Professor Donald Boudreaux writes,
I speak of polluted perceptions of reality.
Wildlife made ugly and ill by spilled oil make for vivid images. And photos of such misfortunes do indeed reveal a risk of oil drilling -- namely, temporary spoliation of some parts of the natural environment.
But precisely because such spills are relatively rare (and getting rarer), we don't see such images routinely. So when these images are presented to us, they stir our emotions.
Trouble is, by focusing on such photos we get a distorted view of the bigger picture, one that includes oil's manifest benefits.
How many of us reflect on the benefits that we enjoy from asphalt? Asphalt makes road construction and repair less costly. So we in the industrialized world daily drive to school, work and play on clean, smooth roads that would not exist, or that would be less smooth and wide, were it not for this unassuming product made from petroleum.
Asphalt is so common that we take no notice of it. Yet if it disappeared tomorrow, we'd all suffer noticeably.
The same is true for, say, plastic wrap. We give this stuff nary a thought. Yet because bacteria cannot pass through it, those thin sheets of plastic keep meats, vegetables, dairy products and breads fresher -- and protect us against food poisoning.
Fact is, gasoline and aviation fuel aren't the only products produced with petroleum. Our modern lives are full of too many such products to count.
And not only are petroleum-based products all around us and practically indispensable -- they're also inexpensive. Yet we pay no attention to these everyday wonders.
This fact is why photos of oil-covered wildlife are dangerous: They make us aware of petroleum's risks while we remain oblivious to petroleum's benefits.
In the real world petroleum is an astonishingly beneficial, versatile and inexpensive resource. In the fantasy world of too many people, however, petroleum is a vile substance that does little beyond enriching a few sheiks and billionaires while it kills both the planet and humanity.
But in fact our world is incalculably better and even cleaner because of petroleum -- which is why it is especially regrettable that newspaper pictures of the likes of plastic wrap and asphalt would not grab readers' attention with anywhere near the impact of pictures of oil-covered animals.
Sounds familiar?
It’s been a common practice by sensationalist media to tunnel on accidents or disasters and blame them on people's actions to justify all sorts of political interventionism (to the delight of or in the interests of political authorities).
First, is to deal with the public’s emotions by manipulating images to project a political message.
Then with an audience carried away by the desire to assist, the next step would be to strongly advocate for interventions. This will likely be augmented by ‘scientific papers’ backed by institutions with political biases.
Never mind if such interventions would mean siphoning of valuable resources away from productive activities (that leads to nastier effects on future accidents or disasters). Never mind the unappreciated benefits to consumers as discussed above. And importantly, never mind the consequences of the alternative.
Short term becomes the imperative. Control becomes the primary tool to achieve a questionable end. Freedom of choice is sacrificed for political expediency and presumptiveness.
Think bans on Plastic bags. Philippines have been moving into this direction. They all emerged from the same focusing effect allegedly meant to save the environment.
Yet unknown to most, these are the types of environmental policies that advocates societal atavism (regression).
They go against the desire of the consuming public. That’s why bans are mandated proscriptions. Otherwise the public would vote with their money and plastic bags would disappear with no political coercion required.
Interventionist environmental politics assumes that we don’t know what’s good for ourselves.
Yet studies suggest that bans on plastic bags have been exaggerated.
Moreover, what are the alternatives? Paper bags? Are paper bags more environmental friendly?
No, according to biodeg.org
The process of making paper bags causes 70% more atmospheric pollution than plastic bags. Paper bags use 300% more energy to produce, and the process uses huge amounts of water and creates very unpleasant organic waste. When they degrade paper bags emit carbon dioxide, and will emit methane in anaerobic conditions.
A stack of 1,000 new plastic carrier bags would be around 2 inches high, but a stack of 1,000 new paper grocery bags could be around 2 feet high. It would take at least seven times the number of trucks to deliver the same number of bags, creating seven times more transport pollution and road congestion.Also, because paper bags are not as strong as plastic, people may use two or three bags inside each other. Paper bags cannot normally be re-used, and will disintegrate if wet.
Notwithstanding, politicians don’t see where papers originate from: the forests.
In short, bans on plastic bags protects, promotes or subsidizes logging. So consumers are not only being punished through inconvenience, they are needlessly faced with a political devil and the deep blue sea, through higher costs--all in the name of saving the environment. Yet this is another example where the cure is worse than the disease.
Like earth hour (which impliedly condemns modern electricity and promotes candles), these feel good policies will have a serious blowback. Unfortunately, since politicians are unaccountable for their actions, they will keep implementing noble sounding (vote generating) but unrealistic and uneconomical regulations with nasty unforeseen consequences.
Interventionist environmental politics not only pollutes the environment, at worst it pollutes people’s mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment