?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Wakum Mata!
Politcally Incorrect Musings
Screw the Planet 
6th-Sep-2009 08:36 am
Burning Earth
No. It is not Earth day.

I am just on my environmentalism soapbox. I am so tired of hearing "Protect the Earth", "Save the Planet", "Love your Mother" (meaning Earth).

To all that Earth love I say "NO!". Screw that! I don't give one damn about this planet.

I *DO* give a damn about all the PEOPLE on it. If saving the people means better and more responsible stewardship of our natural resources, then fine. I am good with that. If saving the people means ensuring the freedom and securing the empowerment of the people to determine their own destiny and granting them control over their government, then I am good with that. If saving the people means allowing people the opportunity (but not mandating it or "guaranteeing" it) to be prosperous, then I am good with that.

Save the planet? I don't care about rocks.

No. Don't save the planet.



Save the people.
Comments 
6th-Sep-2009 05:22 pm (UTC)
I agree, Save the People. I think though that 'save the planet' is code for find ways to improve the sustainability of our race and evolving lifestyle... In that sense a contrarian "scorch the planet" position is also kind of a "don't save the people" position. Yes, some individual positions, like "save the spotted owl" may seem similar to "save the rocks", but the gist of the movement is toward sustainability.

6th-Sep-2009 10:31 pm (UTC)
The term "sustainability" get used in a sense that is not really about improving life, but subjugation of the people. There policies in place that seem more "anti-people" than "pro-environment".

Take, for example, the recent ban on suction-dredging in California. It is argued that suction dredging destroys fish but the facts are completely different. Dreding seems to have strong benefits to the fish habitat

Also note the distortion that Senator Wiggins provides:

Resident permits cost about $50. Combined with non-resident permit
sales, they generate from $150,000 to $200,000 annually for a program which
costs DFG more than $1.25 million each year to enforce.

In contrast, California fishermen buy 2.4 million fishing licenses each year. The
sport-fishing industry supports a total of 43,000 jobs paying $1.3 billion in wages
and salaries annually. Fishing equipment sales total more than $2.4 billion per
year.


Only the permits are considered in the revenue counts for the miners whereas the fishers get the added benefit of the jobs and equipment and no cost for enforcement.

To quote Senator Wiggins: "Environmental choices should be based on fact, as well as on fair evaluation of economic realities. Gold mining is a recreational activity. Many commercial fishermen, along with sellers of fishing equipment and others in a multi-million-dollar industry, deserve equal if not greater consideration."

And what do those miners do with their gold? Let me see.. taking fish from the rivers does not depopulate the fish, but taking ROCKS from the rivers somehow does?

I use this as a single example how "Love the Earth" has little to do with sustainability.

Save the people!

Edited at 2009-09-06 10:37 pm (UTC)
6th-Sep-2009 10:40 pm (UTC)
I openly admit that there are many examples of people using these arguments to justify self-serving policies. Within the environmental movement there is some effort to distinguish good policy from selfish justifications, but it certainly isn't perfect.

More openness and accountability, more fact-checking, and less tolerance for lies from fake/paid scientists are things I support, and I'm guessing you do to. And, we are probably both pretty frustrated by the small number of apparent paths to get there.
This page was loaded Jul 18th 2018, 8:28 am GMT.