Wednesday, February 21, 2007

Environmental racketeering

Environmentalism is the political albatross of the twenty-first century, having so well and truly wrung itself around the neck of decision-making that it is invoked in the most improbable of policies. In the hands of professional activists and politicians, the heavy-handed repetition of environmentalist rhetoric has long since transcended any conceit it may once have had as a form of consciousness, however hippie-rigged in the first place, into a fashionable prejudice… a prejudice that gives politicians a stump for populist posturing, and an expedient springboard for reflexive assent of even the most specious campaigns at all levels of authority, even down to the level of municipality.

In London, a city that surely suffers already from an excess of municipality, this phenomenon has reached its typically ridiculous and amateurish zenith in a debate over restricting drive-throughs (!) that shows the extent to which environmentalism is used as a stooge for advancing superfluous economic controls and social engineering projects. The recent decision of a planning committee to turn down approval of a Tim Hortons drive-through on Hyde Park Road "where the city is trying to encourage pedestrian traffic and a village atmosphere" has sparked an absurd environmental rhetoric in defense of council's social engineering objectives that appears to turn on the question of whether a few minutes idling in a drive-through is more environmentally detrimental than starting and stopping a car's engine to go get a double-double. From the London Free Press:

While debate at the earlier council committee level had focused on neighbourhood issues such as noise and traffic, Coun. David Winninger last night argued more is at stake— something of a global nature, the subject of the former U.S. vice-president's film, An Inconvenient Truth.

If Canada is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet the targets of the Kyoto treaty, Londoners could help by limiting the time drivers idle while waiting for a take-out coffee or a burger, Winninger said.

"This is perhaps a luxury we can no longer afford … It's really a matter of a lifestyle choice. It's not a necessity," he said.
Even in the confines of a city hall that has long had a reputation as a theatre of glib nonsense, this might well be the most absurd collection of contentions ever raised there. Such preposterous premises and assertions would hardly warrant a glance let alone rebuttal anywhere else, but in the time-honoured prevaricating ways of London's council they were enough to at least send the matter back to city staff to "report back with options on how to restrict future growth of drive-throughs." But the contrived nature of environmental rhetoric is showed up in the confused mass of platitudes and non sequiturs that politicians feel compelled to accompany it with:
"This kind of development is the antithesis of a creative city," Coun. Judy Bryant said. "I can walk from my house to five drive-throughs."
This is supposed to representative of something, but for the life of me I can't imagine what except either that Judy Bryant lives at a major commercial intersection or that she can walk at least as far as anyone else. Good or bad for her, but for $29,000 a year we could at least be paying her for some sort of argument.


Honey Pot said...

Here we go with the eco-terrorist wanting to put people out of work. People, who if you do the math, would qualify as the working poor. They should be asking themselves just how much money they have in their welfare budget to train these soon to be unemployed workers for an environmentally friendly job? How many environmentally friendly jobs are there in London? I would like to see a list of London jobs that would be considered environmentally friendly to the eco-terrorist. No doubt if you looked into it, there wouldn't be many. They will start with the lower socioeconomic classes jobs, they are an easy target, but anyone's job, could be a target. Whose next, is what every-one should be asking themselves. In a way this is good that London is leading the pack in destroying low paying jobs in the name of their prophet David Suzuki. It can be held up as an example to the rest of Canada. The eco-terrorist never seem to look at the pebble in the pond effect this will have on the lives of the lower socioeconomic classes. They seem to think that everyone can be employed as a leftist politician, or an eco-terrorist activist and get paid great gobs of tax-payer money to destroy the economy.

Though Timmy's pay is shit for the birds, they do employ many people. Ditto for the other businesses with drive-thrus.

Stating that people will just park their cars to go into Timmies, we all know is not going to happen. First of all they would have to expand on their partking lots, and we know the eco-terrorist will never let that happen. Secondly, people will find that very inconvenient on their way to and from work, and they will just forgo the coffee.

The eco-terrorist need a carbon footprint driven right up their dumb arrogant asses.

Jake said...

Hyde Park was refused a Timmy's because the city "wants to encourage more pedestrian traffic and a village atmosphere." Give me a break! Hyde Park is not a village. It has no historic streetscape at all. The only thing there of any historic meaning is a church and a couple of old farm houses. David Winninger, another pseudo-environmentalists on council, used the Kyoto Accord to justify restricting drive thrus just proves he (and the rest of the enviro-activists)doesn't have an argument.