There is a movie called Idiocracy in which two average people partake in a hibernation project and end up 500 years in the future. To their surprise, the people in society have turned into complete idiots. Sometimes I feel like this is the world I am living in, especially lately with Earth Day.
The whole "green" movement is a joke and I am baffled by how many people have been swindled out there. I have nothing against others helping the environment or nature, provided that it is done peacefully, but all of this environmental anguish is out of control. Luckily, the average American is only talking about it and doing small symbolic gestures and is not ready to sacrifice their lifestyle.
Most of the so-called solutions we hear from so-called environmentalists are not really solutions at all. They are ideas that simply make life for human beings more difficult and more expensive, while slowing down human progress. The whole so-called environmental movement is anti-human and anti-freedom. When communism collapsed in the late 80's and early 90's, it was given a bad name association, and rightly so. The communists had to go into hiding and could no longer directly call for communism since their ideas had been discredited. The communists decided to become environmentalists and take a new approach to their agenda.
If you'll notice, nearly every single solution offered by the green movement is to impede human progress. It also usually involves using the force of government or at least it is a suggestion that could later lead to government force.
The whole global warming debate has to be a hoax. We live in a variable climate that has always varied as long as mankind has walked the earth. If this year is warmer than last year, it means nothing. If this century is warmer than last century, it means nothing. Next week may be warmer or colder than this week. It could go either way because we live in a variable climate. Even the reports that the earth has warmed in the last century can be doubted. Some of the official thermometers have been found to be within a short distance of pavement that attracts heat.
If the earth has actually warmed by a degree in the last century, so what? The century before that may have been 2 degrees warmer. If you ever get a chance to see Greenland, you will find that it is mostly ice. There isn't much green to it. But the people that settled Greenland probably named it that for a reason. Could it have been much warmer there when it was first settled centuries ago?
Even if the earth is warming, it doesn't mean it has anything to do with humans. Most of the scientists that preach man-made global warming get their funding from government. If they didn't preach man-made global warming, then their funding would miraculously disappear. It is amazing how incentives work.
If the earth is warming, it might not be such a bad thing, especially for some of the brutal places near the poles. But even if we did want to stop global warming from occurring, we certainly shouldn't turn to government and another FEMA-like agency.
Another green idiocracy issue is that of saving water. The last time I checked, about two-thirds of the earth is covered in water. There is this incredible process where water evaporates and is purified and falls as fresh water from the clouds. It is like a huge filtration system for our planet.
It makes no sense when people talk about saving water. We pay for water when we pay our water bill. The more water you use, the more you pay for it. It is just like any other good that we buy. When you see areas that have a drought and a supply problem with water, that is an automatic indication that the government is interfering. In a normal free market, if there is an increase in demand or a decrease in supply of something, the price rises. This will decrease demand and may help increase the supply if the good can be obtained from another place that has a larger supply.
In areas with droughts, the government control of the water supply is really the only reason for a shortage. If you walk into a grocery store in those areas, there will be plenty of bottled water on the shelves as this operates in a more free market environment.
Then we have recycling. I have nothing against recycling, just government forced recycling. This includes being forced to pay for others to recycle. If it is worth it to recycle a particular material, then the free market will take care of this. If the government forces you to pay for a recycling program, then it is not cost effective. For example, if it costs an average of 5 cents per can to recycle soda cans and it saves only 4 cents per can in making new ones, then it is not worth it. However, if they could be recycled at a cost of only 3 cents per can to later save 4 cents, then it may be worth it and some company may come in and do it and give you a monetary incentive to participate. But if the government has to subsidize it, then it is a waste of money.
The same goes for more fuel-efficient vehicles. If the price of gas gets high enough, it will be worth it for people to pay more for hybrid and other fuel-efficient vehicles. You shouldn't need a government subsidy.
This also applies to ethanol. If using corn to make ethanol for our gasoline were an efficient use of resources, the government would not have to "give" out billions of dollars in subsidies. It actually uses more energy to make ethanol from corn than it produces, but this fact doesn't even matter. If it were really cheap to make ethanol or if ethanol could make your car get 500 miles to the gallon, then people would freely choose to use it out of their own self-interest. But when the government has to force us to pay for it, we can all be certain that it is a waste of resources.
The ironic thing about the whole environment issue is that the governments of the world are by far the biggest destroyers of it. When you hear about one of those forest fires raging in California, it most likely originated on government land. The best answer to having a good environment is through strong property rights. When individuals are secure in their property, they can confront those that infringe on their property with pollution or anything else, as the justice system would provide a remedy of the situation with possible restitution. And more, when property is owned privately and not through the government, it is much more likely to be taken care of. People will treat their own property with the respect that it deserves, whereas government property will be abused, neglected, and possibly destroyed.
People need to stop being so phony about going green and start thinking with their heads. The green movement today does little, at best, to help the environment and it is a total waste of time and resources.
May 5, 2008
