A refreshing approach to Global Warming
This article at New Republic called A Manifesto for a New Environmentalism argues that environmentalists are approaching Global Warming in the wrong way and they should take an entirely different approach:
Not, as environmental leaders insist, by limiting human power but rather by unleashing it. In terms of birthing a new energy economy, regulation is important-it's just not the most important thing. The highest objective of anyone concerned about global warming must be to bring down the real price of clean energy below the price of dirty energy as quickly as possible-most importantly, in places like China. And, for that to happen, we'll need a new paradigm centered on technological innovation and economic opportunity, not on nature preservation and ecological limits.
In other words more optimism and less pessimism. Whether Global Warming is happening and whether or not it is the catastrophic occurrence that acolytes of Al Gore would have us believe the reason that there are sceptics like me is that too many so called environmentalists seem to be reveling in apocalyptic scenarios rather than coming up with solutions that motivate people to action.
In that respect they are like certain old time fire and brimstone religious preachers: scary as hell but in the end not that effective.
In this respect the authors and I are on the same page:
In promoting the inconvenient truth that humans must limit their consumption and sacrifice their way of life to prevent the world from ending, environmentalists are not only promoting a solution that won't work, they've discouraged Americans from seeing the big solutions at all. For Americans to be future-oriented, generous, and expansive in their thinking, they must feel secure, wealthy, and strong.
But here's the interesting part for me:
How might history have been different had environmentalists and their political allies 20 years ago proposed that the nations of the world make a massive, shared investment in clean energy, better and more efficient housing development, and more comfortable and efficient transportation systems? The tables would have been turned. Global- warming skeptics would have had to take a position against the growth of new markets and industries. Proponents of this investment agenda could have tarred their opponents as being anti-business, anti-growth, anti-investment, anti-jobs, and stuck in the past.
This might be true but the authors seem a bit naive here. When you talk of environmentalists and their “allies” you have to come to grips with the fact that environmentalism has always allied itself with anti-business, anti-capitalist groups. The sad thing is that most of them don't seem to realize they are being used. One of the characteristics of the hard left is its penchant for latching onto issues that on the surface seem to be motivated by the urge to do-good but in reality are useful tools for them to spread dissent and disruption in order to achieve their ultimate goal: destruction of capitalism. The environmentalist movement has to quite frankly grow up and stop fighting with the very people that can help them.
Oh an before you start pointing out that capitalism has been the main source of pollution and that socialists are all sweetness.