Monday, April 10, 2006


Over a year ago I wrote an award winning 5-part series called Environmentalism and the Skeptical Mind. (Full disclosure: I gave myself the awards.) Read this riveting series here:

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5

I also linked to a story discussing an anti-environmentalist article in, of all places, The New York Times.

In May of last year I wrote a piece called I'm Not The Only One Who Thinks The Kyoto Protocols Suck.

Instapundit now reports that Canada is backing out of the Kyoto Protocols, and that a university in England reports that average global temperature didn't increase from 1998 to 2005.

Why is global warming, and man's fault in causing it, getting so much press lately? Newsalert links to an expose' showing that media companies are large financial backers of extreme environmental groups.

During the early part of the last millenium, there was what scientists now call a mini-ice age, at least in Europe. Then it warmed up. Man had no part in making the weather colder, and he had no part in making the weather warmer. We all know what a tropical paradise most of North America was several (million) years ago. My point is that climate change is a natural occurrence, and there's no evidence that man is causing global warming today--if indeed global warming is occurring. That is not to say that we shouldn't be good stewards of the environment, far from it. But we don't need to throw capitalism out the window and start worshiping the tree goddess, either.

Update, 4/17/06 6:40 am: If you read my series above, you're familiar with Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace. He penned a column for the Washington Post this weekend.

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.

I'm still not convinced on global warming, but I am convinced about the necessity of nuclear energy.


Chandler said...

Impressive, especially the self proclaimed awards, haha. I like it, and the comments following what you say. Its good what you put in part 5 and how you openly admit that your not neccessarily trying to prove something as much as you are trying to make people aware. It has made me more aware, irregardless of the sources, its still thought provoking. Ever thought of publishing? ;)

40 said...

All I can say (as someone that is environmentally minded) is what are you proposing we do with the nuclear waste that accumulates from it's use?

In my mind, the best way forward is to not favor a magic bullet or single solution for energy needs, but rather to have mulitple and varied sources. It will ease the pollution dump that anyone that lives in a large city feels and breathes daily (I am in Houston, so believe me I know). And it will free us from being dependant on foreign sources alone for our energy needs.

Darren said...

I'm all for varied sources--not so much a fan of wind, but here in California there's no excuse for not using solar more than we do.

As far as disposal of nuclear waste, I still like Yucca Mountain. Have you ever been there? Nothing!