Giving Praise When Due: Global Warming Edition

Okay, how often do people say things like, "You always complain! Can't you ever just praise someone in the mainstream media?" I tend to get that response quite often. So, when I can, I like to point out good articles.

In this case, I will put this in the "almost there" category. Reading this news story from Time magazine, I can still spot the natural, underlying biases of the author. However, there is one section that was just so...unexpected, I have to quote it here.

Some key senators won't even make Monday's vote, including Republican presidential nominee John McCain, who is skipping the debate despite having made strong action on climate change a key part of his pitch to Independents. (Let's not single out McCain - reportedly Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may miss the vote as well.)

Wow, did I read that right? Did an author in a mainstream magazine just say, "Let's not single out McCain" in that sentence? Just this one phrase made this article that much better. I won't say it was perfectly objective (because there are a few shortcomings), but WOW!

I don't really know who Bryan Walsh is or what his other pieces are like, but at least with this one, I am all for praising the guy. I honestly felt this was the most objective piece of writing I have ever seen from a mainstream media source. Remember, I have no problem if someone like Rush Limbaugh or a writer from The Nation writes a non-objective piece; they say they aren't objective beforehand. Time on the other hand claims to be objective; it just doesn't happen very often.

By the way, in case anyone was wondering what I found wrong with the piece, there were a few issues. Ignoring for the moment the fact that it is the environmentalists who have stated the global warming debate is over (a move taken from the Catholics I believe when it came to Galileo) and its potential for debate - and in this case, I think it is appropriate to grant that exception - the main thing I will focus on is the fact the author quotes only one guy, some dude from an environmentalist group, that has stated not doing anything has a cost. Well, not exactly and let me give you an example. Even better, I will use myself, as far away from an environmentalist wacko as possible.

The "fairy-tale" endgame of environmentalists is to save the Earth by better managing energy and reducing energy consumption using "dirty" methods. But, does it take Congress to force people to stop using as much energy? Hell no! I am a perfect example. As I type this, I am sweltering in a mini-heat wave where I live. (And before you blame global warming, there were times this past winter where I had to put a dang blanket over my electronics to keep them from getting too cold and breaking.) Because I don't have the money to waste on my electric bill, I am just running a regular old fan, and let me tell you, it isn't working. I could however be using my air conditioning. Except, that costs more money. So you see, Congress hasn't put a gun to my head and said, "STOP using energy, you a-hole!" Nope, I have decided on my own initiative that being too warm is worth the extra money I will have to buy another book. Simply because I value a book over being cooler, I am using less energy. Do I do it to save the planet? Uhh, have you read my writings before? I do it because it is better for me based on what I value.

See, the problem with this article quoting this guy is that Congress doing nothing assumes everybody won't do anything either. But, that just isn't the case! As oil gets more and more expensive, people will do three things. First, they will look for new oil, including old oil fields that weren't profitable using previous methods. Second, people will naturally cut back on some things based on the value they place on it. (Just as a snide aside, the people most likely to use energy now are the rich Hollywood types that jet-set around the world attending premieres and crap, mainly because they can afford to be "wasteful.") Finally, the third thing people will do is invent new energy methods or ways of doing things that reduce energy needs. They will invent these items not to "save humanity," but to make a quick buck. Only because oil is getting expensive do people have a natural profit incentive to find something different. And what is even better, these methods will be profitable WITHOUT any help from Congress! Yep, you heard that, without any need for Congress to do a dang thing.

If you really don't believe me, assume you have some mechanical know-how. If gasoline for your car were to suddenly become $10 a gallon, wouldn't it be worth it for you to spend time in a garage tinkering to find an engine that runs on something else? Environmentalists understand this to an extent, which is why they want to artificially make oil more expensive. The problem becomes that far too many of the powerful environmentalists aren't for the "fairy-tale" reason given for the movement. Rather they are anti-capitalists who just want people to suffer. Think about it. How often have you ever heard a rabid environmentalist agree that we should be thinking about nuclear power generators instead of coal-based? Eh, that foam at the mouth you see when you suggest this idea is where the term rabid comes from. These true nutjobs don't want to help the environment anymore than Communists wanted to help the little people. You know, the standard complaint against capitalists is that they are greedy. But if you really think about it, these elite bastards are the greedy ones. Just look at the former Soviet Union. How many of the higher-ups were living "equally" with the everyday people? Hell no, they were living large. The main difference between those guys and people like Michael Dell or Bill Gates is that to get their fortunes, Dell and Gates had to convince everyday ordinary people that their products would make our lives better somehow. The guys in the Soviet Union had to con Soviet citizens into thinking the Commies would make their lives better all the while the Commies had to act like hell to keep the truth from escaping.

Anywho, this is just something to think about. Even though I did criticize the article, it was more the fact that the guy quoted someone with a personal incentive to lie. If environmentalism wasn't such a huge scare-topic, the guy quoted would be out of a job. Doesn't he face the same incentives that the executives at Enron faced? So how come Enron people were evil and this guy "couldn't be lying, no way?" Just thought I would point it out.