Uncategorized

The ghost of Ayn Rand reminds us that environmentalists want to KILL US ALL [cue music from Psycho]

We received this op-ed submission from the Ayn Rand Institute, for reasons I don't fully understand. Perhaps they didn't read the site too closely?

I dabbled with Rand when I was a bitter adolescent ... which is the appropriate time to dabble with Rand. When you don't grow out of that phase, well, you go to work for the Institute.

Anyway, I present, for your amusement and edification:

-----

To save mankind requires the wholesale rejection of environmentalism as hatred of science, technology, progress, and human life.
By Michael S. Berliner

Earth Day approaches, and with it a grave danger faces mankind. The danger is not from acid rain, global warming, smog, or the logging of rain forests, as environmentalists would have us believe. The danger to mankind is from environmentalism.

Terrain Johnson and Colleen Contrisciane of Earth Force answer questions

With what environmental organization are you affiliated? Terrain Johnson. Johnson: I’m a 6th grade student at Masterman Middle School in Philadelphia, and I work with Earth Force. Colleen Contrisciane. Contrisciane: I am a program coordinator with Earth Force, a national organization that aims to engage young people as environmental citizens. What does your organization do? […]

Coal: Totally, like, awesome

Advertisers and marketing types everywhere want to know: What common interest unites pre-teen African Americans and young white skateboarders?

Well, I've found the answer! It's American coal, which is abundant, affordable, and oh-so-clean! Why, it's so darn cool the skateboarder is "stoked" about it.

Learn more here.

(And PS, is that the kid from The Squid and the Whale?)

‘Eco-terrorism’: The not-particularly-interesting parts

The cover story of Pacific Northwest Magazine is about "eco-terrorism." It's decent enough on its own terms, but disappointingly cursory.

Moderately Bueno!

Mexico City air is a little better than it used to be Two decades ago, Mexico City’s air was widely deemed the worst on the planet. Today, while the city of 20 million is still one of the world’s most polluted, it’s no longer top dog. (Several cities in China now dominate the charts.) A […]

Krugman on Raymond and Exxon

In today's New York Times, the Sultan of Shrill, Paul Krugman, takes a richly deserved swipe at outgoing ExxonMobil Chairman Lee Raymond.

Since it's behind the Time$elect subscription wall, here's a large chunk:

Find events in your community in the lead-up to Earth Day on April 22

Earth Day is this coming Saturday, April 22, and green goings-on will be plentiful all this week. Looking for a rally or beach cleanup or edifying lecture or "Lorax" screening in your 'hood? Check out Earth Day Network's searchable database of activities across the U.S. and around the globe.

Too Hot Not to Handle

Pretty sure I'm the last blogger on the block to mention this, but tune to HBO on Earth Day (April 22) for Too Hot Not to Handle, a special on global warming exec. produced by -- who else? -- Laurie David.

HBO has a hard-hitting interview with David on their site, with such incisive exchanges as this:

An environmentalism about human survival

Let's do a thought experiment.

About 251 million years ago, there was an enormous extinction event. No one knows why for sure, but one theory is ... global warming. 90% of marine species and 70% of terrestrial vertebrates were wiped out. Left behind? Mostly fungus.

If animals, plants, and ecosystems have value in and of themselves, we must view the Permian-Triassic extinction event as an almost unfathomable tragedy, far worse than anything human history has witnessed. It ought to make us tremble, shake faith in a benevolent deity.

But it doesn't. We don't view it as a tragedy that dwarfs any human violence, starvation, or disease, not really. Some might say it is, but I'll venture nobody on the planet feels it to be such.

It's just something that happened. Indeed, though it was the worst, it was but one of seven major extinction events -- including the one we're living through now, the fastest.

Taking on the latest argument from climate do-nothings

OK, I lied, there are two things I wanted to mention from the Revkin interview.

Revkin says this:

When will we begin to apply the hedging behavior that we do routinely in our life like buying fire insurance? You don't buy fire insurance because you know your house is going to burn down. But we do it routinely and our banks require us to do it. When are we going to realize that we need to apply this to other parts of our life?

But then later, says this:

I've written a bit about the economics. The Energy Department cherry-picked the information that allowed President Bush to abandon his campaign pledge to regulate CO2 from power plants. And EPA and others protested this and were ignored. There has been an inadequate focus on the quality of the economic analyses and forecasts. They are highly suspect and have far more wiggle room and error than any climate model.

I would suggest that the first comment attacks a bit of a straw man -- at least in terms of state-of-the-art arguments from climate do-nothings -- and the second one shows why.