In an entirely predictable op-ed piece, Paul Krugman works the BP oil spill, environmentalism, and climate alarmism all into the mix. And, like all hysterical liberals, he swings for the rafters and misses: Drilling, Disaster, Denial
It took futuristic technology to achieve one of the worst ecological disasters on record. Without such technology, after all, BP couldn’t have drilled the Deepwater Horizon well in the first place. Yet for those who remember their environmental history, the catastrophe in the gulf has a strangely old-fashioned feel, reminiscent of the events that led to the first Earth Day, four decades ago.
And maybe, just maybe, the disaster will help reverse environmentalism’s long political slide — a slide largely caused by our very success in alleviating highly visible pollution. If so, there may be a small silver lining to a very dark cloud.
No, Paul, the slide was caused by unhinged and very visible extreme environmentalists, those who use violent tactics, those who make spectacles of themselves, those who spike trees (putting humans at risk of injury and death), those who look like they haven’t met a shower in months, those who use overwrought and overblown hysterical language, plus those who link silly globull warming to every real environmental issue. More on the last in a bit
Environmentalism began as a response to pollution that everyone could see. The spill in the gulf recalls the 1969 blowout that coated the beaches of Santa Barbara in oil. But 1969 was also the year the Cuyahoga River, which flows through Cleveland, caught fire. Meanwhile, Lake Erie was widely declared “dead,†its waters contaminated by algal blooms. And major U.S. cities — especially, but by no means only, Los Angeles — were often cloaked in thick, acrid smog.
Actually, Paul, the founder, Senator Gaylord Nelson, started thinking about it way back in 1962, and mentions nothing about the January 1969 blowout, of which there was one. Simple Google searches would have helped, bub.
After telling us that the successes of the Environmental Protection Act, Clean Water Act, and others caused a slide in the public caring (see the actual reasons above), Paulie writes
This decline in concern would be fine if visible pollution were all that mattered — but it isn’t, of course. In particular, greenhouse gases pose a greater threat than smog or burning rivers ever did. But it’s hard to get the public focused on a form of pollution that’s invisible, and whose effects unfold over decades rather than days.
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that globull warming is real. The only thing it would truly threaten would be the works of Mankind. The environment has survived many, many, untold numbers of much warmer periods. The environment would survive. He claims that anti-environmentalists are winning. No. The climate realists have been winning. If you want to deal with real environmental issues, I’m right there with you, Paul. If you want to feel that climate alarmism is a real environmental issue, sorry, you have lost it, and do not understand the environment at all. Which is quite understandable, living in the bubble of the NY Times building in the middle of a massive city.
Unfortunately, these kinds of accidents are going to happen. Of course, they could certainly be reduced in their scope and damage if the oil companies were allowed to drill and extract in better areas, but, you liberals won’t allow that, so, more risky ventures have to be undertaken instead.
