Here we are—Earth day 2011.
Expect
it
to
be
as
shallow
and
contrived
as
those
Earth
Days
of
the
past.
Save
the
planet—by
turning
off
water
while
you
brush
your
teeth
and
use
curly
light
bulbs.
Cover
every
open
space
with
those
“free”
energy
generators,
windmills
and
solar
panels.
Thank
goodness
Americans
cannot
do
math
or
understand
science.
If
anyone
actually
could
calculate
the
percentage
of
water
saved
by
not
running
water
while
brushing
teeth,
it
would
likely
be
far
less
than
a
tenth
of
percent
of
the
water
used
in
any
hour
in
the
USA.
The
curly
light
bulbs
may
save
a
few
dollars
a
year
on
your
electric
bill
(while
adding
mercury
to
the
landfill
if
tossed
out
and
not
recycled)
and
last
9
years
if
you
only
turn
them
on
for
3
hours
a
day
with
some
brands,
but
compare
the
perhaps
300
to
400
watts
per
hour
saved
to
the
millions
of
watts
used
by
businesses,
street
lights,
etc
and
the
impact
is
pretty
much
irrelevant.
Belief
in
“free”
energy
should
have
gone
the
way
of
alchemy,
but
apparently
government
subsidies
can
keep
anything
alive.
For
those
of
now
saying
“every
little
bit
helps”,
no,
it
may
not.
There
is
a
point
at
which
a
change
is
so
infinitesimal
as
to
be
meaningless.
For
example,
saving
$2
per
month
at
4%
interest
for
45
years
yields
approximately
$3500
dollars
in
a
retirement
fund.
Can
you
really
say
that
makes
an
impact?
If
you
eat
3000
calories
per
day
and
cut
20,
is
that
better
than
doing
nothing?
If
your
boat
is
filling
with
water,
do
you
bail
water
with
a
20
ounce
bottle?
In
an
absolute
sense,
yes,
these
make
a
difference.
But
none
will
ever
matter
in
a
practical
sense.
It’s
all
just
a
way
to
make
people
feel
as
if
they
are
contributing—a
feel-good
solution
with
no
value.
So
what
then
do
we
do
to
“save
the
planet”?
First,
does
it
need
saving?
Second,
even
if
we
think
the
planet
needs
saving,
can
that
be
accomplished?
In
spite
of
numerous
claims
of
consensus
on
global
warming,
there
truly
is
not
consensus.
There
are
many
scientists
who
disagree.
Consensus
is
generally
achieved
by
narrowly
defining
who
qualifies
to
have
an
opinion.
Not
a
really
scientific
criteria,
though
it
works
politically.
Actual
support
by
the
man
on
the
street
seems
to
be
fading
also
as
winter
makes
a
return
to
many
parts
of
the
world.
While
one
hard
winter
does
not
disprove
climate
change
(and
does
not
tell
us
where
the
change
came
from
if
there
really
is
one),
it
does
serve
to
make
people
question
the
idea.
Let’s
assume
for
the
sake
of
discussion,
there
does
exist
AGW.
How
do
we
stop
it?
Consider
for
a
moment
how
monumental
the
task
of
stopping
a
significant
portion
of
“greenhouse
gases”?
The
most
effective
way
to
decrease
greenhouse
gases
and
actually
solve
many
environmental
problems
is
a
dying
or
sick
economy.
The
fewer
people
working,
the
less
manufacturing
there
is
going
on,
the
less
construction,
etc.
It
is
extremely
effective
in
stopping
the
alleged
causes
of
AGW
and
much
of
the
environmental
illnesses
of
the
earth.
Now,
ask
yourself—do
you
want
to
save
the
planet?
Are
you
willing
to
trash
the
economy
to
succeed?
Is
it
likely
China
and
India
will
agree
to
trash
their
economies
to
make
sure
this
works?
There
is
no
possible
way
to
make
an
economic
downturn
purposely
happen
worldwide
without
frightening
possibilities
of
wars
and
a
return
to
darker
times
(pun
intended).
While
this
would
undoubtedly
please
many
of
the
more
liberal
environmentalists,
creating
a
deliberate
downturn
at
any
time
in
the
near
future
seems
unlikely.
While
socialism
and
rampant
spending
have
cooled
the
economies
of
several
countries,
even
bankruptcy
did
not
significantly
cool
the
world
manufacturing
industries.
While
the
chief
of
the
national
grid
in
England
is
telling
Englanders
the
days
of
electricity
at
the
flip
of
a
switch
are
over
and
that
might
be
accepted
in
England
(because
England
is
going
to
use
renewable
energy
sources
no
matter
what)
I
doubt
Americans
are
going
to
calmly
accept
that
their
$5000
HDTV
will
only
work
on
random
days
when
the
TV
station
has
electricity
and
so
does
the
TV
owner.
We
are
living
in
an
industrial
age—only
a
massive
natural
disaster
will
change
that.
Or,
if
the
alarmists
are
right,
the
entire
situation
is
self-correcting.
It
warms
up,
floods
and
famines
occur,
people
die
and
the
earth
recovers.
Problem
solved.
(While
it
may
sound
flippant,
this
is
reality.
Humans
tend
to
overestimate
their
ability
to
control
each
other
and
nature.
We
are
not
a
species
that
is
given
to
extreme
cooperation
like
maybe
ants.
We’re
more
wolves—trying
for
the
alpha
position
and
at
times
deciding
we
can
take
on
a
herd
of
buffalo
all
alone
and
win.
Often
nature
solves
the
problems
for
us
because
we
will
not
and
probably
cannot
do
what
it
takes.
We
often
just
don’t
have
that
kind
of
knowledge.)
So
what
do
we
do
for
earth
day?
Forget
the
light
bulbs,
water
running,
etc.
Maybe
recycle
a
bit
more,
save
some
landfill
space.
Consider
what
you
value
the
most—a
thriving
economy,
lights,
running
water,
or
wilderness.
A
newspaper
article
this
week
encouraged
people
to
visit
open
and
wild
spaces
to
form
an
attachment.
The
more
the
attachment
spreads—well,
actually,
that
leads
to
overuse
and
altering
of
nature
more
rapidly.
So
how
do
we
save
the
earth?
Maybe
check
with
the
person
responsible
for
ANWAR—a
frozen
wasteland
with
enough
oil
to
keep
America
driving
for
years.
Yet,
with
less
than
2000
visitors
per
year
and
one
science
station
and
no
economic
benefits
whatsoever,
the
place
is
untouchable.
The
method
used
to
create
and
basically
make
holy
this
place
could
definitely
change
the
path
of
the
USA.
Protecting
a
frozen
wasteland
while
Americans
pay
$4
per
gallon
for
gas
and
risk
another
economic
meltdown—that’s
a
world
changer.
You
can
decide
what
kind
of
world
changer…….