Earth Day Advice
Today is Earth Day, a day full of advice on how each of us can live a “greener” lifestyle. Today is a day for raising awareness of our planet and how we should balance our needs with its protection. In the spirit this day is supposed to be about, I’d like to offer a bit of advice on how you should treat our planet.
My advice: Use the earth and all of its resources to fulfill your every need and want, and don’t feel guilty about it.
For the truth is, your life and happiness depend on your ability to use the earth’s resources. The things that you need to live (such as food, medicine, computers, automobiles, oil, electricity, etc.) are not made out of thin air; they are extracted from the earth. Luckily for us all, the earth has plenty. Our planet is an enormous ball of resources that could not only sustain us, but make our lives last longer and be immeasurably more enjoyable. We haven’t even begun to realize the true potential the earth has for our betterment. The true limit is not the amount of resources the earth contains, but our knowledge of those resources and our imagination.
If the earth deserves our appreciation, then it’s for the great value it offers us. And therein likes the flaw in the way Earth Day is celebrated. Instead of celebrating Earth as a source of human prosperity, it is treated as something that should be protected from humans. We are told that we should aim to limit our effect on our environment. This might seem like a noble goal, but if your life is dependent on your ability to use the environment, what is really being limited? Your life and your happiness.
Some people might think that is a fair trade to make, but I do not. We each have a relatively short time to spend on this planet, and I think it’s unfair to ask anyone to sacrifice even one precious second of that time for the sake of plants, animals, or inanimate matter. We all will be one with the earth eventually, so let’s make the most of our lives while we can.
So this Earth Day, don’t be afraid to take advice. Save gas money by carpooling. Get some exercise by riding a bike. Lower your utility bill by adjusting your thermostat a few degrees. Just don’t forget why you’re doing it.
Tags: [earth day, environmentalism]Comments
Evan Almighty
During my honeymoon, I had the time to do something I’ve never found the time to do before: Read Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear.” The book was a big deal when it came out a few years because the villians in the book were environmentalists who were trying to cause deadly weather events to try to scare people into believing that man-made global warming was real. I hope I’m not giving away anything here, but one of the events the environmentalists were trying to plan was a giant tsunami that would have killing thousands.
After finishing the book, I saw a preview for “Evan Almighty.” For those that don’t know, the movie stars Steve Carell as a man who is instructed by God to build an ark like Noah. At the end of the preview, there is a short clip of a huge wave taking the completed ark. Then it clicked in my mind:
This is going to be an environmentalism movie.
Here’s my prediction: God comes down to Steve Carell to tell him to build the ark as a way to raise awareness of how we’re damaging the environment. It will end with some type of “abrupt climate change” in the form of an enormous flood or tsunami, which will conveniently also have no casulties.
The movie is being billed as a comedy with no reference to environmentalism, but just watch.
I’m disappointed that I wasn’t able to pick up on this without a big clue like Crichton’s book, but at least I figured it out before I was halfway through the movie.
Tags: [environmentalism]Comments
Incandescent bulb safety?
Last week, I needed to buy a new light bulb for my living room. I’ve heard about the new incandescent bulbs and how they last longer and use less electricity. Even though the bulbs cost around $5-$7 each, instead of $1 for a regular bulb, I thought I’d try them just for curiosity’s sake. Some people even say that the light from the new bulbs is comparable to the older bulbs (though, I bet that comparison is like saying Diet Dr. Pepper is the same as regular).
Sounds too good to be true? According to two articles at WorldNetDaily (here and here), the bulbs also carry an unhealthy amount of mercury.
From “Light-bulb ban craze exceeds disposal plans”:
While CFLs arguably use less energy and last longer than incandescents, there is one serious environmental drawback – the presence of small amounts of highly toxic mercury in each and every bulb. This poses problems for consumers when breakage occurs and for disposal when bulbs eventually do burn out.
There are some other factors to consider:
Consumers are discovering other downsides of CFLs besides convenience and safety issues:
* Most do not work with dimmer switches
* They are available in only a few sizes
* Some emit a bluish light
* Some people say they get headaches while working or reading under them
* They cannot be used in recessed lighting enclosures or enclosed globes
* Fires are seen as a slight possibility
I think I’m going to wait until later to try these bulbs out. It’s only inevitable that environmentalists get the non-poisonous light bulbs banned.
Tags: [environmentalism, incandescent bulbs]Comments
Peter Schwartz on CNBC
Peter Schwartz appeared on CNBC early this week to talk on the issue “Going Green: Bad for Business?” He debated Michael Ewall from the Energy Justice Network. Schwartz made the argument that the purpose of environmentalism was to save nature from man, and as such it is the exact opposite idealogy of business. Enwall argued that capitalism was good for dictators and pollution and had to be restrained before it destroyed our environment.
Obviously, I agree with Schwartz. I also wish that when environmentalists says that “we” need to find “creative solutions” to our “energy problems,” they’d say exactly what they were for: government regulation.
You can click here to watch the video.
Tags: [capitalism, energy, environmentalism, government regulation, peter schwartz]Comments
Tracinski: “Guilty Until Proven Innocent”
Posted at FoxNews.com: Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Tags: [environmentalism, epa, global warming, tracinski]Consider the implications of the court’s ruling that the EPA can be sued in the courts to require it to regulate carbon dioxide as a “pollutant.” Carbon dioxide is not an incidental byproduct of the generation of power. It is the unavoidable product of our most widely used fuels, fuels for which there is no practical alternative: oil, coal, natural gas. So to cap or reduce carbon dioxide emissions would require a vast regime of government controls on all levels, from giant factories down to backyard barbecues. To cap or reduce carbon dioxide emissions is to cap or reduce American prosperity.