Dan Sherrier

I don’t believe in catastrophic man-made global warming.

I’m not anti-science. I’m not a “flat-Earther.” I’m not burying my head in the sand. I’m not stupid. (Though environmentalists will accuse me of all these because of our difference of opinion. They’re a sensitive bunch, deeply devoted to their apocalyptic religion. I suppose it makes their lives feel more dramatic, somehow, if the world is about to end, and only they can prevent it.)

Lights out.

I am, however, for progress and human achievement–two things some environmentalist “progressives” seem to have issues with. I also don’t accept “everyone says so” arguments. Nobody’s perfect, and that includes climate scientists. You expect me to believe that they’ve proven, beyond all shadow of a doubt, how the climate is going to change over the next several decades? (Please see my case for skepticism here.)

When I say “environmentalist,” I’m not talking about anyone who’s environmentally conscientious. There’s nothing wrong with reusable shopping bags, consolidating trips, or showing restraint with your thermostat. Those things are good.

I consider “environmentalists” to be people who feel guilty about their very existence.

That doesn’t make them bad people, but it is their own problem that they need to deal with. The rest of us shouldn’t be punished with higher energy prices and more stringent regulations. And while I truly don’t believe that most of them are bad people, they nevertheless aggravate the heck out of me. The anti-progress mentality (whether intentional or not) troubles me.

You want evidence? Look at Earth Hour, in which everyone is supposed to turn off the lights for a full hour and hang out in the darkness.

Think about that. Lights off, shut everything down, grind progress to a halt for an hour. Ladies and gentlemen, the environmentalist ideal! A return to the Dark Ages, to protect the planet from our presence.

Isn’t that an aim of the cap-and-trade legislation Congress is considering? To encourage reduced energy consumption?

What’s the effect of reduced energy consumption on progress? Kind of hard to invent new technology or write books with the lights out, isn’t it?

People of higher incomes will probably still be able to afford increased energy costs without having to change too many habits, if any. Low income folks could find themselves in a bit of a bind, however. Nearly anyone can rise to wealth, but more expensive energy (and therefore more expensive everything) would pose a substantial setback.

The Wall Street Journal reported on the bill’s potential costs here.

“Britain’s Taxpayer Alliance estimates the average family there is paying nearly $1,300 a year in green taxes for carbon-cutting programs in effect only a few years,” the WSJ said in June. It cites a Heritage Foundation study predicting a cost of $1,870 for a family of four in 2020.

And where would this money be going? What would it accomplish?–aside from making it harder for the poor to get ahead.

Yes, people are going to have an effect upon the Earth, just by existing–just as all animals do, as all plants do, as volcanoes do, as a large asteroid impact would. I don’t believe we’re on the verge of catastrophe (nor am I so arrogant to feel that I know, irrefutably, what the world will do in the future, with all the countless variables that affect it.) But even if we were causing substantial warming, is the only way to combat it by regressing to a lesser-developed era?

Our best hope at minimizing our pollution is new technology that helps to mitigate our environmental impacts. Of course, the use of energy helps in the development of new technology.

Hypothetically, even if severe global warming is real–man-made or otherwise–I refuse to live in fear. I trust mankind’s ability to adapt to changing circumstances. People have been around for a long, long time, and the climate has fluctuated throughout that time. We’re still here. We can take whatever the climate throws at us, and we can continue to evolve.

But I repeat:

I. Don’t. Believe. In. Catastrophic. Man-made. Global. Warming.

Nor do I believe in holding people back from achieving their full potential, which cap-and-trade legislation would do to some.

2 Responses to “Progressives against progress”