Food is Good

Recently, I have been thinking a lot about skepticism: what does it mean to be skeptical, what makes for legitimate skepticism, etc.  I believe that skepticism can be a good and healthy thing–the very act of reasoning out a theory helps a person to better understand that idea, as well as the various values that surround it. As a small child, I marveled at the logistical impracticality that Santa would face in driving his sleigh from house to house, all over the world. What if a kid couldn’t fall asleep–how would Santa detect this state from a distance and reroute his trip on the fly? It simply seemed too far fetched. Eventually I determined that Santa must subcontract with local service providers, a determination that did not in any way impact the joy I felt opening presents on Christmas morning. After all, Santa still knew that I had been relatively good throughout the year. I say relatively, as surely Santa understood the challenge to ‘goodness’ posed by my ever-so-difficult brother.

These days, I am always a little dubious about moral proclamations by politicians. (Me thinks thou dost protest too much.) All too often, those screaming at the top of their lungs (whether Spitzer or Foley, Edwards or Sanford, Haggard) do so because they feel guilty about their own actions and seek redemption through the damnation of others. They simply want to protect their current position.

Like farm conglomerates and the high fructose corn syrup commercials. Or the oil companies and their alternative energy research–the budget for which can be dwarfed by the money they spend advertising such research. Or the alcohol, tobacco, and firearm lobbies and their “have a hell of a lot of fun with our products, but use them responsibly” work.

Fine, I get what they are doing and why they are doing it.

And I get why some people may be skeptical of global climate change. But I don’t understand their reasoning.

Here are the two main lines of thought, as I understand them:

1. The climate really isn’t changing. A bunch of scientists and media types get grant money for studying and talking about important issues, so they have made up this idea of climate change in order to keep the cash cow flowing. If they convince enough people of their lies, X will happen.

2. Climate patterns ARE changing, but human beings have nothing to do with it. A bunch of scientists and media types get grant money for studying and talking about important issues, so they have made up this idea of human-caused climate change in order to keep the cash cow flowing. If they convince enough people of their lies, X will happen.

Okay, skeptics: what is X?

That’s what I don’t get. Is X that you might have to pay more for gas b/c a tax will be imposed that will help pay for retrofitting power plants & diversifying our energy sources (which, consequently, would lessen the stranglehold that various anti-American regimes have over our country because we are dependent upon foreign oil?) Since at least Reagan (as a skeptic, perhaps I shouldn’t credit stories of a time before my own birth), every serious presidential candidate has promised us independence from foreign oil–given that we haven’t found a lot of new oil here in the US, perhaps we ought to investigate alternative sources of energy. . . a process that will cost money, but will be spent on US jobs, US education, good things, no?

Or is X that “they” are going to take away your truck, forbid you from flying, and confiscate your land? I really don’t see how this would happen, as those liberal elites probably fly more than you do and understand that their grant money won’t flow without your tax dollars to pay for it (of course, most grant money isn’t coming from the feds, but rather from private foundations, but that is a different issue.)

What is the real problem with weaning us from foreign oil? Is it that this sort of thing shouldn’t be government mandated? Well, cases of lead poisoning have gone way down since the government mandated that cars must run with unleaded gas. Oh. Maybe that is it. The catalytic converter caused the collapse of the US Auto Industry, and you are afraid of the same thing happening on a larger scale?

What is wrong with trying to leave clean open space for our children and grandchildren? With cleaner oceans, teaming with life. Going with the second line of though for a second–why not pay US scientists to find out a way for humans to make the environment better? Why not have an Apollo program for positive human-caused climate change?

Most security papers that I have read suggest that fresh water will be a primary cause of international conflict in the coming century. Climate change might impact the availability of fresh, clean water worldwide. Why not devote some of the Pentagon’s budget toward preventing THAT catastrophe? I understand domino theory and why we spent a lot of money to prop up unstable regimes for decades.  We also spent a lot of money on R&D which led to everything from garage door openers to GPS. And don’t forget that the highway system was created–in part–to transport troops across the country. . . and at the same time, we enjoyed prosperity unprecedented in human history.

Amazing new opportunities will come out of alternative energy research, out of adopting energy efficient technologies in our homes and businesses. . . What do we have to lose by encouraging this type of investment?

Hell, by installing LED street lights, Ann Arbor, MI will save millions of dollars over the next decade. Those are dollars that can be used to pay the city’s pension obligations, or to make safer playgrounds for kids, or to reduce property taxes.

I just don’t understand why this is so wrong! Please, I would love for a climate change skeptic to explain this to me.