I zoomed in on the .gif, and looked for a struggling polar bear, but alas, none were found. Was I too late, I asked myself, anguishing in anguishment. Or had Kevin Costner, Last Man on Earth, used them as a meat animal.
It's all so confusing.
This morning, I watched New York Times' reporter Thomas Friedman on one of those morning talk shows. He engaged in an unfortunate bit of sophism ("If this administration wanted to win, then why didn't they send enough trupes to win?") and then moved to discussing "Green." So, I finally caught up with Mr. Friedman's article, from last weeks NYTIMES Magazine, called The Power of Green.
Leave aside the unfortunate choice of flags (see, um, "white flags" have meaning), Mr. Friedman argues for using the Power of Green (i.e. the environmental movement) as a robust means of advancing Merkin Geopolitical aims:
The motto of the American Revolution was “no taxation without representation.” The motto of the petroauthoritarians is “no representation without taxation”: If I don’t have to tax you, because I can get all the money I need from oil wells, I don’t have to listen to you.
He's got a point. For resource societies, populations are essentially surplus. The House Saud is the easiest example, but the RUSMOB is trending that way.
It's when he starts global warm-mongering that I start drifting. Problem as I see it, is that that territories already owned. The hair shirt sized. You don't get to drive the train, only negotiate your surrender.
The global warm-mongering movement, and environmentalism at large, is owned by people who, for lack of a better idea, never let a "good idea" pass.
Sad. Could there be in issue with global climate change? Possibly.
Keep this in mind, no one ever comes up to you and says "hey, elect me, and I'll stick a pin in your eye." They always start with a "good idea."
My take on environmental policy? A good idea, in the wrong hands.
No comments:
Post a Comment