Carbon footprints bigger than a whale’s

Current debate says policy must pick people or the environment

Environmentalists are lucky—the face of their cause is the irresistible giant panda, the patriotic bald eagle, the Siberian tiger, etc. etc. It’s so easy to cry out “Save the animals! Stop destroying Mother Nature!” because there really is no one who wouldn’t love to protect the animals of the earth.

The disparity in opinions occurs when we examine the position we are in more carefully. In an ideal world, we would simply decide to not have any effect on the environment at all. All the magical rainforests could be saved, all endangered species would increase in number, and the air and the water would be pristine. However, this is utterly impossible for us to achieve.

Every action that we take to protect some natural part of the environment has consequences. Were we to take steps to stop humans from interacting with the environment at all, our civilization would cease to exist.

It’s true that some extremists would like this to happen—that we should all revert back to an aboriginal existence, living off of berries and nuts, while sleeping in caves and wearing nothing but leaves to protect ourselves from the wind and rain. To them, that was humanity at its finest! Living in harmony with nature being the moralit ideal, next to yoga and over-priced tofu, of course.

There is a clear difference between the extreme environmentalists who will spike trees, set fire to ski lodges, cut down power lines and torch SUV’s, and the more mainstream self-professed environmentalist (college students) who wants to “stop global warming!”. These people are merely idealists, not people who wish to see all of modern society destroyed by homemade bombs.

We have to realize that every step we are considering taking to reduce carbon emissions will have serious consequences. It sounds so glorious to say “Stop Global Warming: Support Cap-And-Trade!” because really, who wouldn’t like to stop a dire trend of growing temperatures across the earth.

Apart from some contrary compelling evidence that implies that global warming does not actually exist (like studies that show that the average temperature of the earth has actually cooled in the last ten years), making it not a fact but merely a scientific hypothesis that has attracted much media attention, we need to consider the consequences of all actions we take in response to the claim of global warming.

Cap-and-trade is a tax on carbon emissions, which directly increases the cost of energy. This may at first sound reasonable—tax the highest producers of carbon to encourage less carbon emissions, but the effect is an increased price of energy for everyone. If power plants now have to pay more in taxes, then they will raise the price of electricity in everyone’s homes. If businesses have to pay higher taxes, the prices of their goods will go up to cover the new costs, which will affect all consumers. Essentially, this tax will have a direct effect on our ailing economy, impeding businesses from improving quickly, and passing the cost on to the majority of the population.

In California, utility companies that provide water and power often try to implement conservation programs. However, since they are regulated by the government, anytime people use less water or power, they have to raise the price on everyone else to make up for the lower revenue. If conservation causes higher prices, can you imagine what taxing that same industry would do to prices?

The debate on global warming should have been a scientific one, but instead it has become a ridiculous politically-driven issue. This is not to say that perhaps we do need to limit our carbon emissions, but let’s not get carried away by the very vocal extremists who proclaim that the earth will fry within ten years if we don’t bring our economy to a standstill.

The debate should not be either humans or the environment. While it is not easy to coexist and be responsibile stewards of the environment, it is possible. Yet we accept scientific consensus as fact and must be aware of when the sensationalist nature of the media sells us crisis.

A simpler example of activism is the EPA’s endangered species list. Animals such as the gray wolf, grizzly bear, dolphin, and sea otter are listed as endangered in parts of the United States, meaning that they face a risk of extinction in the near future. This list has undoubtedly protected many species from extinction. However, it is hard to judge the cost of such endeavors.

In 2007, there was a court order issued to protect the delta smelt, a small minnow in the waters of San Joaquin-Sacramento River delta that limited the water supply to twenty five million people and over three million acres of farmland. The increased price of water that is the result of this court order will hurt the agricultural industry that is already being hit by drought. Farmers in the Central Valley currently have created signs that read “Politician-Created Dustbowl.”

It is nice to say that we want to save the small fish from devastation, but the real effects of protecting it could add to the struggles of agriculture across California. The price to save this minnow is one that our state cannot afford to pay, as the prices of food will increase as farmers struggle to stay in business.

So before we draw a sharp line between environmentalists and people who hate nature, (or if we want to mislabel it, liberals and conservatives) let’s realize that there is no easy way to achieve the preservation of the environment. We humans depend on the environment—for energy, for food, for recreation. We cannot prevent this interaction from happening entirely, so let’s not get carried away with the glamorous sounding cries of saving the world—because really, who doesn’t want to save the world? We have only limited means to do so.