A question only conservatives can answer
William Lyon
Issue date: 4/25/08 Section: Opinions
As members of the Holy Cross community, we encounter environmentalism everywhere and everyday. Eco-Action continuously pressures us to educate ourselves about the topic and they have now adopted the infamous "Tray-less Tuesdays." The Chaplains Office pushes our campus to go Green with both their speech and their eco-friendly reminders in Campion. And professors routinely remind their classes of the dangers of climate change and encourage their students to become proactive. Each of these groups encourages us to ask and address the seemingly most important question on many American college campuses: "How do we stop Global Warming?" While the message is everywhere, ironically, none of the proposed solutions offer any practical improvements.
The environmental movement cites voluntary conservation as by far the best answer to the climate change problem. The reasoning goes that if all people voluntarily consume fewer natural resources, global consumption as a whole will also decrease, thereby protecting the earth. Is this the case? Unfortunately this method is too simplistic. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that all first-world country citizens and corporations decreased their oil consumption by fifty percent. While it is true that less oil would be consumed temporarily, market forces would quickly push the price of oil down. Poorer world citizens would then have the opportunity to purchase energy. They could heat their homes, drive their cars, turn on their electricity, and afford many other luxuries that we take for granted. Therefore, even if we wealthy citizens voluntarily conserve, oil consumption will not decrease, but will only be redistributed to other people. While this may or may not be good in and of itself, from an environmental standpoint little good can come from mere conservation.
While voluntary conservation is the most commonly discussed solution on campus, nationally the predominant solution is for the government to regulate and tax businesses that consume oil. In other words, this solution calls for non-voluntary conservation, which is potentially less helpful than each citizen doing his or her own share to conserve. Government regulation leads to the same effect as voluntary conservation, with the added repercussion of decreasing the citizens' freedom. Businesses, already vastly overregulated, would then be forced to adhere to arbitrary standards that a bureaucracy creates. These regulations almost always overstep their boundaries. For instance, how often have you seen exit signs in buildings where the exit is so obvious one would never be unaware of it? It makes you wonder why the government thinks that a person will see a sign if they do not see a huge door. Regardless, the government requires the signs and in most cases imposes extra costs with no extra safety. Similarly, when the government increases environmental regulations it does not help the environment, but only takes away business profit.
The environmental movement cites voluntary conservation as by far the best answer to the climate change problem. The reasoning goes that if all people voluntarily consume fewer natural resources, global consumption as a whole will also decrease, thereby protecting the earth. Is this the case? Unfortunately this method is too simplistic. For the sake of argument, let us suppose that all first-world country citizens and corporations decreased their oil consumption by fifty percent. While it is true that less oil would be consumed temporarily, market forces would quickly push the price of oil down. Poorer world citizens would then have the opportunity to purchase energy. They could heat their homes, drive their cars, turn on their electricity, and afford many other luxuries that we take for granted. Therefore, even if we wealthy citizens voluntarily conserve, oil consumption will not decrease, but will only be redistributed to other people. While this may or may not be good in and of itself, from an environmental standpoint little good can come from mere conservation.
While voluntary conservation is the most commonly discussed solution on campus, nationally the predominant solution is for the government to regulate and tax businesses that consume oil. In other words, this solution calls for non-voluntary conservation, which is potentially less helpful than each citizen doing his or her own share to conserve. Government regulation leads to the same effect as voluntary conservation, with the added repercussion of decreasing the citizens' freedom. Businesses, already vastly overregulated, would then be forced to adhere to arbitrary standards that a bureaucracy creates. These regulations almost always overstep their boundaries. For instance, how often have you seen exit signs in buildings where the exit is so obvious one would never be unaware of it? It makes you wonder why the government thinks that a person will see a sign if they do not see a huge door. Regardless, the government requires the signs and in most cases imposes extra costs with no extra safety. Similarly, when the government increases environmental regulations it does not help the environment, but only takes away business profit.
Viewing Comments 1 - 2 of 2
Bingo
posted 5/13/08 @ 1:54 AM EST
"Each of these groups encourages us to ask and address the seemingly most important question on many American college campuses: 'How do we stop Global Warming?'"
"Stop global warming"? Can we do something about that pesky continental drift while we're at it?
Melvin Goldstein
posted 9/13/08 @ 11:26 AM EST
Question: question 12 in ?Thinking Physics? ? page 259
Inside a warm damp cave completely sealed off from the outside world could life flourish indefinitely?
Answer: No life forms could flourish indefinitely. (Continued…)
Post a Comment