Should we surrender our industrially fueled civilization the better to fuel fantasies of appeasing Gaia, goddess of the Earth?
The New York Times urges the Obama administration to block a much-needed oil pipeline from Canada as a gesture toward deflecting the purported threat of anthropogenic global warming.
“In itself, the Keystone pipeline will not push the world into a climate apocalypse,” admits the editorial. “But it will continue to fuel our appetite for oil and add to the carbon load in the atmosphere. There is no need to accept it.” The oil drops add up. “At the very least, saying no to the Keystone XL will slow down plans to triple tar sands production from just under two million barrels a day now to six million barrels a day by 2030.”
That’s what we want, right? Less and less of the fuel we need to go places and do things?
But if government is justified in blocking the Keystone pipeline on such a basis, isn’t it also warranted in stopping existing oil production?
What offends the “greens” is every form of “raping of the earth” for mere human survival and comfort — including to protect ourselves against weather that has always been variable, often extremely so. By their logic, the only moral way to defend against the elements is to surrender to them. No more building houses, wearing coats, adding gas to heater tanks and car tanks. Shut everything down.
I can’t say I’m persuaded.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.