My own views on the subject are highly controversial, specially because my country, Brazil, is proud owner (TM) of the the amazonian rain forest (sarcasm intended), and also pioneer in many "green" thoughts and policies.
I could probably write 200 pages on the subject but since this is not my natural language I'll try to synthetize it, although I'm sure you guys will think I'm crazy or unfounded, when in reality I'm not.
First of all, I do not agree with 99% of the scientific studies relating how our environment, they are all bogus science mostly just made for the press, or simply scientific s*** produced by researchers who are paid by green-related organizations. As an example, I will NEVER trust an scientifically unsound article written by a Greenpeace-funded group of researchers from a famous US University that is published on National Geographic and then reproduced by many other papers and middle-class magazines. This is not true science, this is the positive feedback loop of people who manipulate the public opinion in order to acquire political power by the means of green-terror (claiming that we MUST care of the environment or we will be punished) and then using the acquired political influence to make governments (mostly) invest in research or environment-friendly-institutions that raise money from donations in general, both with the sole purpose to finance the production of written material which will only serve as propaganda to keep the political influence of those in power. This is nothing difference from a religious political party or a communist political party. Both claim they have solid bases, and both influence people by claiming some sort of "bad" scenario. I'm not going against communism here, I'm just making an analogy. Green people claim to have their ideas supported by science, when in fact it's just HIDDEN POLITICAL PROPAGANDA 99% of the time.
As our original poster WCZK very well mentioned, several billion dollars are spent to convince people that climatic problems are indeed real, true, but also true is that fact that several TRILLION dollars would be required to actually EDUCATE people so they could know for themselves that it is all propaganda. Unfortunately the education most people receive around the world is not enough to give them the ability to see such problems by themselves: apart from the fact that the world is majorly uneducated at all, those in the richer countries that do receive university-level education do not receive specific instruction and do not have any experience with earth sciences, math, physics, scientific methodologies and related sujects... people who human, social or medical sciences have zero capacity to see for themselves.
Given that, there are certain existential/moral/philosophical/social questions about the human exploration of our environment. Green propagandists usually skip this very important part and ASSUME these for granted, but I ask you: I do accept that our society (globally speaking) is degrading some world indexes, like let's say, ozone levels, forest coverage, CO2, but is that WRONG? Is it BAD? Isn't it NATURAL?
Is it wrong for a sovereign country to use his own land and convert it into education, health and better living conditions for its own people? Should a government let some of it's own people starve to death in order to protect the environment that the rich parcel of the population intends to use in the next 200 years? Why not kill trees and build nuclear plants so we can be rich and buy food for the people? To give education for the people? Freedom is only a true right if you have the means to enjoy it. If you have no food, no house, no house, no education, no culture, are you really free? It is VERY easy for the people that have everything to close their eyes for the social inequalities and choose to protect the trees in which their grand grand children will play ball, while people starve to death or die to illness. I for one cannot accept that as being the right thing to do.
Is it bad to cut trees? Is it bad to polute non-salty water? Is it bad to polute the air? True answers to those questions are usually extremely hard to find, if impossible. First, the scientific proof on the negative impact of some human activities on the environment is USUALLY pretty scarse. Second, the answer is never dicotomic. It involves listing for whom and in which external conditions (and they can be infinite) it would be bad, and in which conditions it would be true.
Let's ask, for example's sake: is it bad to cut trees? Usually no, despite what propaganda and bad science says. Trees are not responsible for our breathable air in global scale, though in local scale it is quite pleasant to breath fresh air, although this is far more dependent on sources of polution, than on trees. There's also the good feeling of being around trees, and how trees affect local temperature, raining, water supply, rain flow on hills and how that degrades soil, just to cite a few factors, but usually for urban areas you can CLEARLY say: YES it is ok to cut trees because they can be replanted.
(Did you know Rio de Janeiro has the largest urban forest in the world with huge biodiversity and rare species, and was entirely planted? Used to be coffee plantation 150 years ago,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floresta_da_Tijuca)
Also, at the same time, it is BAD to cut trees on cities, you usually want them around, they give quality of life and many qualities to local environment. See, it's NOT a simple-minded answer "IT IS BAD TO CUT TREES", in fact not even a simple dicotomy it is, it is a very complicated matter. For most of these environment questions, usually the truth is on the opposite side of the propaganda.
(What about cutting trees in rural areas? Well, I'm totally in favour, just preserve the biodiversity and go for it if you have good social reasons. I for one if were president of Brazil I would cut all the amazon jungle if necessary to make land, jobs and riches for our millions and millions of extremely poor people that live here)
Third big question: Aren't the changes made by human society in the world landscape natural? First, some consideration about time: Earth is 5 billion years old, and still has 5 more billion years to go. Our civilization is just 10000 years old, and even if we destroyed all the trees and boiled all the water, they would all still return to normal, in time. Garbage goes away in time, same with radiation. Oil reappears. I know the same can't be said for heavier elements like gold, uranium, and others, but so what, they are not essential to life (in the broad sense: not just human). Unless we blew the moon, the earth, or somehow take one of those out of orbit, it is doubtful any claim that we are irreparably hurting the planet's ability to house life, if anything our civilization could be protecting our planet from destruction from asteroids (although I doubt of our capacity on that matter, it is at least hypothetical). Second, still about the naturality of human behavior: lions and zebras urinate and defecate on fresh water sources, so does humans. Why only our own activity is sometimes considered UNNATURAL? I'm not discussing if it harms the environment or not, that goes under the "is it bad" debate. I'm saying that polluting water sources is a natural animal behavior. Also, I know zebras do not build coal mines and do how burn fossil fuels, humans do, but does that make us less animals, and thus that make coal mining less natural than the behaviors that Zebras do? This is a hard debate I do not claim to own the true answer, but certainly this is not a simple YES/NO answer, and saying that all humans do is not natural is certainly fruit of blind green propaganda. Nature as many like to say is the whole ecosystem, we are animals, and our society just like bees and ants, has it's structure, it's way of working, and what humans do is mine, cut and burn.
I always look into those environmental issues with these critical eyes. The OP asked "Who thinks this is a bit pathetic?" (regarding people who still don't believe on climate change)
My short answer: I don't think it's pathetic. Half the world doesn't care about these matters, and the half that cares has no clue on how to tell right from from on the matter. I for one do not agree that CO2 levels are producing harsh climate changes, and even if they do, I don't care, its fine for countries to seek development. Climate changes can be adapted to, and in time, either we all adapt to its changes or we perish, and that is the true nature of life and evolution as we know it.
Guest Posts
