A Consideration of Environmental Poltiics

I understand and appreciate the goals of the environmental movements out there, but I also fear that while they put plenty of time into research of the environmental problems and the long term effects of those problems if they remain unchecked, they don't put the same amount of time and energy into researching both the positive and negative effects of their possible "solutions."

It sometimes seems they don't often research the possible solutions quite as thoroughly as they research the problems themselves. There's a bit of a knee-jerk reactionism to environmental problems that I believe could lead us to even greater problems down the road than the environmental problems/issues themselves. I believe that as a culture we're too prone to rush into solutions to our problems far too rashly and it gets us into even bigger messes.

The attention spans of society as a whole are too short. We're a fast food culture that want results NOW. As a result our leaders (in both parties) knowing that their re-electability is often only as good as their next political success often rush headlong into "solutions" without adequately researching the adverse effects of those solutions.

The biofuel issue is just one example of putting solid and sound research into defining a problem and its long term effects and then rushing into a solution without fully evaluating the possible costs and drawbacks of that solution. Using food items as an alternative fuel source that supposedly leaves a smaller carbon footprint and reduces our dependence on foreign oil-- sounds great, doesn't it? But what effect does it have on worldwide food shortages and the out of control upward spiral of food prices? By going "green" with bio-fuel aren't we essentially making world hunger an even greater problem than it already is? And while biofuel may be cheaper than gasoline, what is the net effect on our bank ledgers? We pay less for fuel, but more for food? Are we really balancing things out? Are we really saving money? Are we possibly even spending more?

Doing what's right isn't always popular and in a culture as coddled as ours has become there's an overwhelming want/need to be well-liked/popular which goes all the way up to the highest echelons of power in both parties, and sometimes that desire comes at the cost of doing what's actually right or taking the time to figure out what is actually right as opposed to following what seems like the easiest path at the time.

We're also a mass-marketed culture. Slap a "green" label on a product and we'll fall over each other to purchase it, but how many people actually research how "green" the product actually is? And even if products ARE actually green by conventional wisdom, are they REALLY "green?"

Just some mental cud to chew on...

Is Environmentalism holding Africa back?

Next to AIDS, the biggest killer in Africa is malaria which is carried by mosquitoes... mosquitoes that could by and large be reduced/eliminated by using DDT.

DDT used to be sprayed in the US back in the fifties and into the sixties but it was found to be bad for the environment... Yet how many people who were exposed to DDT in its heyday today suffer ill side effects? There are few enough of them that we don't hear much about it... far fewer people are adversely effected by DDT than Africans who are killed by malaria every day/month/year.

Many nations in Africa have the means to support coal power, power that could really help many African nations improve their economies and their standard of living (the more self-sufficient we allow them to become the less money they'll need from the more developed nations of the world). But coal power is "bad for the environment." As such the UN places economic sanctions on nations who choose to use coal power-- negating any positive effect using such power would have on the economies of these nations.

I know we have a responsibility to be good stewards of the environment, but at what cost? Should we really be holding back almost an entire continent because DDT is bad for the environment? Because coal power isn't as clean as other forms of power?

Do we have the right to have an "environmental conceit" that puts lesser developed nations at a distinct disadvantage because they don't have strong enough economies to support the more environmentally friendly alternatives that the more developed nations of the world DO have the economies to support?

I don't have the answer(s)... I'm just putting this out there for discussion... Politics on a bit more global scale.

The Great Global Warming Scandal

If you haven't seen this yet, I highly recommend it-- it's a great BBC documentary on the Global Warming.

It's posted in its entirety (75:55) here on YouTube.com.

Whether or not you've already seen An Inconvenient Truth, I encourage you to watch this as well. Hear both sides of the global warming issue and decide for yourself who makes the more compelling argument.