I listen to books on CD when I am traveling in my car. One of the audio books I have listened to recently is "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Environmentalism)." I wrote an email message to Christopher Horner, the author of the book.
Hello Christopher,
some of your points about the science and politics involved with the issue of Global Warming have caused me to at least wonder about the extent to which I have had a knee-jerk acceptance of the idea that Global Warming is a valid concern.
But, is Global Warming the only ecological issue ?
What about: the loss of topsoil; the draw-down of fish stocks; the draw-down of aquifers; deforestation; the spread of deserts; eutrophication in lakes, rivers, and seas; the loss of biodiversity; and the eventual, if not imminent, decline in the global supply of petroleum and natural gas ?
According to your book, Global Warming is not a problem. Instead, as you tell it, environmentalism itself is a threat to the United States, in terms of our economy, sovereignty, individual freedoms, and our nation’s overall quality of life.
You say environmentalists oppose coal-based, nuclear, and hydro-based power as a part of our attempt to cripple capitalism. You claim that greenies are really commies; we’re like watermelons in that we’re “green on the outside, red to the core.”
But whose economies, political freedoms, and overall quality of life are more likely to advance, all else being the same? Will it be the societies that have invested in new forms of energy and an otherwise more efficient way of life, or the societies that resist such changes?
What’s wrong with (1) redesigning settlement patterns so as to increase people's ability to walk and bicycle; (2) building a network of electrified passenger and freight rail systems; (3) building wind farms; (4) building vast complexes of centralized solar arrays; (5)installing millions of freestanding solar arrays for household and business use; and (6) developing local food supply-chains based on small-scale organic farming ?
If this is not what our nation should be doing, then what is? Are environmentalists wrong about EVERYTHING?
Are there any environmental or resource concerns that you regard as legitimate? Do you think that both our planet's resources and human ingenuity are infinite ?
Consider the following models for representing the ethos of environmentalism and tell me what you think. One is a bank account, and the other is a trash can. Environmentalism involves the idea that human beings should not expect to limitlessly withdraw from the ecological bank account or to limitlessly put trash into what we’ve been using as our collective garbage can.
I have been seeking out writers, such as yourself, who try to refute concerns about Global Warming and concerns about other resources issues such as Peak Oil. I do this not only to learn about how other people think and to have my own ideas challenged. I also do it because I would welcome it if someone could convince me that I don't need to be concerned about these resource issues.
I would welcome a situation in which, for example, concerns about nuclear winter would not accompany concerns about Global Warming, Peak Oil or water scarcity. I venture that it would be a relief to many environmentalists to honestly discover that we’ve been wrong.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
