sfgate via Free Republic
This article truly flabbergasts me. It's chock full of unwarranted assertions and premises. One such premise is in the title of the piece--- viz. growth harms the planet.
Does it really? What about the proposition that you can grow the economy with cheaper energy prices, but with actually less pollution? Not possible? You certainly haven't been reading this blog.
The economy really isn't growing, as the author contends. Another flawed premise.
The author mentions the "filth" that economic growth produces. But what is filth? Filth isn't anything that wasn't already there in some other form. With enough energy, the form can be changed back again into something useful. After all, matter doesn't go anywhere. Matter can be rearranged into various compounds from here to eternity. If the compound is harmful and inconvenient, it can certainly be rendered harmless with an application of sufficient energy.
But not if energy isn't allowed to be utilized on the basis of some flawed premise of limited energy.
The author asserts that national policy since WWII has been towards the fastest possible economic growth. This is simply not true. Since the environmentalist movement began in the seventies, economic growth has taken a back seat. It is not a priority in this administration regardless of what the official policy states. If that were the case, and economic growth was a priority, there would certainly be more economic growth. In order to make the economy grow, one must have pro-growth policies. Duh! There really isn't any in this administration. It is a reflection of the radical environmentalist influence upon today's politics that has rendered a pro-growth policy problematical.
The author is incredulous that some people ( like me ) contend that economic growth can lead to a cleaner environment. The author certainly doesn't read history. Pittsburgh's air was filthy 100 years ago. It was made much cleaner even before the environmentalists started "fixing" it. It became possible to clean it because people had more wealth and knowledge of how to clean it. Not because growth was stymied because of some faulty notion that poverty would help clean it up.
The author points to someone in Berkeley is claiming that she's not be allowed to talk about this. But haven't we heard about this endlessly? I mean, what is this article about anyway? Nobody is stopping anybody from talking about anything, unless it is the left wanting to shut down conservatives.
The author seems to be of the mind that only the Earth can regenerate resources. Any attempt by man is invalid. The premise is false. With sufficient energy, all matter used can be recycled infinitely. The trick is to master nuclear energy. Unfortunately, for these people, nuclear energy is just a dirty word. What they don't realize, or can't understand is that nuclear energy will enable them to do the very things they claim that they want to do, which is to clean up the planet.
The author advocates capping economic growth and employing carbon taxes. Here we have the nut of their case---people must be punished. We have it too good. We must be made to feel guilty for the harm we are doing to the planet. Phooey!
People must do with less, according to this way of thinking. The environment can be saved this way. Wrong again. None of these ideas will really help save the environment. It will only spread the pain around, and enrich their sponsors.
They want to raise taxes so as to clean up the environment. But doesn't Europe have a carbon tax? And hasn't America made more progress towards less carbon emissions that Europe has? Higher taxes hasn't produced the results being produced here. But people in Europe do pay higher prices for their energy. Europe is certainly being punished even if they aren't quite as wealthy as Americans are.
I've noted that a lot of this is self serving for the left. All of these "solutions" only help leftists increase their power and control. Their programs don't help anybody but themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment