The Environment

The issue of environmental conservation has become corrupted by politically motivated opportunists. Case in point- Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth- an unfortunate title given the film's obvious scientific deficiencies and convenient anti-Republican undertones. Presently, the discourse has become so convoluted that a discussion of the environment necessarily leads to a debate of capitalism.

It is a common misconception that the conservative anti-Kyoto lobby derides the environment. To suggest that the Republicans, conservatives, corporations and capitalists harbor contempt for the planet is slanderous bullshit. Given the complexity of the subject matter, environmental conservation was initially debated within the upper echelons of the scientific community. The debate was proportionate and based around the tenets of generational responsibility verses progress. Presently, former vice-Presidents shock gullible audiences with ominous statistics without providing reasonable context or extending a thorough analysis. Let's assume for a moment that the questionable hypotheses are correct: climate change exists, global warming exists and we are primarily responsible. Now, let's balance that with mankind's scientific, technological, medical and cultural progress since the industrial revolution. For all the questionable statistics the pseudo-political-environmental lobby (PPEL) throws around, there are more compelling statistics that justify those detriments. Here's a few:

Observed British male life expectancy 1850: 38.3
Observed British male life expectancy 2006: 75.7
Pharmaceutical status 1850: None.
Pharmaceutical status 2006: Immunization, antivirals, antibiotics, insulin, etc.
Scientific knowledge 1850: Mechanics, experimental chemistry, God.
Scientific knowledge 2006: Chemistry, biology, medicine, nuclear physics, God (unfortunately and unbelievably)

Another indictment of the PPEL is its warped preferences. Typically, one would expect environmentalists to be politically non-aligned, opting for policies that further the cause of the environment. Consider nuclear power; a viable alternative to fossil fuels that releases only 1% of the greenhouse gases. Recently, prominent environmentalist, David Suzuki, suggested that the option be considered in a menu of potential alternatives to the burning of brown coal. The PPEL, on the other hand, is vehemently opposed to nuclear power. Why? Just because. There is never any qualification of the stance beyond the typical "nuclear power is dangerous. Bush is a terrorist!" rhetoric. Rather, the PPEL advocates grossly inefficient and unfeasible modes of power generation such as solar cells and wind turbines. While these renewable sources of energy are a positive supplement, a $30,000 solar cell configuration still requires households to draw power from the grid when using hot water and air conditioning. Moreover, the creation of silicon solar cells results in toxic byproducts and requires an initial investment of energy corresponding to a thermal pay back period of circa 10 years.

I've always affirmed that war, sex and capitalism have been the three major augmenting factors of human ingenuity. The desire to kill, fuck and make money have motivated mankind's ingenuity. Ultimately, the latter of these- make money- will resolve the problems potentially associated with climate change. Through the creation of schemes that create financial incentives to pollute less, such as Carbon points, and the gradual depletion of fossil fuels, firms will have to seek alternative and profitable ways to generate power. It's not altruistic, but who really cares?