Picking up the newspaper today and gleaning useful information about current affairs is a daunting process. I find this especially true for the charged subject of climate change and energy politics. With the plethora of propaganda and glut of contradictory “scientific” facts, a reader might easily be lost in the heated discussions. Fortunately for readers, I have taken it upon myself to compile a glossary of the more commonly used terms and turns of phrase, which will help the savvy student navigate the stormy seas of climate cant.
I will explain each of the terms first in the way they are most commonly employed in the context of the environmental movement, then present a more suiting definition for each.
“Green” (environmentally speaking): “Go Green,” “Buy Green,” “Be Green.” Green is beautiful and natural. It means you are not impacting your environment. Technologies, cars, investments, emissions: we must strive to make them “greener.” A “green” consumer is one who carefully considers his/her actions in light of environmental impact and chooses the course that will least damage our green planet.
The “Green” Reality: A nifty buzzword that is spewed ad nauseam by political propagandists. It can be tossed out in almost any context to fill the speaker with a sense of superiority and self-satisfaction. A consumer who purchases the “green” option is absolved of climate sin. A “green” car is a perfect example. Buy a hybrid, and you need not feel guilty about killing the planet–because you are doing it less quickly! Purchasers of hybrid vehicles may directly consume less fossil fuel than that dirty SUV driver, but they like to ignore the environmental impact of hybrid production. This impact comes in the form of mining and smelting the heavy metals for car batteries in processes that lead to air pollution and deforestation, the pollution resulting from the disposal of said batteries and, ironically, water consumption! According to one study, each mile driven with electric vehicles consumes three times more water than the average gas-guzzler. Maybe the future is not as green as it seems? Greenies: put your money where your mouth is. Your hybrid isn’t saving the planet, so climb off that pedestal and get a bike if you’re really concerned.
“University of East Anglia” (environmentally speaking): The climate research unit (CRU) of this esteemed university aims (objectively, of course) to improve scientific understanding in “past climate history and its impact on humanity, the course and causes of climate change during the present century, and prospects of the future.” A trusted source of evidence suggesting anthropomorphic climate change, the climate research unit is the recent, unfortunate victim of climate change skeptics who, in their devious ways, seek to dismantle the hard work of the CRU because of a few mildly incriminating e-mails.
”University of East Anglia” reality: A perfect picture of the problem with the media today. The CRU scandal should have been one of the biggest stories in this arena brought to the public. While environmentalists wring their hands over the lack of “binding agreement” in Copenhagen, they completely ignore findings that call into question the need for such an agreement in the first place. Times Online reports that “Scientists at…UEA have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.” HOW DOES THIS NOT BOTHER PEOPLE??? How can a story of this magnitude be brushed under the rug? We are trapped in a paradigm of anthropomorphic warming, championed by the media, the government, leading universities and The Stanford Daily’s editorial board. At the very least, stop with the knowing claims of “scientific consensus.” Or, redefine “scientific consensus” to mean something along the lines of “random assortment of scientists who provide evidence (legitimate or not) that supports the liberal political agenda.”
Briefly, a few more:
Al Gore: The champion of the environmentalists, he is allowed to consume what energy he sees fit. His do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do approach is acceptable because, hey, at least he gives the global warming issue a “face.” Appropriate that it is a face of blatant hypocrisy.
The non-believers: Those who question man-made global warming are deceitful disturbers of the peace. They have no legitimate arguments, but merely seek to obstruct the greater good of all energy initiatives. It is suggested, at least by the Stanford Daily Editorial Board, that these ignoramuses have the “truth” shoved down their throats. Maybe this is a generous offer of education, but I rather think that climate change alarmists want we free thinkers to choke on their hype before we can debunk it. I shall continue to question the “facts,” however, and encourage you to do so as well.