I’ve done a lot of thinking about a lot of issues. I like to think that any issue I have a strong opinion on is an issues that I’m fairly well informed on. Yet, I still come across new ideas from others wiser than myself. I had such an experience at WMU when we went to see John Stossel speak on Capitalism.
Someone asked Mr. Stossel for his thoughts on global warming. The first part of what he said is basically an average of conservative opinions on the issue. That is to say he believes there is some evidence for it, but not nearly on the scale that the dems are talking about. He was careful to mention that Greenland is called that because it used to be green. We are so worried about the glaciers receding there, yet they weren’t there to begin with. He also touched on the fact that concerns like this are almost like fads and seem to come and go. This is very good information, though I had heard much of it before.
Mr. Stossel then went on to say something that had never occurred to me. If global warming is happening, then there is probably nothing we can do to stop it, but there is a lot we can do to adapt to it. He mentioned that much of the Netherlands would be underwater due to rising water levels if not for the dikes they have built there. This is great information, but how can we adapt to the climate? Wealth! We need wealth to be able to fund the great projects which may be required to keep us safe.
That wealth saves lives is easy to demonstrate. In third world countries, hundreds or thousands die whenever there is a major disaster such as an earthquake or tsunami. In America, virtually no one dies in floods. The reason is that we have the wealth to protect ourselves. We can fund the projects that protect thousands of lives. Isn’t it ironic that the Democrats, who talk the most about our environment, are the ones who will make it harder for us to deal with it?
Despite the vast wealth of information offered to us by Mr. Stossel, this will probably be our last post on him. Feel free to ask either Chaz or myself about the speech or even leave a comment here and we’ll tell you more. Even better, join us in going to other speeches. We are planning events right here at GRCC, so keep watching and we’ll let you know what’s happening. Also, if you want to know more about our meetings, find our group on Facebook: “Grand Rapids CC College Republicans”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Sounds like one heck of an event.
--Nick
www.RightMichigan.com
I'm so glad you guys liked the event! Great posts!
I’m compelled to comment.
Stossel is completely wrong when he says that Greenland was called “Greenland” because it was green. It was called “Greenland” by the exiled Erik the Red when he was trying to recruit settlers to go there in spite of the fact that it was a desolate icy rock (probably one of the world’s first PR campaigns). Greenland has been dominated by ice for hundreds of thousands of years. In fact – that’s why the first European settlements failed; the livestock they brought over couldn’t get enough food from the frozen terrain and frequently starved to death (and since they refused to fish like the Inuit – they didn’t have another source of food).
The claim that there’s probably nothing we can do to stop global warming is bizarre. I don’t suppose Stossel happened to explain what he was basing that dismal conclusion on. The idea that we can adapt to it is just plain stupid, and even stupider is analogizing it to the way the Dutch handle water in the Netherlands. It took the Dutch thousands of years (with many, many failures – that continue to this day) to develop the current system of terpen and dykes. Even now the system is constantly threatened by weather. We won’t have that kind of time to “adapt” to Global Warming – and we won’t have the safety of land above sea level to work from while we’re doing it.
The lack of wealth isn’t what dooms the residents of developing nations to death during natural disasters; many of those nations do have wealth – but it’s concentrated among an elite few (which is increasingly the case here in the US – a spectre of things to come). Your statement “In America, virtually no one dies in floods” is interesting given the recent 1,800+ deaths from Hurricane Katrina. Wealth didn’t protect those people (because the wealth is concentrated among the wealthy and they mostly only look out for themselves). Nor has our country’s great wealth protected those Katrina victims that survived AFTER the disaster as the relief money that was supposed to be dedicated to them has been siphoned off by wealthy business interests or handed out to corporations through sweetheart deals as affordable housing is demolished to make way for commercial interests like casinos.
Ignoring altruism and a sense of self-preservation and sacrifice – there’s a good capitalist argument to be made to invest in environmentalism and treat global warming as a real threat that we can do something about (because it is and we can). It creates just as much opportunity for wealth creation (if not more) than burying our heads in the sand – the only reason it isn’t pushed is because the old guard wants to hold on to its oligopoly (and all of the subsidies it’s worked so hard to earn for itself). Our economy is information- and innovation-based; we should be pushing for stronger global environmental standards because we’re one of the nations best positioned to capitalize on innovations in clean energy and pollution control.
Post a Comment