These stories are often found in publications such as the WSJ, Forbes, the Economist, and others that otherwise show little or no concern for environmental regulation. Not to be totally cynical and say that these publications often oppose pro-environment rules or promote rollbacks of such rules and regulations. How come these anti-environmental publications are suddenly so worried about green?
I think what these people are trying to tell us is that a thriving economy is good for the environment. That success lifts all boats. That we should work hard to keep the economy going so we can protect the environment. Remember, the more you buy the more you save. You can drink the kool-aid too.
I have previously remarked on how easy it is to attach a label of environmentalist to oneself. However, true environmentalism means less consumption. No new houses, no new cars, hybrid or otherwise, no thrashing perfectly good items to replace them with newer gadgets, no shopping at WalMart or anywhere else for that matter.
True environmentalism means going on a walk in nature on Black Friday. Turning off you TV instead of buying a flat screen. No driving to the mall and no bargain hunting. It has nothing to do with CFL's, hybrids, or efficiency. Efficiency does not matter to the environment. Absolute values are the only ones that matter.
Every item you buy to replace an older but functional item is a vote for environmental destruction.
Remember that none of the so-called environmental regulations has had much effect. Efficiency gains in gas and oil have been more than offset by increased travel, more driving, and larger homes. I could go on forever. The upshot is that these measures don't matter and their roll back or abolition does not matter either.
Reality is that economic slow downs are good for the environment because they reduce consumption. People spend less. They drive less. They stay home. They eat at home. Those are the only things that matter. Less consumption, less waste.
No comments:
Post a Comment