"The month of rolling blackouts was totally worth it"
Okay, so the holiday season is not typically the most environmentally-conscious of seasons. In fact, it's probably one of the toughest few weeks of the year for the environment, with all the holiday travel, increased heating costs, forests worth of discarded wrapping paper, and let's not forget all the lights! Reason would suggest that a time of such great environmental strain would be an opportune time to help the environmental cause.
Unfortunately, many on the Right like to savor this time of year, hoping that those "crazy whack job environmentalists" will take a much-needed vacation from their cause. They employ the "Is Nothing Sacred?" argument to mask their true intention, pandering to big business at the expense of the environment.
Michelle Malkin recently went on the attack following what she perceived to be a heretical act by the mayor of Seattle to instill a little environmental awareness into a holiday tradition. Mayor Greg Nickels got the Right into an uproar with his "Letter To Santa", an effort to use Santa's Christmas rounds as a reminder to children that global warming is having an observed effect on the North Pole. The letter also launched the mayor's campaign to give out energy efficient light bulbs this holiday season, and announced the use of efficient LED Christmas lights for the city's holiday tree.
Malkin was not alone in piling on the mayor. Conservative blogs leaningstraightup.com, The American Pundit, crushliberalism.com, rightvoices.com and brutallyhonest.org all voiced their displeasure with Mayor Nickels' environmental message. Malkin herself later shed a tear for the eventual phasing out of the incandescent light bulb, a mandate of the new energy bill signed by President Bush in December.
If you're anything like me, you're probably asking yourself, "So what's all the uproar about?" Unfortunately, reading these blog posts does virtually nothing to answer that question. Rather than putting up any real argument as to why we shouldn't be environmental aware at Christmas time, these blog authors instead relied on the following tactics:
1. The aforementioned "Is Nothing Sacred?" argument. This states that because Christmas is -or at least was intended to be - a religious holiday, that any discussion of environmental issues is tantamount to sacrilege. Now I would be offended by, say, Christ-centered pornography, if that even exists. One could reasonably use the "Is Nothing Sacred?" argument in that case. But with the Seattle mayor, we're not talking about Jesus, we are talking about the secular, mythical tale of Santa Claus and his reindeer. And we're talking about energy efficient light bulbs, not anything illegal, immoral or even slightly unpleasant. Not exactly a crucifix in a glass of urine. For example:
"Can’t Christmas be Christmas without Al Gore wannabes polluting the air and scaring the kids?" - Malkin
"Now they’ve crossed the line. Dragging Santa in the Global Warming debate has gone too far!" - rightvoices.com
2. The Idiotic Knee-jerk Reaction. Right-wingers have some nerve ending in the brain that fires whenever the words "environment" or "global warming" are uttered, sending these impulses to the thalamus resulting in a heightened state of arousal, sometimes referred to as a "fight or flight" response. (Wow, I did remember something from college) This results in the righty reacting without understanding what is really going on, often embellishing on the original story or fabricating one of their own. Like the human knee-jerk reflex, there isn't really any conscious thought going on here either. A few of the right-wing headlines for this story:
"Seattle mayor: Santa hates kids who aren’t eco-kooks like me." - crushliberalism.com
"Seattle Mayor: Use Eco-Friendly Lightbulbs or Santa Will Die" - The American Pundit
"Seattle Mayor Nickels to kids: Stop Global Warming, OR SANTA WILL DIE!!!!" - Leaningstrightup.com
Okay folks, let's not get carried away here. There is no environmental fear-mongering going on. Nickels says nothing about Santa or his reindeer dying, nor does he claim that Santa hates any kids. Real fear-mongering (the kind mastered by conservatives) involves warning of the demise of real people over a fictitious threat (see George Bush, mushroom cloud). What the mayor of Seattle did was the exact opposite. He warned of the demise of fake people (Santa, et al) over a real threat (global warming).
3. The "Closed Loop" method. This is when far-right conservatives exclusively use other far-right conservatives as backup for their arguments. You have to give it to this group, though. At least they attempted to make an argument.
- In slamming the new energy bill, Michelle Malkin based her position solely on the Business and Media Institute's assessment of the bill. The Business and Media Institute is a right-wing watchdog group dedicated to promoting conservative, free-market economic theory in the media.
- For their part, Leaning Straight Up used multiple far right sources to slam energy-efficient light bulbs, linking to both Capitalism Magazine and the Washington Policy Center, the self-proclaimed purveyor of "high quality analysis on issues relating to the free market and government regulation."
Because nothing says "sound argument" quite like exclusively citing unabashedly right-wing organizations. A less-overtly partisan source usually makes for a better argument. For example the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Sciences, The American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the EPA, would all provide a more well-rounded summation of environmental issues than the energy-funded organizations conservatives exclusively tap for their environmental [mis]information.
10 comments:
Yes, something does fire off in our brains when we hear about eco- or green whatever. And the reason is simple: So much of environmentalism is hysteria and rubbish foisted upon us by you anti-capitalists.
We're sick of all your eco-bull because we see it as a thinly veiled attack on the free market you so despise -- even though it's one of the most potent forces for good the world has ever seen. And it's been especially potent in its power to diminish and eradicate poverty (something that socialism and do-gooder government programs have never been able to match on their best day).
I'm sorry, but I just don't see all this high-level cause for alarm that sends you leftists diving under your beds in abject panic, sobbing, "W-wwhy .... doesn't my g-g-government DO something??? Whyyyyyy???"
There's an eco-crisis lurking behind every tree and rock, according to you guys. In the 1970s, you were wetting your pants over the "population bomb" scare. By now, we should have long exhausted our natural resources and started crowding one another into the ocean. But we didn't listen to you clowns then and we're not very interested in listening to you now, either.
A wise man once said, "I'll begin acting like it's an emergency when the people telling me it's an emergency, actually begin acting like it's an emergency".
Basically, when Al Gore & Co. stop flying around the world in their private jets, have massive concerts that it'll take approx 100,000 trees planted to reverse the damage, etc., I'll replace my light bulbs.
Interestingly enough, several facts have thus far been ignored by the alarmists:
A) The new hottest year on record is 1934 - not 1998. '34 must've been the year of the SUV.
B) 5 of the 10 hottest years on record aren't even in the last 50 years.
C) Fewer than half of published scientists actually endorse the theory of man-made global warming.
Bravo! The truth is so refreshingly beautiful!
I love how the right assumes to know so much about the left. Namely, that any political position we take is done so, not out of our own convictions, but out of a disdain for conservative leaders and their policies. Liberals want Bush out of office, not because of the illegal, corrupt and incompetent administration he has run, but because we just plain hate him. That sound about right, Steve? Yes, I know, Steve, environmentalism is some made-up nonsense aimed at taking out capitalism, right? It's some phony issue fabricated out of a liberal desire to raise your taxes, isn't that about right? What a bunch of nonsense. Just because Rush Limbaugh utters this filth from his soapbox doesn't make it so. Like a bunch of liberals in the late sixties had a secret meeting and said, "hmmmmm...how can we undermine capitalism? I know! We'll convince the American public that the environment is worth protecting! Americans will believe anything." Try to remember that the EPA was formed under Richard Nixon.
And no one is panicking here. We know it will take a long time for humans to suck the earth dry. We just realize that there are some very simple and cost-effective ways to help slow the process, so why not adopt them?
I just don't get why the enviroment is public enemy #1 for conservatives. I can understand that you may not love gays or minorities or the poor or atheists. At least these are people with whom you may have a disagreement with occasionally that may highlight your perceived differences. But EVERYONE depends on the Earth to some extent. Why go out of your way to give the environment the finger? To make yourself feel the warmth and comfort that only ideological consistency can bring? "Bush and Cheney hate the environment. I like Bush and Cheney. I guess I had better start hating the environment."
I know that is a very simple way to look at the issue, but you have to understand that it looks that way to us. That environmentalism is somehow brutally anti-capitalist is a notion totally without merit.
Oh, and Anonymous, when you have to go to the Al Gore/private jet card to validate your argument, it shows a monumental lack of understanding of the issue. Answering a real call to action (as all Gore has done) with a personal attack is simply lame, pointless, not at all flattering to you as a would-be debater.
I love the stat that "5 of the 10 hottest years on record aren't even in the last 50 years." So that means in the Earth's 4.5 billion-year life, half of the hottest years on record HAVE been in the last 50 years! I'm sorry, but that sounds pretty alarming. So in the last 50 years we have had a roughly 1 in 10 chance of the current year being one the hottest years on record. Before that we had a roughly 1 in one billion chance. You do that math. And thanks for making my point for me, it makes it so much easier.
Nick said: "Liberals want Bush out of office, not because of the illegal, corrupt and incompetent administration he has run, but because we just plain hate him. That sound about right, Steve?"
Yes, I do believe that's the case, Nick. The fact that you guys turned a blind eye to (or even defended) the rampant corruption of the previous administration shows that party spirit is your driving force.
I'll be honest: I don't like Bush, either. I'm anxious for him to leave town. But the left's hatred is, I think, based largely on their mistaken outrage about him "stealing the election" in 2000. Not on some natural liberal aversion to corrupt and incompetent administrations.
Nick said: "Yes, I know, Steve, environmentalism is some made-up nonsense aimed at taking out capitalism, right? It's some phony issue fabricated out of a liberal desire to raise your taxes, isn't that about right?"
Not just to raise taxes. Also to give government more power to help us run our lives the way libs think we should run them.
Nick said: "Just because Rush Limbaugh utters this filth from his soapbox doesn't make it so."
I agree. It's true whether Rush utters it or not. On the other hand, a thing isn't FALSE just because Rush utters it (Logic 101). That bears repeating to you libs, because you inhabit the world of ad hominem arguments 24 hours a day.
And why must stuff you disagree with be given names like "filth"? You guys have some real anger issues.
Nick said: "Like a bunch of liberals in the late sixties had a secret meeting and said, "hmmmmm...how can we undermine capitalism? I know! We'll convince the American public that the environment is worth protecting! Americans will believe anything."
They didn't have to. Communism was still in its heyday then, so these radicals had a more potent weapon at their disposal.
Nick said: "Try to remember that the EPA was formed under Richard Nixon."
Who cares? There you go invoking party spirit again. I'll admit that Nixon was foolish to set up yet another government agency. He's certainly not my standard-bearer from everything right and good.
Nick said: "We know it will take a long time for humans to suck the earth dry. We just realize that there are some very simple and cost-effective ways to help slow the process, so why not adopt them?"
I think that's fine. I just don't want the federal government pointing a gun at my head and saying, "Drop that incandescent bulb." If you want to recycle and get motion-sensing lights in your home, go for it. You have my blessing. Actually, I think it's a good idea. I'm just tired of the coercive measures the left always wants to impose on decent, law-abiding citizens.
Nick said: "I can understand that you may not love gays or minorities or the poor or atheists."
Oh, stop. Put the smear brush away. Dang ... you guys just can't stick to rational arguments, can you? You always have to trot out that self-righteous, "WE love gays and minorities, and YOU hate them" crap. Grow up.
Nick said: "'Bush and Cheney hate the environment. I like Bush and Cheney. I guess I had better start hating the environment.' I know that is a very simple way to look at the issue, but you have to understand that it looks that way to us."
That's silly, Nick. Why would anyone possessing one particle of sanity "hate the environment"? Imagine such a sentiment: "This miserable air, water, forest land -- it disgusts me to no end! Damn every bit of it!" If you're truly projecting that irrational sentiment onto a group of people, you've really got a screw loose.
Nick said: "Answering a real call to action (as all Gore has done) with a personal attack is simply lame, pointless, not at all flattering to you as a would-be debater."
Oh, give me a huge break, Nick. Al Gore is no noble, gold-hearted crusader -- he's an ego-driven partisan. Like so many leftist elites, he sports the haughty attitude of, "Do as I say, not as I do." He needs to be called on it, and slammed down ... hard.
Nick said: "I love the stat that '5 of the 10 hottest years on record aren't even in the last 50 years.'"
I don't think many informed people are denying that there's been a warming trend. We just aren't prepared to blame it all on the United States, capitalism and our way of life. That may be what the saintly United Nations thinks, but that's not enough for us. We want some hard evidence that is NOT politically tainted. So far, there hasn't been enough evidence to prompt me into adopting an Amish lifestyle. (I'll but your own "carbon footprint" is nothing to brag about, either.)
Oops. I meant, "I'll bet your own 'carbon footprint' ..."
Maybe it's time for government-mandated spell checks. :)
stevej said: "Yes, I do believe that's the case, Nick. The fact that you guys turned a blind eye to (or even defended) the rampant corruption of the previous administration shows that party spirit is your driving force."
Again, you assume so much. I voted for Dole in '96, didn't vote in 2000, and didn't care to. It was Bush and the actions of his administration that led me to really start to formulate a real personal political ideology. So, no, liberals are typically not so petty as to want to oust a sitting President due to a general dislike of the person. If you insist on comparing Bush to Clinton, do so with the most uniform measuring stick: Impeachment. From what I can tell, you're a rational thinker, and I know you wouldn't say that lying about oral sex is worse than condoning torture, spying on Americans, lying about the dangers of Iraq and now Iran, and outing a covert intelligence agent.
stevej said: "Not just to raise taxes. Also to give government more power to help us run our lives the way libs think we should run them."
So, if the government wanted to run our lives the way conservatives wanted to run them, that would be okay? I'm not sure if that is totally consistent with conservative's stance on limited government. But can we dispense with all the 1984-style Big Brother view of government already? Boy, Reagan still haunts you cons from beyond the grave with his "government is the root of all evil" stuff.
stevej said: "I think that's fine. I just don't want the federal government pointing a gun at my head and saying, 'Drop that incandescent bulb.'"
Your sensationalism aside, I guess I wouldn't care if the government told me I had to stop using incandescent bulbs. Why should I? If the government is anything, it is thorough and slow, thanks in large part to the 3 branch government and 2-party system, and I tend to believe that most laws are enacted with a LOT of research and debate. Yes, there are certainly times when free-market forces affected adequate change, and there are times when the government has had to step in. I'm sure you thought second-hand smoke was a big "liberal scare tactic" when they banned smoking on airplanes. But we don't even think about it anymore. Soon, the incandescent bulb will be a thing of the past, and I don't have a problem with the government playing a part in it's extinction. It's just a light bulb!
stevej said: "Why would anyone possessing one particle of sanity 'hate the environment'? Imagine such a sentiment: 'This miserable air, water, forest land -- it disgusts me to no end! Damn every bit of it!'"
Again, this is how it looks to us. Look, I understand that there are people in this country that will always put the economy ahead of the environment. I tend to agree that the economy is more important sometimes. People on the extreme end of the environmental spectrum do the rest of us a disservice, because they give the Limbaughs of the world fodder to smear the entire environmental cause. I tend to think, for example, that if certain species can't adapt, they should just be exstinct. Why spend $$ to protect them? But those that would say, like president Bush, that we can't undertake any environmental policy that would in any way undermine the economy is absurd. Whether you like to admit it or not, climate change is upon us. I tend to beleive the international scientific consensus when it comes to global warming, for example, not the consensus of a few oil-industry think tanks. What people don't get is that it isn't up to them to determine whether global warming is happening or whether intelligent design is a valid scientific theory. People aren't scientists. We have experts for that, peer-reviewed experts, and I trust my government to go along with the consensus until they find the consensus to be incorrect.
stevej said: "Oh, give me a huge break, Nick. Al Gore is no noble, gold-hearted crusader -- he's an ego-driven partisan."
Come on now. You Machiavellians on the right just can't fathom that someone would do something out of a sense of personal obligation and goodwill. It's all for the glory, right? Well, then, you would kind of think Al Gore would be running for president, wouldn't you? Surely an ego-driven partisan like Al Gore would not just stash his Oscar and Nobel Prize on the shelf and go about his merry way, would he? Certainly if there were a time for him to run for president it would be now, right? Although, now you've got me thinking, maybe Al Gore IS being selfish by not running for president. I actually think Gore is a guy who would really try to make some real changes if elected, you know, in the spirit of a true public servant. But I digress.... The point is, people can just do good things and spread an important message without being a partisan hack. If you're that cynical, then I'm sorry for you.
Nick, this has been a fun exchange. I have to admit your point about the conservative links. You did label them as "psychosis." I withdraw my criticisms and apologize for my rancor over this.
One problem with arguments like our current one is that I don't like having to defend everything Bush does. I disagree with him a lot. I also think he's too dimwitted to be president.
My main concern is the spread of government influence into our lives. It's not a Reagan thing. It's a Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison thing. I don't want liberals OR conservatives telling me how to live and then enlisting the state to force me into it. Freedom and personal responsibility are high on my list of desirables. Even if we're talking petty things like light bulbs, it's the principle of it all.
As for Gore, I suppose there's no point in asserting my perception of him any further. It's just my perception. I see him as a pompous oaf and you don't. Stalemate.
Whoa, Nick. I do not consider myself anywhere near the "extreme end of the environmental spectrum," but I, like many other pretty "average Joes," believe that we have some obligation to those poor "unadapting creatures/species" which have been adversely affected by changes to the environment, (especially those most likely caused by our "human waste") to help them out a bit with a little of our money. Don't you remember how in Star Trek IV, Voyage Home, the extinction of humpback whales caused an alien species to threaten the destruction of planet Earth?
And Steve, I guess I don't trust individuals or esp. corporations to have enough personal responsibility to act in the best interest of the environment. Therefore, I think the government should play a larger role in influencing their actions, thru policies such as fuel efficiency standards, enforcing pollution control, and perhaps offering incentives to promote the production and usage of energy efficient light bulbs. But there is the danger that governments (like our current one) with too many hands in corporate cookie jars, will be too influenced by money to do the right thing for the environment and all it's life.
WE CAN'T LET THE HUMPBACK WHALES DIE!!!
And Steve, I guess I don't trust individuals or esp. corporations to have enough personal responsibility to act in the best interest of the environment.
Supergrover, I believe that's one of the huge watershed issues that separates the left and right. The right trusts individuals more than government. The left trusts government more than individuals.
I agree that not all individuals and corporations deserve our trust. No argument there. But that's why we have our civil court system. If a company dumps toxic goo on my property, I can sue the living crap out of them. (That's the way it's supposed to work, anyway.)
I also agree with you on humpback whales. We should preserve them. They're a good source of blubber, oil and jumbo sushi.
Post a Comment