Posted by
Andrews on Thursday, September 18, 2008 10:09:09 AM
I was reading
Slate's resident environmentalist Q&A man
when I was floored. It seems that the researcher he was quoting let the
cat out of the bag, if only a little. Now, it wasn't quite as damning
an admissions as Paul Ehrlich's lament over all those "excess people"
or Prince Phillip's dream of coming back as a killer virus, but it is
interesting in that it shows how the sincere environmentalists
have been manipulated into believing the goals of the
luddite environmentalists are the only way to achieve environmentalist goals. It is hardly the first time this has happened, from
organic farming to
anti-nuclear activism,
endangered species protection to
energy policy in general,
the rank and file environmentalists have been convinced that policies
which
slow progress,
reduce wealth and
generally impoverish mankind are
the "green" solution.
What makes the article I was reading interesting is that it is so honest.
Rather than say that more technology harms the environment, or that the
high tech approach has "harmful externalities", the article is a bit
more forthright, saying:
The real reason older Americans are better for the environment is that
they work less and have lower incomes. It's not so much that they spend
their money in a better way—it's just that they don't spend as much in
the first place. The general aging of the population will make America
somewhat poorer—after all, economic growth will slow as a greater share
of consumers become unable to work. A slowed economy in turn produces
less pollution. All told, the aging of the population won't reduce U.S.
emissions enough to halt climate change, but it might make our work a
little bit easier.
This is an unusual admissions.
The environmentalists are a bit more PR savvy than that. They know that the run of the mill American is prone to believe in
some environmental claims,
but they also aren't willing to sacrifice economic progress for "green"
concerns, and if it comes to the spotted owl or their jobs, the owl is
out of luck. So, while they may admit in private that high gas prices
benefit them by forcing
alternate energy sources,
environmentalists usually avoid saying such things in public.Or, at
most, they admit that they deplore high prices of gasoline, but, as a
small benefit, it helps us reduce our dependency on oil. They don't
normally admit that poverty helps achieve environmental goals. That is
why we normally see the message being presented to the lay people, and
the
rank and file environmentalists,
that "
going green" won't slow economic growth or
change our lifestyles
much at all, it will just involve plugging in the electric car at
night, separating our trash and putting up
some solar panels, and
otherwise life will continue as it has.
Which is why this article shocked me. It is a relatively mainstream
article for a relatively mainstream left wing audience, yet it is
admitting that a first step in improving the environment is the
impoverishment of the average citizen and that spending is in itself a
cause of environmental harm.This is quite an admission. It is
consistent with the true beliefs of the upper echelon
environmentalists, that our economy itself is the cause of
environmental damage, but it is something I rarely see admitted in
print.
As I have written elsewhere, the truth is that the goals espoused by
the environmentalist cannot be achieved without serious changes to our
economy. Whatever their PR claims, to meet their goals, we would need
to endure serious reductions in our standard of living, and drastically
change the goals toward which we strive. They may not confess as much
in public, but the consistent environmentalists are aware of this fact.
But it is still shocking to see them confess it in public.