Netanyahu Gives an Option to Terrorists Still Holding Hostages in Gaza
Did You Catch Kamala's Awkward Pause When Bret Baier Asked This Question?
Look Away, Democrats. Obama Has Some Unfiltered Observations About Kamala.
The NY Times Plagiarism Expert Steals Its Thunder, and Public Trust in the...
Anti-Gunners Overstating Research on Mandatory Storage Laws
How Black Voters View Trump
Trump to Headline Catholic Dinner While Kamala Will Send In Pre-Recorded Tape
View Co-Host Accuses Fox News of 'Racism, Sexism' After Kamala Interview
This Is How Many Million Illegal Aliens Would Be Imported Into the U.S....
Here's What Cardinal Dolan Has to Say About Kamala Harris Skipping Out on...
One Country Just Made It Illegal to Seek Surrogacy Abroad
Liberal Poll Shows Republican Bernie Moreno Ahead in 'Toss-Up' Ohio Senate Race
These Media Headlines on Harris' Fox News Interview May Reveal a Larger Pattern
'There Is Something Pathological Going on Here': JD Vance Reacts to Harris' Fox...
Investigative Task Force Commissioned by Mayorkas Urges Overhaul of Secret Service Leaders...
OPINION

Lib Logic: Global Warming Skeptics are Crazy Racists

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of Townhall.com.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

I’ve written about the government’s war on light bulbs, its rule against working toilets, and its prohibition of washing machines that actually clean, so I sometimes cover environmental issues.

Advertisement

But I usually limit myself to examples of silly radicalism, such as the crazy claim that climate change causes AIDS, a reprehensible example of EPA thuggery, and a column about pointless recycling mandates.

Notwithstanding these criticisms, environmental protection is a legitimate role of government. Simply stated, we don’t want polluters to violate our property rights.

The challenge, of course, is how to conduct sensible cost-benefit analysis.

Where do we draw the line, for instance, on how much pollution cars should be allowed to emit? Or what are the best rules to ensure landfills don’t pollute groundwater?

These are important issues, but I will admit a bias. I am instinctively skeptical whenever self-proclaimed environmentalists start pontificating.

In part, this is because everyone has an incentive to exaggerate. The business community will always say that a new regulation imposes astronomically high costs, while environmentalists will claim minimal costs and say that thousands of premature deaths will be averted.

Since exaggeration is omnipresent in Washington, that’s not what really bothers me. My main problem with environmentalists is that they want to use so-called green issues to give government more power. And if you oppose them, you’re an evil person.

Advertisement

Consider the example of Professor Kari Norgaard of the University of Oregon. She thinks you’re mentally ill if you don’t agree with her.

Just in case you think I’m being unfair, here are some blurbs from a report in the UK-based Daily Mail.

Prof. Kari Norgaard

An Oregon University professor has controversially compared skepticism of global warming to racism. …The professor, who holds a B.S. in biology and a master’s and PhD in sociology, argued that ‘cultural resistance’ to accepting humans as being responsible for climate change ‘must be recognised and treated’ as an aberrant sociological behaviour. …Norgaard last week attended the annual four-day ‘Planet Under Pressure’ international conference in London, where she presented her controversial paper to delegates on Wednesday.

Professor Norgaard wasn’t the only oddball at the conference. The article also mentions that the attendees included a bunch of control freaks who want to force people to live in densely-populated cities.

The scientists behind the event recently put out a statement calling for humans to be packed into denser cities so that the rest of the planet can be surrendered to mother nature. And fellow attendee Yale University professor Karen Seto told MSNBC: ‘We certainly don’t want them (humans) strolling about the entire countryside. We want them to save land for nature by living closely [together].’

Advertisement

The folks at the Commentator sent a camera to the conference. Here’s a five-minute sample of what they saw.

Remarkable.

But the folks at the conference weren’t even the crazies, or at least the really bizarre environmentalists weren’t part of the video. For instance, I didn’t see the folks who don’t believe in bathing, the ones who sterilize themselves to avoid carbon-producing children, or the ones who produce (or use) hand-cranked environmentally-friendly vibrators.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos