One particular area in which things just don't feel right to me is the idea of a "carbon footprint." We're all supposed to reduce our carbon footprint, but I have to ask, who is "we?" This is precisely the point in Peter W. Huber's article that recently appeared in City Journal, entitled "Bound to Burn." Huber argues that for us rich Westerners to lower our carbon usage and output is just fine and dandy--until one looks at things globally (isn't that what we are supposed to be doing anyway?). His main point?
We rich people can’t stop the world’s 5 billion poor people from burning the
couple of trillion tons of cheap carbon that they have within easy reach. We
can’t even make any durable dent in global emissions—because emissions from the
developing world are growing too fast, because the other 80 percent of humanity
desperately needs cheap energy, and because we and they are now part of the same
global economy.
He goes on to say that even though we rich-types out there burn more carbon per capita, there are a lot more "capitas" in the world's poorest countries. Thus, "the 5 billion poor...emit 20 percent more greenhouse gas than we do." To make matters worse, as the richer countries reduce their demand for carbon-based fuel, the price for said fuel goes down as well. This, of course, means that for countries like China, who burn massive amounts of coal, they can burn it even more cheaply than they already were. These countries are also increasing their rate of fuel usage at a much faster rate than can be offset by our carbon-reduction efforts.
Huber makes many other thought-provoking points in his article--too many to mention here--but in the end, he takes a realistic look at the situation and realizes that on a global scale, humanity is not going to stop using carbon-based fuels anytime soon, regardless of the amount of reductions in Western countries. Therefore, he reckons, we ought to focus our efforts on getting that carbon out of the atmosphere once it has been released. And what is the best way to do that? Things no one disagrees with. Planting trees, which beautifies our cities and keeps them cooler to boot. Using land wisely and improving agricultural tactics, which can result in greater prosperity. Ideas that benefit both humans qua humans and nature, instead of ideas that villify human use of resources and deify Mother Nature.
So why are these ideas not at the forefront of the environmentalist movement, but riding the bus to work is? I think the leaders of the movement don't really care about the environment, at least not as much as they care about having power. Think about it: How much power do you exert over people when they plant a tree? Not much. How much power do you exert over people when you fundamentally alter the manner in which they travel? Quite a bit more. I think this also explains a lot about the misinformation we receive. For example, in his famous documentary, Al Gore showed an ice berg losing massive chunks of ice into the ocean. He neglected to mention it was computer-generated. To take another example, we are told we need to "save the earth." Since when did it need saving to begin with? Is it misguided hubris to suppose that we can destroy a planet billions of years old by driving to work? Or is it intentional misinformation: If the earth is to be saved, then there must be a savior--a savior with enough political power to make the necessary changes.
This is why I sit uneasy with the environmentalist movement sweeping through our nation. It has nothing to do with treating the earth well. It has everything to do with feeling underinformed, misinformed, and being extremely wary of anyone in pursuit of political power.
