A Wall Street Journal editorial describes a new legal tactic being used by greenies to bypass the legislative roadblocks to moving their environmental agenda forward: sue the CO2 polluters for contributing to global warming.
Of course, this strategy opens up a whole new can of worms, since every human on the planet produces CO2 simply by breathing.
In other words, the courts would become a venue for a carbon war of all against all. Not only might businesses sue to shackle their competitors—could we sue the New York Times for deforestation?—but judges would decide the remedies against specific defendants. In practice this would mean ad hoc command-and-control regulation against any industries that happen to catch the green lobby’s eye.
Robert Brinsmead has written an excellent paper that explains the role of carbon in the maintenance of life on Planet Earth — and the irrationality of all the hysteria about carbon among the AGW crowd. As Brinsmead explains, life as we know it would not exist without carbon.
The entire lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere and biosphere is therefore saturated and permeated with carbon. Carbon is among the most ubiquitous substances on this planet. It is irrational nonsense to claim that something as ubiquitous as carbon has become a threat to either life or the environment. For every living thing, whether plant or animal, can only exist by absorbing carbon from the environment and by emitting carbon into the environment. Neither life nor the ordered existence of this planet as we know it could continue to exist without this continuing vital exchange and circulation of carbon and carbon dioxide between lithosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere and biosphere.
So what explains the irrational fear of carbon (“carbophobia”) among radical environmentalists? Brinsmead sees a non-environmental mindset at work here.
They are biased against economic growth, industrial activity and human technology. They hate the affluence and creativity of a free economic system. They long for the day when they can dance on the grave of capitalism. Most of all, they are biased against people being free to be productive and prosperous in a free enterprise way of life. They believe that humans are the cancerous pathogens of the earth whose freedom and prosperity has to be drastically curtailed. The only future these eco-activists see for mankind is to worship at the neo-pagan shrine of Mother Nature in some sort of return to a primitive, ecotopian past.
If you want to understand the entire scope of the carbon debate, read this paper.
As I have noted before, the blind fervor of global warming alarmists has all the characteristics of a religion. Now that observation has official government sanction in the UK.
A fired British executive is suing his former employer on the grounds that he was unfairly dismissed due to religious views – his belief in global warming.
As Marc Sheppard comments,
Greenies scoffed when Michael Crichton first called environmentalism “one of the most powerful religions in the Western World” over five years ago, insisting that “settled science” was on their side. Since then it’s become increasingly evident that alarmists’ warming beliefs are based not on reason or evidence, but a trusting acceptance in the absence of either. They outright refuse to discuss it, debate it, or abide those daring to question it.
John Tierney relates the story of an elementary school teacher in West Virginia who led her students in a campaign to prevent school officials from shutting down a garbage recycling program. The program was so uneconomical it made no sense to keep it going. But the teacher was determined to preserve her students’ status as eco-nuts.
As Tierney asks,
If we want our children to be scientifically literate and get good jobs in the future, why are we spending precious hours in school teaching them to be garbage collectors?
British naturalist David Bellamy was once a popular figure on BBC nature programs. But that all changed once he came out in opposition to anthropogenic global warming scare mongering. Now he is a shunned man.
I’m still an environmentalist, I’m still a Green and I’m still campaigning to stop the destruction of the biodiversity of the world. But money will be wasted on trying to solve this global warming “problem” that I would much rather was used for looking after the people of the world.
The global warming scare is not about science, and never has been. It’s about political and economic power, using the noble mantle of science to hide the real objective. And those who refuse to drink the Kool-Aid are subjected to all the vicious tactics of any political war.
According to John Weidner, read Alice in Wonderland and the energy crisis suddenly makes sense — in a perverse, progressive sort of way.
So who’s blocking “alternative power?” “Renewable energy?” Greens. Leftists. Democrats. No surprise there; once you abandon the use of logic, anything is possible . . .
“Alice laughed: “There’s no use trying,” she said; “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”
Ron Rosenbaum, writing in Slate, notes a basic contradition in two articles that appeared in a recent edition of the Columbia Journalism Review. The editorial defended the role of journalists as giving voice to dissenters from the established consensus. But an article on climate change in the very same issue of the journal demanded that dissenters be ignored in the face of the consensus that has defined the global warming debate.
This was the contention that stunned me—that reporters must protect us from dissent—especially in light of the CJR editorial deploring the “dangerously narrow borders of our public discourse.”
As Rosenbaum points out later in his article, AGW believers are no longer practicing science; they have established a religion, and like all religions, dissent must be crushed to preserve the True Faith.