Recently, the nation and indeed the world has been inundated by dire, apocalyptic warnings about the consequences of global warming. The media blasts you with front page headlines about how you and your children might die while a murdered African-American child (who actually DID die) barely earns a mention on page 30 below the fold. The United Nations and the U.S. Congress have spent months studying the global warming phenomenon at tremendous cost and energy while in some countries citizens can't even get a drink of clean water. Environmental groups spend thousands of dollars sending out mailings (on paper) bemoaning global warming and, ironically, deforestation.
All of these efforts are for what? To "raise your awareness?" Nope. It's all about the money. And nothing makes people give up their money better than fear. Fear will make you pay, and it will make you vote.
In America, both sides of the legislative aisle have been guilty of utilizing fear to get your votes and your money.
Not too long ago, the Right tried to make you believe that Islamic terrorists were EVERYWHERE, and that they just might be tree-hugging, latte-sipping homosexuals who wanted to get married in YOUR church right after they attended a fund raiser at Bill Clinton's house. And you know what? It worked. The Right won by an overwhelming majority nation-wide.Now, it's the Left's turn to try to scare the pants off of you by claiming that YOU'RE ALL GOING TO DIE BY GLOBAL WARMING!!!! THOSE GREEDY OIL MEN ARE GOING TO KILL YOUR CHILDREN!! Well, here's what I have to say: Who cares? Global warming is irrelevant to the issue of environmentalism. Now, before you get too bent out of shape, let me explain.
THERE IS NOTHING THAT SAYS WE SHOULD NOT BE GOOD STEWARDS OF OUR ENVIRONMENT. Where is it written that just because we are an industrial society that we should not take care of the air and water? Global warming has been proven and disproven by tons of scientists. Even esteemed author Michael Crichton in his book "State of Fear" makes a good argument that global warming as a cause of human activity may very well NOT exist. Therefore, if the global warming issue is taken out of the equation, should we then feel free to poison ourselves with pollutants? Of course not.
Environmentalism is not necessarily a global warming issue. It is, however, a national health and a national security issue.
I think the health concerns are self-evident, but if they are not to you then I will explain. Humans produce waste products. Our factories and modes of transportation pollute the air and water. Chemicals we use leech into the ground water, rivers, streams, lakes and oceans. This, as they say, is not good. If we poison our surroundings we poison the very air and water which give us life. I personally do not want my son to breathe air that is filled with junk, drink dirty water, or eat fish that is laden with mercury. By not taking care of our surroundings we are causing harm to our national state of health.
Now on to national security. This may not be as self-evident as health. If our troops are not at the prime of health due to exposure to pollutants, then that is a detriment to our national security. Healthy troops are more efficient. Additionally, it's not wise for the U.S. to allow a group of men in the most unstable region in the world to dictate to us the price to run a car. Nor should the U.S. be satisfied that the military, and indeed the whole country, could very easily be shut down by the destruction of a couple of pipelines. These situations place the United States in a perpetual state of vulnerability. This is not conducive to a strong, secure nation.
Therefore, our national energy should be focused on researching alternate energy sources, cleaner technologies for factories, protecting the air and water, and not on whether global warming is going to kill us all.
