There are two ways to celebrate Earth Day.
The first path, if we opt to follow the environmentalists solution; the most efficient way to reduce Carbon Footprint would be through atavism (bring life back to the medieval ages) or simply commit suicide.
As Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D. writes,
``Such is the naked essence of environmentalism: it mourns the death of one whale or tree but actually welcomes the death of billions of people. A more malevolent, man-hating philosophy is unimaginable."
But hostility to human affairs on the environment has long been here.
Professor Pierre Desrochers in the Financial Post writes, ``The idea that Nature is in fragile balance and under constant threat from human greed goes back much further than is generally believed.
``In his treatise On the Testimony of the Soul published more than 1,800 years ago, at a time when the world’s population was about 30 times lower than it is today, the theologian Tertullian noted with horror that humans have “become a burden to the Earth; the fruits of nature hardly suffice to sustain us; there is a general pressure of scarcity giving rise to complaints, since the Earth can no longer support us.” Fortunately, he added, “plague and famine, warfare and earthquake, come to be regarded as remedies.”
``Human existence was also long blamed for changes in the weather, as researchers Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr explained in a recent scientific article. Well before a supposed “consensus” blamed our use of coal, oil and natural gas for climate change, periods of cooling or heating over the last few centuries were attributed to various manmade causes such as witchcraft, deforestation, the invention of the lightning rod and then wireless telegraphy, cannon shots in the First World War and nuclear testing."
But since, people have outlasted such pessimism and will continue to do so.
And apparently beyond all the environmental ruckus, life has been improving.
Writes Bjorn Lomborg, ``But consider this: In virtually every developed country, the air is more breathable and the water is more drinkable than it was in 1970. In most of the First World, deforestation has turned to reforestation. Moreover, the percentage of malnutrition has been reduced, and ever-more people have access to clean water and sanitation."
So George Carlin's "Saving The Planet" video which we blogged last year George Carlin on Saving The Planet, should be a comic refresher anent the fallacy from the demagoguery engaged by extremist environmentalists.
The second way to celebrate Earth Day is to recognize that we are in a much better position to acknowledge the importance of our planet.
Again Bjorn Lomborg, ``But in a world in which most developing countries depend almost exclusively on fossil fuels to power their economies, it's both impractical and immoral to insist that the only solution is for everyone to drastically cut carbon emissions. This approach might make sense if we were able to offer developing countries practical, affordable alternatives to coal and oil. But we cannot— and as long as we can't, all we're really doing when we call for massive carbon cuts is asking the world's poor people to continue living lives of misery and deprivation...
"...we might consider one of the fundamental lessons of the past 40 years of environmental concern. You cannot expect people to care about what the environment may be like 100 years from now if they are worrying about whether their children have enough to eat. With this in mind, we should focus on the many more immediate problems faced by the developing world today — problems such as malnutrition, education, disease and clean drinking water."
In other words, the path to a better environment is to for economies to prosper first.
How? Through free markets.
Professor Pierre Desrochers anew, ``It was not regulation or green activism that provided for improvements in the quality of our environment over the last few decades but rather a process inherent to the market economy, leading to ever more efficient innovations and an ever more economical use of resources." (underscore mine)
The World Bank agrees, (bold highlights mine)
``A new report from the World Bank, International Trade and Climate Change: Economic, Legal, and Institutional Perspectives, says liberalization of the global trading system will be a key factor in helping developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change.
“Climate change is a global challenge requiring international collaboration,” said Warren Evans, Director of Environment, World Bank. “One area where countries have successfully committed to a long-term multilateral resolution is the liberalization of international trade. Integration into the world economy has proven a powerful means for countries to promote economic growth, development, and poverty reduction.”
Said Evans, “Improving future human welfare is a goal shared by both global trade and climate regimes. Yet both climate and trade agendas have evolved largely independently through the years, despite their mutually supporting objectives. Since global emission goals and global trade objectives are shared policy objectives of most countries, and nearly all of the World Bank’s clients, it makes sense to consider the two sets of objectives together.”
Amen
The first path, if we opt to follow the environmentalists solution; the most efficient way to reduce Carbon Footprint would be through atavism (bring life back to the medieval ages) or simply commit suicide.
As Michael S. Berliner, Ph.D. writes,
``Such is the naked essence of environmentalism: it mourns the death of one whale or tree but actually welcomes the death of billions of people. A more malevolent, man-hating philosophy is unimaginable."
But hostility to human affairs on the environment has long been here.
Professor Pierre Desrochers in the Financial Post writes, ``The idea that Nature is in fragile balance and under constant threat from human greed goes back much further than is generally believed.
``In his treatise On the Testimony of the Soul published more than 1,800 years ago, at a time when the world’s population was about 30 times lower than it is today, the theologian Tertullian noted with horror that humans have “become a burden to the Earth; the fruits of nature hardly suffice to sustain us; there is a general pressure of scarcity giving rise to complaints, since the Earth can no longer support us.” Fortunately, he added, “plague and famine, warfare and earthquake, come to be regarded as remedies.”
``Human existence was also long blamed for changes in the weather, as researchers Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr explained in a recent scientific article. Well before a supposed “consensus” blamed our use of coal, oil and natural gas for climate change, periods of cooling or heating over the last few centuries were attributed to various manmade causes such as witchcraft, deforestation, the invention of the lightning rod and then wireless telegraphy, cannon shots in the First World War and nuclear testing."
But since, people have outlasted such pessimism and will continue to do so.
And apparently beyond all the environmental ruckus, life has been improving.
Writes Bjorn Lomborg, ``But consider this: In virtually every developed country, the air is more breathable and the water is more drinkable than it was in 1970. In most of the First World, deforestation has turned to reforestation. Moreover, the percentage of malnutrition has been reduced, and ever-more people have access to clean water and sanitation."
So George Carlin's "Saving The Planet" video which we blogged last year George Carlin on Saving The Planet, should be a comic refresher anent the fallacy from the demagoguery engaged by extremist environmentalists.
The second way to celebrate Earth Day is to recognize that we are in a much better position to acknowledge the importance of our planet.
Again Bjorn Lomborg, ``But in a world in which most developing countries depend almost exclusively on fossil fuels to power their economies, it's both impractical and immoral to insist that the only solution is for everyone to drastically cut carbon emissions. This approach might make sense if we were able to offer developing countries practical, affordable alternatives to coal and oil. But we cannot— and as long as we can't, all we're really doing when we call for massive carbon cuts is asking the world's poor people to continue living lives of misery and deprivation...
"...we might consider one of the fundamental lessons of the past 40 years of environmental concern. You cannot expect people to care about what the environment may be like 100 years from now if they are worrying about whether their children have enough to eat. With this in mind, we should focus on the many more immediate problems faced by the developing world today — problems such as malnutrition, education, disease and clean drinking water."
In other words, the path to a better environment is to for economies to prosper first.
How? Through free markets.
Professor Pierre Desrochers anew, ``It was not regulation or green activism that provided for improvements in the quality of our environment over the last few decades but rather a process inherent to the market economy, leading to ever more efficient innovations and an ever more economical use of resources." (underscore mine)
The World Bank agrees, (bold highlights mine)
``A new report from the World Bank, International Trade and Climate Change: Economic, Legal, and Institutional Perspectives, says liberalization of the global trading system will be a key factor in helping developing countries reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change.
“Climate change is a global challenge requiring international collaboration,” said Warren Evans, Director of Environment, World Bank. “One area where countries have successfully committed to a long-term multilateral resolution is the liberalization of international trade. Integration into the world economy has proven a powerful means for countries to promote economic growth, development, and poverty reduction.”
Said Evans, “Improving future human welfare is a goal shared by both global trade and climate regimes. Yet both climate and trade agendas have evolved largely independently through the years, despite their mutually supporting objectives. Since global emission goals and global trade objectives are shared policy objectives of most countries, and nearly all of the World Bank’s clients, it makes sense to consider the two sets of objectives together.”
Amen
No comments:
Post a Comment