You have to pay the price of living in a technological society. Get over it. Accept that trees and grass do not make an advanced life style possible. They make cows and furniture possible. That’s all…Posted by: enter sandman at May 10, 2009 11:24
The political class finds it useful to make false choices out of every issue. Examples: The current health care system OR nationalized health care. Amnesty for illegal immigrants OR mass deportations. Government-run social security OR old people living on Ken-L Ration.
Maybe that’s how their puny little minds work; unable to see any more than two alternatives. More likely, they pose the worst alternative to what they really want to do as the only alternative to what they want to do and set up a false choice.
No where is this more pronounced than on the environment. The choice politicians give us is pretty stark: Regulate human activity to put the environment in absolutely pristine condition OR we all die. Choices don’t get much more stark than that.
And, ironically, these environmentalist poses end up making the environment worse globally as industries are forced out of countries that demand absolute environmental purity and off to places like China and Mexico where they don’t give a damn. Usually, getting rid of the first 90% of industrial pollution is fairly straightforward. Getting rid of the remaining 10% will often cost more than eliminating the first 90%. At which point, a business simply can’t operate profitably.
Which is better for the Earth? A factory in the USA that’s 90% clean? Or forcing that factory to relocate to China where it will be 0% clean.
And factories don’t pollute just for the hell of it. They are making things that people use everyday. Have those eco-hippies taken a good look at their bongs? I bet they’re made from plastic in a factory somewhere… probably China.
Let’s get realistic, like enter sandman did. Somewhere between industrial sprawl that looks like Guangdong on a bad day and an environment as clean as a surgical theater lies a place where we keep the environment reasonably clean while still permitting humans to engage in commerce and improve their lives.
Maybe that means we accept a little pollution in certain areas as the price we pay for having a technological civilization. Not saying, let’s dump millions of gallons of poison into pristine rivers. But let’s not get our panties in a wad over a few parts per million. Let’s be reasonable about extracting oil from distant arctic hellholes no sane person would want to live in.
Another place we could start would be asking is it worth spending 2,000,000,000,000 dollars, sacrificing millions of jobs, raising the taxes of every American family by $4,000 a year on a policy with no measurable benefit to the environment?