Wednesday, December 14, 2005

Too many TV dinners leads to social activism

Cafe Hayek, on the environmental crisis:

Let’s assume that global warming is happening and that it’s caused by modern human industry and commerce. Is there a case to be made for the United States government to continue to avoid signing the Kyoto Protocol? More generally, is there a case to be made to shrug our shoulders and say “best not to do anything through government about global warming”?

I think so.

One legitimate reason for refusing to endorse massive, worldwide government-led efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions is that any such effort will inevitably be politicized. Even if the possibility exists for such regulation to make the world a better place, this possibility is remote compared to the likelihood that grandstanding politicians, special-interest groups, arrogant environmentalists who are intolerant of commercial values, and well-meaning but misinformed voters will combine to generate policies that do more harm than good.
Case and point via Mark Steyn:
Steven Guilbeault of Greenpeace:

Global warming can mean colder, it can mean drier, it can mean wetter, that's what we're dealing with.
In plain language this translates to "We've no idea what's going on, but legislation must be passed to control the emissions of the populace." People breathe and breed to the detriment of the planet. The hetronormatives should thus be among the earliest of sacrifices.

2 comments:

Dr Kyla said...

If Kyoto made all it's targets, it'd amount to less than a 1% reduction. Kyoto is a feel good piece of legislation, nothing more. All it really does is redistribute wealth to poorer countries. Countries like Bangladesh get credits, even though they burn a lot of wood and create air pollution. Countries like Canada are no where near making the quota, and must purchase these credits from less wealthy countries. That's right, our money going directly to a polluting country, and us doing little if anything to address the problem.

Anonymous said...

My response is to the title and it's cavaliar judgement of social activism. Conservative mouth pieces, like yourself, did not stop the vietnam war, end segregation or give women the white to vote. People like you opposed these things at every opportunity, so before you go around slandering 'social activism' you should perhaps tip your hat to the social activists who fought for actual, rather than imagined, freedom.