Posts Tagged ‘environment’

1984 – Twenty-five Years On

Thursday, November 19th, 2009

In 1949, George Orwell wrote 1984, a chilling tale of life under totalitarianism, 35 years into the future. When that year arrived, our enlightened media scoffed, saying that it had not happened. My own reaction was simply “not yet”. As I argued in a letter to the editor that year, Orwell simply failed to anticipate the drag on technology caused by government regulation. In 1984, we didn’t have the technology necessary for universal surveillance of the citizenry. IBM probably could have provided it, but they had been slowed down by increasing government regulation, not to mention massive antitrust litigation.

But 25 years on, we’re about there. The technology exists, and is being deployed. CCTV cameras cover almost every square inch of London, and are rapidly being installed in most US cities. Worse yet, many people who would have protested such intrusive government surveillance 25 years ago now accept red light cameras, speeding cameras, and massive government eavesdropping on telephones and e-mail as “necessary” security measures. We line up, take off our shoes and submit to totally unconstitutional searches just to get on an airplane. So they not only have the technology, they have our acquiescence.

Think about it. Not a day that goes by without a story in your local newspaper about technology used to ticket a traffic scofflaw, catch a criminal, or bust a cheating spouse. Surveillance videos are reviewed any time something happens, even in seemingly remote locations. No trial lawyer would start a case without demanding e-mail records, even of those thought long since deleted. Passing through a toll booth leaves your presence time- and date-stamped, and don’t even ask about your cell phone records!

And how do they keep us from demanding our freedom back? Fear, the eternal tool of tyrants. In 1984, Orwell spoke of endless wars in far off corners of the earth. Today we have active wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, frequent incursions into Pakistan and daily saber rattling over Iran. And to keep it geographically balanced, we have North Korea.

In case the wars don’t keep us fearful enough, we have terrorist plots and pandemics. I don’t think the terrorist threat level has ever gotten below “Amber”, and the swine flu makes the news daily. The swine flu “pandemic” hasn’t killed nearly as many people as the plain old seasonal flu, but you wouldn’t know it from the main stream media. Before that, it was the avian flu, similarly a non-event, and before that, SARS. Remember SARS? A “totally new” virus, almost always fatal, and against which we had “no natural immunity”. If we had “no natural immunity”, why didn’t we all catch it, and why are any of us still here to read my blog?

In Washington, the fear-mongering goes on. Without health care reform, we can’t possibly continue to afford health care. (I’m afraid we’re about to find out how well we can afford it WITH health care reform!) And just in case the tea bag movement figures out that health care reform is a really bad deal, don’t forget global warming. After eleven years of global cooling, we’re still being threatened with “imminent” catastrophe if we don’t give up our modern way of life and go back to living in caves. As if the government has EVER been the solution, and not the cause, of almost any problem you can think of.

Why are we afraid, and in the light of history, how can we possibly believe that government will protect us? Freedom has blessed America with unimaginable wealth, ever improving standards of living, longer, healthier lives, and countless other blessings. Our government has brought us wars, panics, recessions, bubbles, the Great Depression and very likely another one in the making. They’ve also brought us the public school system, the post office and the DMV. Yet we are about to let that same government take over our health care and tax affordable, reliable energy out of existence.

Even George Orwell would be amazed.

Thought for the Day

Tuesday, September 23rd, 2008

Global warming is not the problem, and facism is not the solution.

Earth Day 2008 – Still Waiting for Disaster

Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008

We have now celebrated our 39th Earth Day, and we’re still waiting for the environmental disaster. What happened? Most of us were supposed to have starved to death by now, died from air pollution, or frozen in the Ice Age. As predicted, the population has increased, and industrial output has increased. But instead of starvaton, we’re worried about obesity. Air pollution is still a problem in the Third World, but only due to rapid economic growth and rising standards of living. And instead of an Ice Age, we now obsess about global warming.

Most people alive today weren’t even born for the first Earth Day. For those of us who were, hopefully we’ve matured enough to take claims of impending disaster with a grain of salt. After all, we’ve survived two nuclear disasters, at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island, which together killed fewer people (about 50) than die in traffic accidents every day in America. (Michael Crichton has some interesting observations here.)

For those who are younger and smarter than we are, perhaps a history lesson would be helpful. The Washington Policy Center has compiled an interesting list of predictions made around the first Earth Day. With only minor wording changes, many of them could be mistaken for predictions being made today about the supposed impact of global warming. Reflecting on those, hopefully we’ll all think twice before blindly demanding that governments around the world “do something”. Especially if those actions will likely have minimal impact on the climate, but do major damage to the economy.

Here is a sample of some of the items compiled.

• “…civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind,” biologist George Wald, Harvard University, April 19, 1970.

Okay, how about 40 years?

• By 1995, “…somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look magazine, April 1970.

But by 2008, the polar bear population will have increased five-fold.

• “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970.

Obviously obesity should never be a problem.

So next time you read a terrifying headline, remain calm. Such terrifying predictions have been around for hundreds of years, and hundreds of years from now, our gullible offspring will still be around to worry needlessly about them.

A Ton of Prevention is NOT Worth a Pound of Cure

Tuesday, April 22nd, 2008

The global warming hysteria is truly amazing to anyone who steps back and views the issue objectively. We all learned in childhood that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”, but when did it become mandatory that the government “do something” about every issue that comes along? I’m sure most of us have heard the chain of causation whereby a single butterfly flapping its wings over the Rocky Mountains might trigger a hurricane over the Atlantic. It’s an interesting mental exercise, but I doubt that anyone would seriously suggest government regulation of wing flapping by every butterfly in the world. Far fewer resources would be much better spent preparing for the inevitable hurricanes which would strike even if butterflies were eradicated. But this is America. We let our federal government provide subsidized flood insurance in places where no private insurance company would write coverage, encouraging people to build in harm’s way and maximizing damage when the inevitable occurs.

Getting back to global warming, many people are convinced that the government must “do something” about that too. The big villain is supposedly carbon dioxide, and we are supposed to “cut emissions” regardless of the economic cost. One recent study concluded that if we reduced emissions to ZERO, it would reduce global warming by a fraction of one degree Fahrenheit over the next hundred years. The people calling for such drastic reductions have no idea what they are asking for. We are already paying dramatically higher prices for food and energy, but that is nothing compared to what they are asking for. Zero emissions would essentially return the economy to living in caves, BEFORE the discovery of fire. If we do that, we’ll need a lot more global warming!

Damaging the economy to “do something” is not just giving up our SUVs, or drinking fewer lattes at Starbucks. We are condemning hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people, those most at risk of the predicted dire consequences of warming, to remaining in abject poverty and unable to adapt if any of those predictions actually come true. Is that the socially responsible thing to do?

Objective risk-benefit analysis is almost completely lacking from the entire debate. Skeptics are vilified as flat earthers, Holocaust deniers, or believers in the stork bringing babies. Projected consequences are grossly exaggerated, while the economic costs are minimized. Even Al Gore and the IPCC admit that the “20 foot sea level rises” of An Inconvenient Truth are well beyond the realm of probability. Yet they persist, apparently in the belief that people must be terrified into demanding action.

But why? What is it about global warming that exempts it from rational, factual discussion and resolution? Could it be – a hoax? Most people with facts on their side welcome debate. Certainly on an issue as serious as they say this is, we need all of the ideas and input that we can get. Yet the alarmists want no part of debate. Apparently they think they not only have all of the facts, they have all of the solutions. Even if I had no skepticism on the science, I would have to be skeptical of anybody who thinks that they know how to control the weather. Not even the weatherman is that arrogant!

Stick to the Point – It’s NOT the environment, Stupid!

Thursday, April 3rd, 2008

Why must we use “the environment” to justify every argument under the sun? The New York Times invoked the environment this morning to argue against the border fence to stop “illegal” immigration. (Editorial, Michael Chertoff’s Insult) I happen to oppose the fence, because I believe in open borders. I believe that sovereignty of the individual trumps national sovereignty. If you want a “liberal” argument, the fence is racist. And experience has shown that fences keep more “illegals” in than out. So why does the NYT have to resort to the environment? I’ve been to the Mexican border. It runs through some of the most desolate wasteland in the world. Frankly, an atomic bomb along most of it wouldn’t constitute an “environmental disaster”. So why can’t we just debate the issue on its merits? The environment is not a justification for immigration any more than global warming is a justification for fascism (Al Gore notwithstanding).

Big Business Sees $$ in Global Warming

Friday, March 21st, 2008

Just as the great global warming hoax appears to be unraveling (and I watch the snow piling up outside on the second day of Spring), the business community decides to jump on the bandwagon. Did you read about the Wall Street Journal conference last week? From what I’ve read, it sounded like hundreds of environmentalists and big business types getting together to figure out how to use big government to milk this fraud for all it’s worth.

The mainstream business community almost certainly realizes that the facts do not justify the catastrophic economic consequences being proposed. Yet some of them are all too willing to exploit the situation, in hopes of profiting from gullible politicians and government mismanagement. I spent thirty years in corporate America, fighting government regulation and taxation. Yes, government regulations do benefit some companies some of the time, but in the big picture, all companies, with the possible exception of defense contractors, are net losers to government regulation, as are we all as individuals, and the economy as a whole. The time for business to stand up to government, instead of getting in bed with it, is long overdue.