Green Idiocracy

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare


DIGG THIS

There is a
movie called Idiocracy
in which two average people partake in a hibernation project and
end up 500 years in the future. To their surprise, the people in
society have turned into complete idiots. Sometimes I feel like
this is the world I am living in, especially lately with Earth Day.

The whole "green"
movement is a joke and I am baffled by how many people have been
swindled out there. I have nothing against others helping the environment
or nature, provided that it is done peacefully, but all of this
environmental anguish is out of control. Luckily, the average American
is only talking about it and doing small symbolic gestures and is
not ready to sacrifice their lifestyle.

Most of the
so-called solutions we hear from so-called environmentalists are
not really solutions at all. They are ideas that simply make life
for human beings more difficult and more expensive, while slowing
down human progress. The whole so-called environmental movement
is anti-human and anti-freedom. When communism collapsed in the
late 80's and early 90's, it was given a bad name association, and
rightly so. The communists had to go into hiding and could no longer
directly call for communism since their ideas had been discredited.
The communists decided to become environmentalists and take a new
approach to their agenda.

If you'll notice,
nearly every single solution offered by the green movement is to
impede human progress. It also usually involves using the force
of government or at least it is a suggestion that could later lead
to government force.

The whole global
warming debate has to be a hoax. We live in a variable climate that
has always varied as long as mankind has walked the earth. If this
year is warmer than last year, it means nothing. If this century
is warmer than last century, it means nothing. Next week may be
warmer or colder than this week. It could go either way because
we live in a variable climate. Even the reports that the earth has
warmed in the last century can be doubted. Some of the official
thermometers
have been found to be within a short distance of
pavement that attracts heat.

If the earth
has actually warmed by a degree in the last century, so what? The
century before that may have been 2 degrees warmer. If you ever
get a chance to see Greenland, you will find that it is mostly ice.
There isn't much green to it. But the people that settled Greenland
probably named it that for a reason. Could it have been much warmer
there when it was first settled centuries ago?

Even if the
earth is warming, it doesn't mean it has anything to do with humans.
Most of the scientists that preach man-made global warming get their
funding from government. If they didn't preach man-made global warming,
then their funding would miraculously disappear. It is amazing how
incentives work.

If the earth
is warming, it might not be such a bad thing, especially for some
of the brutal places near the poles. But even if we did want to
stop global warming from occurring, we certainly shouldn't turn
to government and another FEMA-like agency.

Another green
idiocracy issue is that of saving water. The last time I checked,
about two-thirds of the earth is covered in water. There is this
incredible process where water evaporates and is purified and falls
as fresh water from the clouds. It is like a huge filtration system
for our planet.

It makes no
sense when people talk about saving water. We pay for water when
we pay our water bill. The more water you use, the more you pay
for it. It is just like any other good that we buy. When you see
areas that have a drought and a supply problem with water, that
is an automatic indication that the government is interfering. In
a normal free market, if there is an increase in demand or a decrease
in supply of something, the price rises. This will decrease demand
and may help increase the supply if the good can be obtained from
another place that has a larger supply.

In areas with
droughts, the government control of the water supply is really the
only reason for a shortage. If you walk into a grocery store in
those areas, there will be plenty of bottled water on the shelves
as this operates in a more free market environment.

Then we have
recycling. I have nothing against recycling, just government forced
recycling. This includes being forced to pay for others to recycle.
If it is worth it to recycle a particular material, then the free
market will take care of this. If the government forces you to pay
for a recycling program, then it is not cost effective. For example,
if it costs an average of 5 cents per can to recycle soda cans and
it saves only 4 cents per can in making new ones, then it is not
worth it. However, if they could be recycled at a cost of only 3
cents per can to later save 4 cents, then it may be worth it and
some company may come in and do it and give you a monetary incentive
to participate. But if the government has to subsidize it, then
it is a waste of money.

The same goes
for more fuel-efficient vehicles. If the price of gas gets high
enough, it will be worth it for people to pay more for hybrid and
other fuel-efficient vehicles. You shouldn't need a government subsidy.

This also applies
to ethanol. If using corn to make ethanol for our gasoline were
an efficient use of resources, the government would not have to
"give" out billions of dollars in subsidies. It actually
uses more energy to make ethanol from corn than it produces, but
this fact doesn't even matter. If it were really cheap to make ethanol
or if ethanol could make your car get 500 miles to the gallon, then
people would freely choose to use it out of their own self-interest.
But when the government has to force us to pay for it, we can all
be certain that it is a waste of resources.

The ironic
thing about the whole environment issue is that the governments
of the world are by far the biggest destroyers of it. When you hear
about one of those forest fires raging in California, it most likely
originated on government land. The best answer to having a good
environment is through strong property rights. When individuals
are secure in their property, they can confront those that infringe
on their property with pollution or anything else, as the justice
system would provide a remedy of the situation with possible restitution.
And more, when property is owned privately and not through the government,
it is much more likely to be taken care of. People will treat their
own property with the respect that it deserves, whereas government
property will be abused, neglected, and possibly destroyed.

People need
to stop being so phony about going green and start thinking with
their heads. The green movement today does little, at best, to help
the environment and it is a total waste of time and resources.

May
5, 2008

Geoffrey
Pike [send him mail]
currently resides in Florida. In his spare time, he enjoys sports,
music, investing, and studying libertarianism.

Email Print
FacebookTwitterShare
  • LRC Blog

  • LRC Podcasts