The Dangers of Environmentalism (Show 045)
Mosley started this show with a discussion of an ARI press release, Poor Countries Don’t Need Climate Change Welfare, They Need Capitalism. It is sad that such a thing must be said, but it must be said. In spite of all of the immediate needs that people are facing, such as starvation and lack of drinkable water, some feel that it’s best for industrialized nations to create a sort of insurance fund for poor nations and the potential (uncertain) dangers of climate change. This act of altruism is actually contrary to what these nations need. They need to focus on self-interest and producing wealth. They need capitalism.
This discussion sparked a further elaboration of the dangers of environmentalism. Mosley revisited an article about Rachel Carson’s Genocide. Here’s a quote:
“The crusade against DDT began with Carson’s antipesticide diatribe “Silent Spring,” published in 1962 at the height of the worldwide antimalaria campaign. The widespread spraying of DDT had caused a spectacular drop in malaria incidence–Sri Lanka, for example, reported 2.8 million malaria victims in 1948, but by 1963 it had only 17. Yet Carson’s book made no mention of this. It said nothing of DDT’s crucial role in eradicating malaria in industrialized countries, or of the tens of millions of lives saved by its use.”
Listen to the show for more commentary.
February 21st, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Hey guys,
I respect everything you have been saying on your show. I am a huge fan and believer in Objectivism, but I wanted to comment in particular on this show just because I can relate to it being a Geography major. I respect peoples’ rights 100%, but this show frustrated me becuase it sounded like you (Mosley) were just very uneducated on the subject. Global warming isn’t just a theory anymore. People deny it still, but that doesn’t mean it CAN be wrong. Yes, maybe there are reasons outside of human change, but we still are affecting the environment. It doesn’t matter where one stands on the environment (personally I stand where Mosley stands…we will adapt, but global warming is not theory, it is a fact. So rather than discuss whether it is real or not I think you guys should stick more to your knowledge and topic of Objectivism and defend why environmentalists are wrong concerning how humans should respond. I don’t have much time on my hands or I’d go into this further right now, but I have to run. Any questions or comments are welcome. Keep up the good work. This was just a suggestion.
-Jared
February 21st, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Jared,
If you show me the proof that global warming is a fact I will gladly change my mind. At the time of recording this show I had yet to hear any proof of it being a reality. I still hear scientist fighting over the facts.
That being said, I do agree that we should have approached this issue differently. Showing why I don’t agree with their response to most environmental issues would have been more helpful. This is covered a little on the show but your right when you say it was more about my opinion.
If you ever find time we could cover this topic again and you could be a guest. That way you can share you knowledge with me and the other listeners.
Thanks for the comment and for listening to the show.
-Mosley
February 21st, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Mosley,
I won’t get in a huge debate over this issue because I feel that it is irrelevant to Ojbectivism, but I’d like to focus on just one of MANY topics surrounding global warming and environmental change: Bleaching of the Coral Reef.
Within the past few decades, the Great Barrier Reef has been affected by bleaching. Bleaching, in simple terms is the loss of unicellular algae, thus prohibiting photosynthesis. Basically, the color of the reef is lost because this algae is forced out. Reefs are homes to millions of species of marine life,and after bleaching, much of this life is forced out, or simply killed. I know some might argue that human advancement is more important than “a stupid animal” as it was so bluntly put in Show 045. Well, the rebuttal to this would simply be that the Great Barrier Reef is called a “barrier” for a reason. Reefs around the world protect coastlines from damaging ocean storms.
How does this relate to global warming? The reason for the bleaching of the reefs is due to an increase in sea-surface temperatures greater than anytime since 1980. The sea-surface temperatures are heating slower than the atmosphere because they have a lower specific heat, that is, they can hold more heat, but heat more slowly. More on this topic:
“Global temperatures this year are about 1.36 degrees Fahrenheit (0.75 Celsius) above the average between 1950 and 1980, according to the Goddard analysis. Worldwide temperatures in 1998 were 1.28 degrees Fahrenheit (0.71 Celsius) above that 30-year average. The data show that Earth is warming more in the Northern Hemisphere, where the average 2005 temperature was two-tenths of a degree above the 1998 level” (Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post).
-One may ask why is it greater in the northern hemisphere? The majority of Developed countries are in the northern hemisphere. Africa and some of South America are virtually both completely undeveloped.
If this isn’t convincing enough please email me at [Email Removed] or reply to this topic and I’d be more than happy to inform you more. Again, this is only ONE effect of climate change out of the many examples. Mosley, I am pretty busy with school at the moment, but maybe over the summer you could touch on this subject again and I’d be more than happy to come on the show. I would not like to be portrayed as “the environmentalist” because I would not say that at all. I would love to support Objectivism on this topic, and I think by first being educated on the topic we can find Objectivist responses to this idea. Environmentalists will deny Objectivist ideals and we must be able to defend them without simply denying global warming. You may disagree (still), but the excuse that global warming isn’t a reality just won’t cut it.
-Jared
Edit: I removed the email address to save you from spam. -Editor
February 24th, 2008 at 1:41 am
Thanks again for your reply! Let me know when you want to come on the show. I will not call you “the environmentalist” I promise.
This is the kinda stuff I created this show for. I get people fired up and they share their side of the issues or knowledge with me.
“You may disagree (still), but the excuse that global warming isn’t a reality just won’t cut it.”
Like I said on the show even if global warming is real (man-made or not) I don’t agree with what the “environmentalist” are doing about it. They are using fear to help push their misguided agendas. But this is a whole can of worms that we can talk about on the show.
I can’t wait to talk to you again. If you ever have some free time other then a Sunday let me know. I can record a special show anytime. I really want to know more about this topic.
April 21st, 2009 at 11:44 pm
There is no unified climate theory. Climates cannot be predicted with any certainty to this day. Ask any climatologist, they will confirm this. So if you cannot predict natural climate change how can you measure man’s impact? Yes, you can say Global Warming has been happening since the end of the “Little Ice Age” (late 1800’s), but to say these changes are unusual over the course of earth’s history is a stretch. The middle ages experienced far warmer temperatures than today. At the time, there was farming in Greenland, vinyards in England, crop yields were at at an all time high. Global Cooling would have far more adverse effects than warming, especially in the realm of food output. Today, storms, hurricanes, floods and tidal waves are far worse than before, but not because of GW, but because there just are far more people to kill than before. If Krakatoa blew its top today like it did over a hundred years ago, it could very well surpass the Tsunami’s of 2005 for body counts. But instead, back then there were only 50,000 to decimate.
But I digress, the real issue is whether man’s increase in CO2 gives rise to the Green House Gas Effect which in leads to Man Made Global Warming? From 1939 (the hottest year since accurate records have been kept) to 1979, the Earth faced a steady decline in temperatures to the point of a “New Ice Age” alarm – all of this in the face of tripling of worldwide industrial output. From 1998 to 2009, Global Temperatures have been flat – in the face of massive increases of industrial output from China and India’s massive increase output.
So in total of the 100 plus years of modern climate records, 50 show decrease or level temperature readings in the face of huge increases in CO2. This turns the CO2 / GW theory on its head.
Let’s talk about ice core records. The correlation of CO2 to temperature does not prove causation in as much soot on the walls causes widespread use of coal. In the ice records, CO2 actually lags behind temperature increases in some cases by as much as 800 years. But taken from the long view, they seem to go up and down together, making the unwitting think one causes the other, never noticing one precedes the other ever so slightly.
Man must change nature in order to survive. The Environmentalist agenda not only ignores this simple fact but romanticizes about a life they could never survive – back to the land. It just isn’t sustainable for the number of people on Earth.