirectly, the rest of the world. That would be irresponsible and arrogant. And I think it might piss many billions of people off.
2. So for the sake of argument point 1 is overcome. What about the outcome? Would a carbon freeze save the planet? I say no with a great amount of certainty.
Many other developing countries do not share our interest in the environment. They have much bigger problems to worry about such as providing infrastructure to build a sound economy on and stopping rampant disease. If America was to cut off it’s economic legs it would cripple if not destroy every humanitarian and economic effort we have made to improve their standard of living. All of the sudden America would have very large problems of her own to worry about. Like existence. I can think of several moral dilemmas there.
It does not end there though. Eventually the developing companies would attain a level of stability and be in the same position we are in now. Can we count on them to make the right decision? Can we count on them to follow our brave lead back into the stone age to save the planet? I submit that we can’t bank on it.
—
Now I don’t like to just bash people for the sake of bashing people. I have nothing against Al Gore as a person. So don’t get all defensive when I say that this is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard of. All this coming from the former Vice President! How can I trust anything he says when he is willing to promote stupidity on this level? It completely discredits him and I don’t want that. I want active proponents of environmentalism being vocal on this issue but I want them to be credible as well. Being vocal for the sake of being vocal is pointless. Here is a quote from pesn.com.
“Leading US politician proposes carbon-emissions freeze and other practical tactics for averting climate disaster. Though political, legal and financial challenges stand in the way of a shift to cleaner energy, his expression of faith in his fellow humans and examples of companies making positive change can inspire more people to take up the cause.”
-by Mary-Sue Haliburton
Pure Energy Systems News
Inspire people? To what level of ignorance must we stoop?
As always I welcome your dissenting opinion like a drowning polar bear welcomes an ice floe.