My column today is on the weird world of global warming-ism (and another plug for my long-time obsession with geoengineering). I note that a new book out claims that we’d all be better off if we got rid of our dogs and cats and kept bunnies and chickens as pets. We could play fetch with our pet chickens and then eat them. Meanwhile, more and more greens are moving back to the age-old progressive obsession with population control. Some, like Tom Friedman, are increasingly comfortable expressing their admiration for totalitarian regimes for their ability to avoid the inefficiencies of democracy.
It’s a fascinating phenomenon. The idea that Americans will agree to any of this stuff is bonkers, just flat-out bonkers. Americans (never mind the Chinese, Indians, et al) won’t stop driving gas-powered cars for a good long while. The notion that they will give up their dogs or forgo having children to fight global warming is just crazy. Creepy, too, but really crazy. And yet, the more apparent this becomes, the more warmists insist that we just might have to pay ever higher prices to prevent apocalyptic change.
For space reasons I couldn’t get into it in my column, but one wonders: What possible price would warmists agree is just too high? Right now, greens want to spend trillions of dollars and export our manufacturing base to China and India in a foolish attempt to slightly ameliorate global warming. But it certainly seems that that’s just the opening bid. If democracy is worth sacrificing, and dogs, cats, and unborn children are up for discussion, where is the line we will not cross?
What is the price we can all agree just isn’t worth paying?
For eight years during the war on terror liberals routinely argued that if we made even the slightest changes to our lifestyles in response to a very real terror threat, “the terrorists will have won.” But altering or outright chucking overboard the core of our liberties and lives to fight global warming is progressive, smart and right. I find that baffling. Greenpeace advises how to have eco-friendly sex. New children’s books designed to terrify young’ns come out almost every week. Imagine the reaction if under George Bush someone had come out with children’s books that hyped the Jihadi terrorist threat the way greens hype global warming. Will it take someone yelling “Soylent Green is people!” to understand we’ve gone too far?
So, again, what price is too high? What cost is so unbearable that the global warmists will be willing to look for another solution like geoengineering? I’d really like to know.