Global Warming. By this point, the only people blissfully unaware of the dangers of the advanced greenhouse hypothesis are the members of the Amazonian Indian tribe recently discovered. But why should they care? After all, they live completely carbon neutral lives. They don’t have to have fears or guilt about “eating what they want…heating their homes to 72 degrees,” for which the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee wishes to chide us.
Global Warming is a problem for the west to deal with, because it is our two hundred years of industrialization that has brought this nightmare down upon us. We are responsible for creating a scourge so terrible that its name must be capitalized upon every use. It is our economy of consumption and waste that has created this problem which, for the last 25 years has been the most imminent threat to the world, more terrible than AIDS, Malaria, genocide in third world countries, zombie attacks, time traveling murderous robots and asteroid impacts combined. It is so awful that for every one of those last twenty five years, leading experts promised that within five years of their prediction we would be covered by water, facing killer storms, forced to suffer through season after season of shows about D-list celebrities either: losing weight, dancing, going through rehab, or trying to find love.
And now their predictions have come true. After Hurricane Katrina, the Earthquake in China, more than 170 tornados in the US, the victory of David Cook over David Archuleta in American Idol season 7 and the return of Tila Tequila for another shot at love, we have undeniable proof that Global Warming is upon us.
And so, I propose the following methods to stop the climate crisis once and for all:
-Introduce a 50 cent per gallon tax on gasoline at the national, state and local level. When the populace has to pay an extra $1.50 for gasoline per gallon, they will be less inclined to drive, thus reducing the release of the dangerous pollutant CO2 into the atmosphere. Also, it will encourage people to bike and walk more thus solving the obesity problem, which leads to the next point…
-Standardize weight as a function of people’s height. These standardized weights will be determined by a government board of doctors and nutritionists. Obesity adds drastically to the release of CO2, as overweight people must breathe deeper to provide oxygen to their blood. This can be enforced easily, by having a government task force which will weigh each citizen on a bimonthly basis. A penalty will be paid at each weigh-in for each extra pound above the standardized weight. There will be no penalty for being under the set weight. In the future, it may be worthwhile to allow tax credits for weighing less than one is supposed to.
-Add a 10% tax to each standard unit which provides heat (CCF natural gas, gallon of oil, etc). This will encourage the citizenry to learn how to live with their heat set to 55F throughout winter.
-Euthanize the elderly and any members of society deemed unproductive. As previously stated, breathing releases CO2. Under the new plan, it will be necessary to rationalize CO2 production. If it cannot be justified, it cannot be allowed.
While these plans may initially seem somewhat draconian, upon further inspection and analysis, one can easily realize that these actions are necessary for the good of the planet and future generations. Of course, we will have to disregard the fact that these future generations may not exist because most people will not be able to afford them.
But the question also arises: who will be in charge of this program? I propose that we create another brand new faceless, nameless government bureaucracy, answerable to no one but themselves and fully charged with the task of saving the world from us, the awful American people.
I think we can all agree that the Polar Bear, now officially recognized by the federal government as threatened by global warming, is far more important than the economic, social and political freedoms upon which this nation was established.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Going (Green) to Be Making Green (with Envy)
Recently, Congress passed an atrocious energy bill that the President, for some reason unknown, decided to sign into law. One of the more egregious inclusions in this energy policy was the federal mandate that by the year 2012 the incandescent light bulb would be laid to rest. In its stead we will be forced to endure the ever-so-soft glow of the newfangled invention that has left Thomas Edison rolling over in his grave: the Compact Fluorescent Light bulb, or CFL. The environmentalists touting the CFL like to yammer on about its energy saving capabilities, and how it will salvage us from the ever looming threat that is climate change.
But there is something else that the we have not been told, which is that CFLs contain mercury. That’s right, the element that is often derided by those same environmentalists as so life damaging that it had to be removed from thermometers, that we are told is contained in nontrivial levels in many freshwaters fish, and is tied to the sudden autism-vaccine alarmism, has been placed into the light bulbs that we are suddenly being told by congress that we will have no choice but to buy.
And why is this?
Do CFLs actually stop global warming? Do they actually manage to reduce your electric bill by a jaw dropping, eye popping amount?
The answer to these questions is contentious, and truthfully, neither here nor there when it comes to the CFL issue. The true answer lies in the fully intended consequence of lobbying the government to embrace green policies and agendas.
I’m talking about the price of going green. I’m talking about the fact that many individuals and organizations out there seek to make green, by having us go green. But I’m not only talking about former vice presidents whose pockets are suddenly full of hundred dollar bills, nobel prizes, Oscars and enough carbon credits to allow him to use more than 10 times the electricity that the average American uses. I’m talking about CEOs from certain corporations, whose stock options ride on their ability to get people to buy their overpriced “green” products. I’m talking about environmental organizations, whose memberships has been hijacked following the fall of the Soviet Union by communist sympathizers who seek to use global government mandates to tax people to death and take away their freedom to choose for themselves. I’m talking about the media, who, in an effort to turn a quick buck and jump on the nearest, most convenient bandwagon, have decided to deride us and make us feel guilty for not buying green products, having green collar jobs, for not drinking green beer while not wearing green on St. Patrick’s day.
We are being urged to go green by an argument of morality, that to not go green and thus preserve the earth for future generations is akin to committing crimes against humanity. But looking deeper, we see that taking on the cause only serves to empty our own pockets, while filling those of the select few who lead the green pledge.
And so we are pushed and prodded to buy green, to spend more money on products that have smaller carbon footprints. We are asked to buy our groceries from local sources, to decrease on CO2 emissions from transporting. We’re asked to buy windows with better insulation for twice the cost. We are made to feel foolish when we buy a car that isn’t a hybrid, or even a car that gets fewer than 20 miles per gallon. When we refuse to buy far more expensive CFL bulbs, we are legislated into having no other choice.
Now this is not to say that some of these options are bad ideas, because many of these products can save us money in the long run. There is wisdom in buying appliances with the energy star rating, in order to save on your electric bill.
Hybrid cars have succeeded due to many economical factors that made it beneficial for consumers to purchase them. Sales of hybrid cars have skyrocketed mostly because people want to pay less for gasoline, not because they are concerned about their carbon footprint. If gasoline cost one dollar per gallon, we would see fewer hybrid cars on the streets, and most likely would see even more SUVs.
But the key is that we are given the choice. In a free market economy, better products win if they can be offered at the right price, or if the savings from buying them makes up for the added cost. Congress did not need to mandate people to buy Hybrid cars. Consumers were smart enough to see how the economy was working, and start purchasing them on their own.
When a newer, more expensive product fails to catch consumer interest, it is not without good reason. Many products branded as being green do not fail to catch on because of disinterest on the part of the American consumer. These products fail to make money because of the fact that people simply do not want to pay for them.
However, because our politicians are only a donation away, there is little effort required in getting Congress to pass legislation that forces the public to adopt green policies. Suddenly, choice is no longer allowed. The right to choose where and how we spend our money and what to do with our property becomes curtailed. And so we are left with CFLs, unreachable CAFE standards, higher gasoline, oil, coal and natural gas taxes, all done in the name of environmental protectionism.
And so you’re probably left wondering, how does this somewhat incoherent rant relate to the hidden price of CFLs? So what if they contain Mercury? All one has to do is look at the disposal instructions to see where the problem lies. When a break occurs, one must, and I quote, “Open the window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more. Shut off central forced air/air conditioning system, if you have one.” And towards the end, they indicate, “The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window prior to vacuuming. Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off and the window open for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is completed.” And these are only small fragments of the laundry list of steps on must complete for proper removal of a broken CFL.
So in the winters of 2012 and beyond, after dropping and breaking your CFL bulb, as the temperature outside is 15 degrees and your house is freezing because the window is open, and you are wondering how much of your electricity savings will be offset by the huge increase in your heating bill, look back on this moment, and remember that we should always be wary when the government attempts to impose upon us something not explicitly desired by the American people. Remember that when the government and green activists attempt to bypass our free market economy and traditions of capitalism, we are the ones left to pay the high price of going green.
The environment is meaningful, but the economy and personal freedom are also important. We cannot trade any one for the other, nor should we want to. There is a balance to be found, where all factors necessary to a good and happy life can be maximized without having to sacrifice too much of one or the other. If we truly want to make the planet into a place worth living for future generations, it is this balance that we must always reasonably strive to achieve.
But there is something else that the we have not been told, which is that CFLs contain mercury. That’s right, the element that is often derided by those same environmentalists as so life damaging that it had to be removed from thermometers, that we are told is contained in nontrivial levels in many freshwaters fish, and is tied to the sudden autism-vaccine alarmism, has been placed into the light bulbs that we are suddenly being told by congress that we will have no choice but to buy.
And why is this?
Do CFLs actually stop global warming? Do they actually manage to reduce your electric bill by a jaw dropping, eye popping amount?
The answer to these questions is contentious, and truthfully, neither here nor there when it comes to the CFL issue. The true answer lies in the fully intended consequence of lobbying the government to embrace green policies and agendas.
I’m talking about the price of going green. I’m talking about the fact that many individuals and organizations out there seek to make green, by having us go green. But I’m not only talking about former vice presidents whose pockets are suddenly full of hundred dollar bills, nobel prizes, Oscars and enough carbon credits to allow him to use more than 10 times the electricity that the average American uses. I’m talking about CEOs from certain corporations, whose stock options ride on their ability to get people to buy their overpriced “green” products. I’m talking about environmental organizations, whose memberships has been hijacked following the fall of the Soviet Union by communist sympathizers who seek to use global government mandates to tax people to death and take away their freedom to choose for themselves. I’m talking about the media, who, in an effort to turn a quick buck and jump on the nearest, most convenient bandwagon, have decided to deride us and make us feel guilty for not buying green products, having green collar jobs, for not drinking green beer while not wearing green on St. Patrick’s day.
We are being urged to go green by an argument of morality, that to not go green and thus preserve the earth for future generations is akin to committing crimes against humanity. But looking deeper, we see that taking on the cause only serves to empty our own pockets, while filling those of the select few who lead the green pledge.
And so we are pushed and prodded to buy green, to spend more money on products that have smaller carbon footprints. We are asked to buy our groceries from local sources, to decrease on CO2 emissions from transporting. We’re asked to buy windows with better insulation for twice the cost. We are made to feel foolish when we buy a car that isn’t a hybrid, or even a car that gets fewer than 20 miles per gallon. When we refuse to buy far more expensive CFL bulbs, we are legislated into having no other choice.
Now this is not to say that some of these options are bad ideas, because many of these products can save us money in the long run. There is wisdom in buying appliances with the energy star rating, in order to save on your electric bill.
Hybrid cars have succeeded due to many economical factors that made it beneficial for consumers to purchase them. Sales of hybrid cars have skyrocketed mostly because people want to pay less for gasoline, not because they are concerned about their carbon footprint. If gasoline cost one dollar per gallon, we would see fewer hybrid cars on the streets, and most likely would see even more SUVs.
But the key is that we are given the choice. In a free market economy, better products win if they can be offered at the right price, or if the savings from buying them makes up for the added cost. Congress did not need to mandate people to buy Hybrid cars. Consumers were smart enough to see how the economy was working, and start purchasing them on their own.
When a newer, more expensive product fails to catch consumer interest, it is not without good reason. Many products branded as being green do not fail to catch on because of disinterest on the part of the American consumer. These products fail to make money because of the fact that people simply do not want to pay for them.
However, because our politicians are only a donation away, there is little effort required in getting Congress to pass legislation that forces the public to adopt green policies. Suddenly, choice is no longer allowed. The right to choose where and how we spend our money and what to do with our property becomes curtailed. And so we are left with CFLs, unreachable CAFE standards, higher gasoline, oil, coal and natural gas taxes, all done in the name of environmental protectionism.
And so you’re probably left wondering, how does this somewhat incoherent rant relate to the hidden price of CFLs? So what if they contain Mercury? All one has to do is look at the disposal instructions to see where the problem lies. When a break occurs, one must, and I quote, “Open the window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more. Shut off central forced air/air conditioning system, if you have one.” And towards the end, they indicate, “The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window prior to vacuuming. Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off and the window open for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is completed.” And these are only small fragments of the laundry list of steps on must complete for proper removal of a broken CFL.
So in the winters of 2012 and beyond, after dropping and breaking your CFL bulb, as the temperature outside is 15 degrees and your house is freezing because the window is open, and you are wondering how much of your electricity savings will be offset by the huge increase in your heating bill, look back on this moment, and remember that we should always be wary when the government attempts to impose upon us something not explicitly desired by the American people. Remember that when the government and green activists attempt to bypass our free market economy and traditions of capitalism, we are the ones left to pay the high price of going green.
The environment is meaningful, but the economy and personal freedom are also important. We cannot trade any one for the other, nor should we want to. There is a balance to be found, where all factors necessary to a good and happy life can be maximized without having to sacrifice too much of one or the other. If we truly want to make the planet into a place worth living for future generations, it is this balance that we must always reasonably strive to achieve.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)