On the evening of October 1, the Frank Erwin Center audience at The University of Texas showered former Vice President Al Gore with thunderous applause as everyone nostalgically reminisced at a brighter-looking time before today’s economic recessions, before the Iraq War and before 9/11. The charismatic public-private citizen served as a poster boy for a simpler time, when economic growth was fueled by dot com booms, in addition to the ever-prevalent artificial injections through the Federal Reserve.
He addressed the crowd with his trademark introduction: “I used to the be next President of the United States.”
Gore then proceeded to burst the crowd’s bubble with his truth – inconveniently, I might add.
The purpose of this column is not to debate the merits of the global warming argument, nor those of the skeptics. Rather, I will address the flawed philosophy behind the requested solutions to our “planetary emergency.”
Throughout our adolescence, we are shown to respect nature through the musings of benevolent teachers and adults. We don’t understand the hypocritical lifestyles (i.e. Al Gore’s power-hungry mansion vs. George Bush’s eco-friendly ranch), nor do we comprehend the questionability of the methods through which we are taught: enviro-conscious yet gas-guzzling hippies and books printed on paper warning us about the dangers of rainforest depletion.
Things are never as they seem, as is the case with the environmentalist’s solution to global warming. In Gore’s presentation and in society today, people are growing more conscientious about their ‘carbon footprint’ and the overall impact they have on the environment. Because the flush of a toilet in Chile can cause a hurricane in Japan, it is important to understand how interdependent global civilizations are.
However, looking to the federal government is seldom the answer.
Restrictive and destructive legislation that promotes emissions caps do not benefit anyone. Essentially, these laws do redistribute wealth through the carbon credit system. If a company exceeds its carbon emissions cap for a certain year, it can purchase credits from other companies, the government or NGO’s. This may not be a problem for large corporations, but this bureaucratic tool only adds obstacles in the way of small businesses and start-ups. The entire concept of a forced carbon credit system, as is mandated in the Kyoto Protocol, is disingenuous in that if you have money, can you pollute as much as you want.
There must be some manipulation of the environment to survive and produce; you cannot create wealth from nothing. Nevertheless, if the goal of the global warming movement is to cut emissions, many companies are following suit without legislation. For example, Starbucks, McDonalds and Limited Brands are in the process of developing or already have a Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) division. Regardless of the impending crisis we are constantly reminded of, it is profitable to be committed to CSR. Customers pay higher prices for Fair Trade, locally grown and/or environmentally friendly products – and this is all accomplished without the ‘help’ of the federal government.
Global warming will not be solved through the red-taped hand of the government; rather, the Invisible Hand will do a much better job. For example, French inventor Guy Negre – and his company Moteur Developpment International – has been researching Compressed Air Technology (CAT), and one day, hopes to mass-produce cars that run solely on compressed air. If successful, this invention would do much more to reduce pollution than any bureaucrat in the federal government ever could – no matter how engulfed in red tape he is.
It may help to think about the role of the federal government; it is there to protect any one individual or group from inflicting force on another individual or group. Capping emissions doesn’t fall into that category (not without some serious emotionally baseless rhetoric). We embrace the idea of a benevolent government, ready to take on the challenges of the world, and we forget that it’s not the government that gets us through challenges – it’s us.
It will be difficult, but we need to get rid of the notion that anytime something bad or unexpected happens, we need to make a new law.
Recent Comments