Oh wait... it turns out they MADE UP ALL THEIR DATA. So now we're back to the same spot that we "nutty extremist, climate-denyers" (or something like that) have always claimed: There is still no evidence proving CAUSATION between atmospheric CO2 and the Earth's temperature. Not a single shred of certified, reliable scientific data proving causation!
In fact, the Earth's temperature peaked in 2002 and has been cooling in the eight years since then. How does that not refute the global warming argument?!
For the record, I am all for humanity being responsible stewards of the environment, since this is our only currently inhabitable planet. We should make sure to keep it in usable condition, absolutely. But I am flat-out opposed to hypocritical political opportunists (ahem, Al Gore, ahem) using bogus science and emotion in a naked power grab. Especially when these scoundrels (yeah, that's right) stand to make millions upon millions of dollars on the backs of gullible but innocent people who get swept up in mass hysteria.
Let's talk about REAL environmentalism, where we provide market-based incentives for people to use resources more efficiently. For example, let's say that people who choose to drive more fuel-efficient cars will pay less for gas. And let's allow people the choice to save money on their energy bills if they turn down the heater/AC and use energy-efficient lightbulbs and appliances. That way, we give people the choice to save their own hard-earned money instead of shoving rhetoric down their throats and invisibly enslaving them (financially and behaviorally) with silly regulations and unjust limitations that help no one and are unfair and re-distributive. Imagine how much we can accomplish in that kind of world...
Let's talk about REAL environmentalism, where we provide market-based incentives for people to use resources more efficiently. For example, let's say that people who choose to drive more fuel-efficient cars will pay less for gas. And let's allow people the choice to save money on their energy bills if they turn down the heater/AC and use energy-efficient lightbulbs and appliances. That way, we give people the choice to save their own hard-earned money instead of shoving rhetoric down their throats and invisibly enslaving them (financially and behaviorally) with silly regulations and unjust limitations that help no one and are unfair and re-distributive. Imagine how much we can accomplish in that kind of world...
Wait, don't we already let people save their own money when they use less resource? Shouldn't we just do more of the same and encourage that sort of personal responsibility? It only makes sense that if you use less "stuff" (like oil, natural gas, electricity, paper, wood, metal, etc.) that you should pay less for it. Is it so far-fetched to think that instead of creating onerous regulations and seeking to demonize the providers of our resources (like oil companies, energy utilities and other industrial firms), we should simply allow the market to create its own incentives to save?
For common resources where the private market is inefficient, we should create private property to encourage firms to save those resources as well. This has worked well in many so-called pollution credit markets. We just need to make sure that we're actually targeting real pollution, not a bunch of hot air (literally).
That's what real environmentalism should be about.
No comments:
Post a Comment