A Celebration of Civilization

Americans take reliable and affordable energy so much for granted that they've developed a reckless contempt for the companies and people that provide it to them. They must think their homes are electrified and heated by magic, given the disdain they show for coal mines, drilling rigs, power plants, nuclear reactors, transmission towers and pipelines, and judging from the vilification they heap on the evil energy companies, which routinely are portrayed as the murderers of Mother Earth.

One demonstration of that contempt comes tonight, with the annual celebration of "Earth Hour," when "millions of people around the world" will turn off their lights for one hour in order "to make their stand against climate change." Energy use = global catastrophe: that's the dangerously simplistic equation touted by the dim bulbs who thought up Earth Hour. The only way we can "save the planet" is by turning off the lights, parking our cars and crawling back to the dank caves from whence we came, much to the planet's misfortune. Light has always been synonymous with civilization. It was long believed to be a friend to humankind (thank you, Prometheus). Earth Hour turns it into the enemy of the planet.

Energy providers take this abuse in stride: they've been so badgered into submission by eco-Luddites that they can barely rise to their own defense. They seem apologetic and ashamed -- some probably even sponsor Earth Hour events and distribute pro-Earth Hour propaganda in an effort to placate their implacable critics.

But I have an idea that might help them turn public perceptions around.

I propose a counter-event called "Energy Hour," which would also occur once a year, but at a randomly-selected time. All at once, on cue, all the world's energy providers would suspend operations for an hour (maybe longer if you really want to make things interesting), plunging the planet into darkness, cold and immobility. The lights would go off. The computers would stop. Electric appliances would not work. Gas tanks would go dry. Streets would be gridlocked. Apprehension and uncertainly would grip most of the industrialized world, as the people wait anxiously and prayerfully for the light to return.

Maybe the worldwide standstill that would result -- maybe the disruptions, the danger, the discomfort and the desperation that would occur, if civilization were for even an hour "off the grid" -- would remind disconnected moderns of the debt they owe to energy providers. Maybe they'll understand, once again, that electricity doesn't come from light switches, and that without drilling rigs, their cars become inanimate objects. It probably won't take more than one or two Energy Hours before the Earth Hour movement loses its mojo, and before people take a more rational, balanced and appreciative view of the energy sector. Maybe we'll see a halt to the regulatory warfare waged on energy producers. Maybe we'll get a national energy policy based on realism, not pie-in-the-sky pipe dreams.

Happy "Energy Hour," everyone! Take a moment this weekend to savor all the comforts, conveniences and benefits that come from living in this gloriously energy-dependent society.

Monopolizing Young Minds

The problem with most Americans, I once heard a senior official at the National Geologic Survey say, is that they don't know where stuff comes from. They are the most prodigious consumers of energy, minerals, wood products and other raw materials in world history, yet they're completely clueless about what it takes to procure and produce these things. They appear as if by magic, at the gas station, or in the grocery store, or when they flick on the light switch, and most Americans have forgotten (if they ever knew) from whence they come. And thanks to the eco-indoctrination they receive in schools, many young Americans are raised to have contempt for the individuals and industries -- the evil logger and miner and oil driller -- who produce what they consume.

This disconnect is one symptom of a very confused and self-destructive society.

A group of Utah state legislators hopes to help address the disconnect by using surplus oil and gas revenue to teach school kids more about the benefits of mining and drilling. But environmental groups naturally oppose the idea, arguing that this amounts to an attempt to justify the destruction of the planet. At present, greens have pretty much taken over our education system. Many schools today serve as eco-indoctrination centers, where malleable young minds celebrate Earth Day, say the Pledge Allegiance to the Planet, dutifully learn their recycling rituals, hear the sensationalist spin on climate change and rarely hear a word rebutting the propaganda. But propose bringing a little balance to the discussion? Then its you who stands accused of trying to hijack the curriculum.

It's truly Orwellian.

Totalitarians always make a play for the kids. Greens are no different. And they will vigorously fight any attempt to end their monopoly over young minds.

Human, All Too Human

That there might be a money motive behind climate change alarmism is usually dismissed by true believers. Scientists operate in a world of facts and hard data, it's assumed, standing apart from mere mortals, who act subjectively and selfishly, swayed by self-interest. The ClimateGate scandal hopefully will shatter, once and for all, that rather naive perception.

Alarmist-in-Chief Al Gore's profit motives already have been pointed out. But everyone knows he's a political huckster (and a former theology student who found a new religion), not a scientist. But scientists too are human -- all too human, as these e-mails reveal -- making them subject to all the baser motives, petty rivalries and herd-think with which the rest of us struggle. Ideology, political considerations and a craving for celebrity (think NASA's James Hansen) can also color their objectivity and work.

This isn't a slam on scientists, or on science, just a long-overdue acknowledgment that they don't always belong on the pedestal on which we place them. And the sooner Americans recognize this, the safer we'll all be from the dangers of science in the service of political extremism.

The Wall Street Journal has two related pieces on today's Editorial Page -- link and link -- I would highly recommend.

The Green Lady

The New York Times was once widely known as "the Gray Lady," denoting its formerly staid appearance and tone. Today it might better be called "the Green Lady," given how eagerly it has surrendered any objectivity on environmental issues, and how completely it has joined forces with the Earth-worshipers.

Today's new breed of "environmental journalists" are environmentalists first, journalists second, for the most part. Greens get a pass on the cynicism and skepticism newsies heap on everyone else. But the Times has knocked-down any remaining barriers, and thrown balance to the wind, by re-publishing "news stories" generated by the for-profit website Greenwire, resulting in "New York Times coverage" like this.

I've been a regular user of Greenwire for years, because it's a useful consolidator of news on the environment, energy and public lands. But I also see Greenwire as a major cog in the green propaganda machine. It is not an unbiased news organization or news source, as any objective party would confirm, but an organization that slavishly serves the environmentalist agenda, spinning the news to serve that purpose. That most New York Times readers aren't aware of this, and may be giving Greenwire and New York Times stories equal weight, is troubling, to say the least.

I don't know how long this shared content arrangement has been in place. But after noticing Greenwire stories popping-up in the Times several months back, I registered my objections with the paper's ombudsman, which was met with a non-response. I'll try again in the next few days, but doubt the Times will respond. So enmeshed have the news business and Environmental Anxiety Industry become that there's no recognition of the improprieties involved. "Saving the planet" is a noble cause. Who in her right mind wouldn't join in?

It's hard of late to tell the difference between environmental "journalism" and environmentalist press releases, as already noted. But the Times' unholy alliance with Greenwire obliterates any remaining barriers and distinctions, foisting-off blatant agit-prop as legitimate news. The fact that most readers don't have a clue about what they're ingesting constitutes a serious deception, which further erodes public confidence in the "mainstream media."

Make Way for Road Clogs

None of us likes a road hog. But an even bigger nuisance in the near future could come from road clogs. I'm talking about those environmentally correct but not-ready-for-prime time vehicles -- those glorified golf carts -- that the better-living-through-smaller-cars crowd wants us all to drive.

The scourge of the road clog will become even greater than the danger of road hogs in the years ahead, as special lanes are established, and new rules of the road are written, that will force those of us who still use evil old gasoline, and choose to drive a bigger-than-government-approved vehicle, and are willing and able to go the speed limit, to accommodate the slower, under-performing, less reliable death traps that many alternative cars are.

We're seeing the first glimmer of this brave new world in Colorado, where a law is just kicking in that will force normal motorists to share already-overcrowded roads with glorified golf carts.

"One of 151 laws going into effect Wednesday, the 90th day after the end of the legislative session, it will allow smaller and slower electric car brands on more state roads. It aims to reduce gasoline consumption and pollution.

The law allows electric cars on state highways with speed limits of 35 mph or less and to cross state highways with higher speed limits. Currently, the vehicles are banned from all state highways and from crossing them because they're too slow."

It's a seemingly trivial change of law today; something we can shake our heads at and chuckle. But from such tiny acorns mighty oak trees can grow.

We'll find it less humorous when this attempt to integrate the roadways fails and segregation of the roadways occurs, as conventionally-powered, full-performance vehicles are forced to accommodate (and possibly even give preference to?) politically correct alternatives. We see this already, of course, in the creation of HOV lanes to reward car pooling -- and in the new push to allow solo drivers of certain social engineer-approved hybrid vehicles to also use those special lanes. But that's just a precursor.

Try to imagine how unmanageable, and potentially dangerous, the roadways will become when we're forced to accommodate significant numbers of undersized and under-performing vehicles. The road will be an even bigger mess than they are now.

Also becoming law today, not coincidently, is one bill that requires motorists to give bicyclists at least three feet of clearance when passing -- rules that will create conflict rather than curb it -- and another bill that allows motor scooters on more public rights of way. Any one else see a pattern emerging?

The legislator who gave the green light to golf carts hails from Snowmass, Colorado, not surprisingly, an elite enclave near Aspen that's about as far removed from the real world as it is physically removed from the congested Front Range cities of Denver, Colorado, Fort Collins and Pueblo (where this law also applies). The legislator noted that "citizens in Snowmass Village use the vehicles to run errands and take children to school. She hopes more households will buy the cars, which start at $9,000, instead of a traditional second car," according to one news story.

It's a pretty little picture, like all the pretty pictures painted by social engineers. But there are realities and practicalities to consider. People in Snowmass Village might be able to afford a $9,000 electric cart, for running kids to school or stopping by Whole Foods for a celery and sprout smoothie. But how and whether this law will work in the rest of Colorado -- in the real world -- remains to be seen.

Let Them Build Plug-ins

It's a dream come true for bashers of gas-guzzlers. The scourge of the planet, the American SUV, has been driven to the brink of extinction, killed off by high gas prices and bad PR from guilt-tripping greens. Here's part of a recent New York Times obituary:

"Even a federal bailout could not save three of the last remaining plants in the United States still making sport utility vehicles.

Reeling from its financial problems and a collapsing S.U.V. market, General Motors on Tuesday closed its factories in this city and in Moraine, Ohio, marking the passing of an era when big S.U.V.’s ruled the road. The moves followed the shutdown last Friday of Chrysler’s factory in Newark, Del., which produced full-size S.U.V.’s.

The last Chevrolet Tahoe rolled off the line here in Janesville shortly after 7 a.m. in the 90-year-old plant, which had built more than 3.7 million big S.U.V.’s since the early 1990s.

Most of the plant’s 1,100 remaining workers were not scheduled to work the final day, but many showed up for an emotional closing ceremony. Dan Doubleday, who had 22 years on the job, broke down in the plant’s snowy parking lot afterward.

“I was a fork lift driver,” he said, glancing at his watch through welling tears. “Until about seven minutes ago.”

Only now will public attention turn to the assembly plants that will be shuttered, and the jobs lost, to the consumer choices that will be narrowed and the motorist safety sacrificed, because of the SUV's demise. That part of the story wasn't talked about much before. Nobody have a damn about the fork lift driver in Janesville.

Are SUV-haters -- putzing along in the slow lane in their matchbox toys, munching tofu burgers and anxiously searching for someplace to plug in their plug-in -- feeling a tinge of guilt or regret about the SUV's decline, or the economic hardship this will bring to those who built and sold and maintained these Mastodons? Not a bit.

Such sacrifices are required to "save" the planet. "Let them build plug-ins," they'll say, echoing Marie Antoinette.

Green Giant

Talk about high expectations.

Barack Obama graces the cover of this week's Time Magazine, not as the publication's Person of the Year (though that honor will be bestowed soon enough) but as Franklin Delano Roosevelt, complete with jaunty grin, jutting jaw and cigarette (which he'll have to disavow, of course). The cover carries the headline, "The New New Deal," and it isn't in jest. It's the most explicit reflection yet of the high hopes the Left has for the next president, who must save the economy and planet simultaneously. They see Obama as a Democrat icon in the making, who has the charisma and vision to realign policy and politics for decades to come.

It's largely based on revisionism, of course, and strained comparisons between the past and present. But this is the United States of Amnesia, so it just might fly.

It comes down to us as a cornerstone of left-wing mythology, and an article of faith, that Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal saved the United States during the depths of the Great Depression, which was caused by the failures (and, yes, evils) of capitalism. Such beliefs are debatable, of course; many scholars and economists argue that Roosevelt’s policies and programs, far from saving America, deepened and prolonged the nation’s agonies and left behind, as a dark legacy, the gargantuan government we’re saddled with today.

A lot of what's backward in the United States today – our 1930s-era farm programs, for instance – is rooted in the New Deal. But no amount of arguing or reason or evidence will prevent some Americans from swooning when they hear of FDR and his New Deal. Socialists and their fellow travelers look on it as a golden age, which made American what it is today. But for those of us who value economic and political liberty, and look back on the old New Deal as a curse rather than a blessing, the prospect of a New New Deal evokes fear rather than hope.

Now a new golden age is promised by true believers; something they're calling the "Green New Deal" or "Global Green New Deal." (Why they aren't marketing it as the "Green Great Society" is curious, but perhaps that effort's failures are too fresh in peoples' minds to be similarly romanticized.) The idea originated with the United Nations Environment Programme, but has quickly been seized-on by politicians, environmental groups and the alternative energy industry. The concept will get a lot of play at the G20 summit this weekend.

And it will almost certainly be co-opted (even if by some other name) by the next president, who seems to believe the concept's core tenet -- that make-work programs for windmill builders, solar panel installers and ethanol plant operators, and massive federal manipulations of energy markets, will do for America now what the New Deal did for America back then.

This so-called “new energy economy” can’t be born on its own, of course, since the left is also pushing the myth that our current economic woes stem from “market failure” and the corrupting excesses of capitalism. Markets can't get us there, or get us there fast enough. This will require massive government intervention in the economy, on a scale not seen since the Great Depression. If Roosevelt’s New Deal moved us half way to socialism, the Green New Deal, combined with federal "greenhouse gas" controls, will get us the rest of the way there. Economic central planning is the inevitable endpoint of the path we're walking. And we'll get there with a clean conscience, and clean hands, since we’ll be saving the planet even as we correct capitalism’s ills.

This idea, since we're coining new phrases for new times, might be called eco-socialism.

A Green New Deal is a two-fer for eco-socialists; it marries their messianic mission of "saving the planet" with their belief that capitalism, markets and profits are destroying the environment. Al Gore, writing in the New York Times Nov. 9, pointed out that "the bold steps that are needed to solve the climate crisis are exactly the same steps that ought to be taken in order to solve the economic crisis and the energy security crisis."

Keynesians love it because it requires massive government "investment" in "green" industries and green infrastructure as an economic stimulus. And liberals of all stripes, after a long period on the defensive, see it as something that can put them on the top again, much as as the old New Deal secured their political dominance for decades afterward.

A glimpse at below-the-slogans agenda can be seen in the statements and proposals put forth by Gary Gardner and Michael Renner of the Worldwatch Institute, in anticipation of the G20 meeting. Here's what they said:

"The challenge for global political leadership, including U.S. President-elect [Barack] Obama, is not merely to kickstart the global economy, but to do so in a way that creates jobs and stabilizes climate, increases food output using less water and pesticides, and generates prosperity with greater equality of incomes. This broad approach will require a conceptual blueprint evocative of America's 1930s New Deal, but more audacious in scope and vision."

But here's where the eco-socialism becomes overt:

"This historic moment calls for not merely repairs to our hyper-productive, yet ailing, economy, but for a new approach suited to the realities of a heavily populated and environmentally stressed world - a Global Green Deal that shifts the focus from growth to development, and that is geared less to providing consumerist superfluities than to ensuring that nobody's true needs go unmet."

We need to impose a new economic model, in short, that conforms to the "realities" of an environmentally stressed planet -- something famously advocated by Al Gore in his book, Earth in the Balance. The "hyper-productivity"and "consumerist superfluities" that have characterized market economies must take a backseat to "ensuring that nobody's true needs go unmet."

This isn't just a plan to boost renewable energy use and kick-start the economy, obviously; the theme, if not overtly socialist, is unmistakably anti-capitalist. It's an overhaul of industrial and post-industrial society that's being advocated, not through incremental steps and voluntary action but through economic upheaval and government coercion. And it's an alarming invitation to totalitarian government control of the economy, and of our lives, in the eyes of people like myself.

Like the old New Deal (but on steroids), it will greatly expand government power and control over every facet of our lives. Like the old New Deal, it will create new generations of government dependents; wind and solar farmers, this time, instead of dirt farmers. And it will, like the old New Deal and the Great Society, have unfortunate unforeseen consequences and create more problems than it solves.

It will be a great "deal" for some people, no doubt -- the green industries that will rely on government mandates, subsidies and giveaways to exist -- but a raw deal for most Americans, who will be paying more for virtually everything, and living in a world of diminished expectations, in order to bankroll this massive expansion of government and make the sacrifices that will be demanded in the name of "saving the planet"


The eco-socialists are hoping to tap into this misplaced nostalgia when they try to sell Americans on the necessity of a “Green New Deal.” But what they really are after is a complete economic and social overhaul -- a remaking of the American economy and society along environmentally-correct lines. The costs and consequences of such a revolution -- the toll it may take on our quality of life and personal freedoms -- are of tertiary concern to plan proponents.

They are Utopians, on a mission to "save the planet." Any means necessary can and will be justified.

Save the Planet, Stay at Home

Foreign tourism was once viewed as a lifeline to the world's stagnant economic backwaters.

No longer.

Now, like everything else, travel and tourism are seen as a threat to the planet.

Elizabeth Becker in today's Washington Post declares the explosion in exotic foreign travel a "global menace" and "nothing short of a planet-threatening plague." She finds it a bummer, apparently, that her former "old haunt" in the Himalayas, where she once "climbed . . . steep, silent paths and watched langur monkeys swinging in the trees outside my window," has been discovered by outsiders. Today, her personal Shangri-La is "chock-a-block with tourist lodges, garbage and noise; the monkeys are fleeing."

So, it's okay for Becker to hang with the monkeys of Moussurie, but when the rest of us want to do it, it becomes a threat to the planet. Here's just a taste of Becker's insufferable eco-snobbery:

"The places we love are rapidly disappearing. Global tourism today is not only a major industry -- it's nothing short of a planet-threatening plague. It's polluting land and sea, destroying wildlife and natural habitat and depleting energy and natural resources. From Asia to Africa, look-alike resorts and spas are replacing and undermining local culture, and the international quest for vacation houses is forcing local residents out of their homes. It's giving rise to official corruption, wealth inequities and heedless competition. It's even contributing to human rights violations, especially through the scourge of sex tourism."

So, what's the answer? Government intervention, of course. Anything and everything else will be regulated in the name of reducing mankind's carbon footprint, and "saving the planet," why not travel and tourism? Here's more Becker, establishing the predicate for such action:

"The United States has taken a lead in attempts to eliminate sex tourism, but otherwise, it has stayed out of the tourism debate, mostly viewing tourism as a private matter. Now, however, says Isabel Hill, director of the Commerce Department's Office of Travel and Tourism Industries, the questions raised by mass tourism have become too large to ignore. She hopes that the United States, like so many European countries, will "recognize our limitations and how we have to regulate our resources."

Still, there probably won't be a U.S. secretary for tourism and the environment anytime soon. But don't be surprised if the next international agreement on climate change mentions the role of tourism, or if some countries start regulating tourism along with the environment, because the two go hand-in-hand.

In fact, you'd better hope that they do -- if you ever again want to find that cool vacation spot where you can get away from it all."

It's not hard to imagine a Brave New World -- or is it Slave New World? -- in which travel is regulated like everything else; in which it is calculated and capped as part of your individual AACQ, or Annual Allotted Carbon Quota, with travel in excess of that quota having to be offset with the purchase of carbon credits, or offsets, from non-travelers. This mimics the cap-and-trade system some people want imposed on corporate America, only tailored to the individual.

Or perhaps a Climate Change Travel Tax (CCTT) could be levied, applied on a sliding scale tied to the Environmental and Cultural Vulnerability Index (ECVI) of the destination in question, as calculated by the U.S. Department of Commerce. Where a traveler's environmental and cultural impacts are likely to be greatest, according to the ECVI, the CCTT will be highest. If they're traveling to Detroit or Cleveland of Trenton, on the other hand, the tax will be much lower -- and they might even get a tax credit.

We'll have a separate CCTT for business travelers, calculated according to the "greenness" and "sustainability" of their industries. Big Oil execs will, of course, pay through the nose, while traveling wind turbine salesmen will pay little or no CCTT (and might even get a subsidy, in accordance with current federal practice).

These methods of regulating travel favor the relatively wealthy, however, raising fundamental questions of travel equity and fairness, which perhaps argues for a National Travel Lottery (NTL) of some sort, in which permission to go abroad will be granted by chance.

Is my imagination running away with me? Perhaps. But I've learned that nothing is beyond the realm of possibility on the regulatory front. If it can be imagined, it can be imposed, once "saving the planet" becomes the rationale.

And that's a one-way ticket to tyranny, in my view.

The Environmentally Correct Key Card

Extremism in defense of environmentalism is no vice, to cop a line from Barry Goldwater. In fact, it's de rigueur. But Democrats are going to truly bizarre lengths to hold the "greenest" political convention in history, from banning fried foods to having dignitaries chauffeured around in hybrid SUVs. And they pursue environmental correctness with such earnest fervor that they can't step back and see the absurdities.

I shudder to think what this portends for America when they gain complete control.

This story, though, especially cracks me up, because the ironies are so delicious.

One of many companies trying to cash in on the madness is Boulder's Sustainable Cards LLC, which is producing 70,000 biodegradable hotel room key cards for the DNC. "The cards, which will be emblazoned with the Denver 2008 Host Committee logo, will reduce waste, and the company expects the cards to become a souvenir of the 2008 DNC," reports The Boulder County Business Journal. And the company eventually wants to go national with the concept.

"Our mission is to reduce nonbiodegradable card waste to zero during the convention and throughout the year by encouraging the use of our eco-friendly wood cards in every hotel in America," said company president and chief executive Greg Hartmann.

But wait. Did he say "wood"? The kind that comes from trees? Trees that live in pristine forests? Wood degrades faster than plastic, we know. But there's nothing "eco-friendly" about making hotel key cards from wood! How many trees must die, and clear cuts must occur, to satisfy this man's lust for filthy lucre?? The least the company can do is certify, with a sticker on each card, that "No old growth trees were used in the making of this product."

The biggest drawback to the biodegradable key card, however, is the problem it will present to future archaeologists, who, when sifting through the ruins of a society that lost its mind, will be unable to find this critical and telling piece of evidence.

It will be the missing link that helps explain the madness of the age.

American Dream, RIP?

Will relentlessly high gas prices finally drive a stake in the heart of "urban sprawl," the bete noire of the better-living-through-centralized-planning crowd? Will pain at the pump finally force lethargic suburbanites out of their gas hogs and onto mass transit, where they belong? Has the long-sought Era of Lowered Expectations finally arrived?

New Urbanists, smart-growthers, "sustainability" gurus and other green-leaning "coercive Utopians" obviously hope so, as this recent story in The Washington Post makes clear. The Denver Post, covering somewhat similar territory, rather smugly reports about the sudden popularity (or is it utility?) of car pooling. Stories abound about an upsurge in the use of mass transit.

Having helped orchestrate the current energy crunch, by encouraging a U.S. regulatory climate that contributes to false scarcity, these same individuals and groups now are relishing the lifestyle revolution this scarcity will necessitate. They're reading last rites over the "old" American dream, with grand plans to replace it with something more "sustainable." Most of those plans involve more government planning by "experts," more central control, and less freedom for Americans to live as they choose. And their glee is barely concealed.

But I wouldn't so quickly count the suburbs out, given their long, stubborn association with the American dream. The Economist isn't, either, as this piece indicates. Here's another thoughtful examination of suburbia's future in Crosscut, a Seattle-area publication.

Some suburbanites will stick to their personal transport, instead of cramming into that hydrogen-powered bus, even if it means giving up two or three Starbucks a week. Transit options are limited in many parts of the country. Technology and changing work patterns mean more Americans are telecommuting, or spend their workdays in a home office (or have no office at all). The mass retirement of baby-boomers will free millions of Americans from the need to commute; and those retirees, though some may choose to live in city centers, will continue to prefer the suburbs.

High gas prices seem secondary to the mortgage meltdown and tighter lending practices as factors in the purported "death" of urban sprawl. When the housing market turns around, people will begin buying in the burbs again. And many urban areas will just never have much appeal to some segment of the American public, no matter how good the museums, the mass transit and the coffee shops are.

No, I think rumors of the American dream's death have been greatly exaggerated. But the delight with which some people are reading it last rites might serve as a warning to those of us who want to choose for ourselves what the dream means -- rather than have some self-annointed, environmentally-correct social engineers deciding it for us.

Addendum: A related story appeared in the August 24 Seattle Times