Updated from the original blog entry
The Anti-Candidate's Position on the ENVIRONMENT
We like the woods, and beaches, and the mountains. The desert is okay for short periods of time -- it can be beautiful in the right light, and it's full of fascinating and curious discoveries -- but we spent a lot of time there in the late 80s and much of it still looks the same. We like water.
We like hiking and camping, and want to be able to take our grandchildren camping some day. And we believe the probability of doing so rests more on our personal longevity than any impending environmental doom.
Global warming? How about "global climatic changes occurring over time scales longer than most civilizations, affected by multiple inputs both terrestrial and celestial and consisting of interactions of forces that are beyond our ability to completely understand or model and beyond our capacity to affect more than a very little"? Color us skeptical, especially about anthropogenic global warming.
Or, color us unconverted to the church of radical environmentalism.
With respect to the global warming debate, we enjoyed reading a book review by eminent physicist Freeman Dyson in the NY Review of Books (dated June 12, 2008, which seemed odd since we read it on May 23, but maybe it was posted early):
All the books that I have seen about the science and economics of global warming ... miss the main point. The main point is religious rather than scientific. There is a worldwide secular religion which we may call environmentalism, holding that we are stewards of the earth, that despoiling the planet with waste products of our luxurious living is a sin, and that the path of righteousness is to live as frugally as possible. The ethics of environmentalism are being taught to children in kindergartens, schools, and colleges all over the world.
Environmentalism has replaced socialism as the leading secular religion. And the ethics of environmentalism are fundamentally sound. Scientists and economists can agree with Buddhist monks and Christian activists that ruthless destruction of natural habitats is evil and careful preservation of birds and butterflies is good. The worldwide community of environmentalists -- most of whom are not scientists -- holds the moral high ground, and is guiding human societies toward a hopeful future. Environmentalism, as a religion of hope and respect for nature, is here to stay. This is a religion that we can all share, whether or not we believe that global warming is harmful.
Unfortunately, some members of the environmental movement have also adopted as an article of faith the belief that global warming is the greatest threat to the ecology of our planet. That is one reason why the arguments about global warming have become bitter and passionate. Much of the public has come to believe that anyone who is skeptical about the dangers of global warming is an enemy of the environment. The skeptics now have the difficult task of convincing the public that the opposite is true. Many of the skeptics are passionate environmentalists. They are horrified to see the obsession with global warming distracting public attention from what they see as more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet, including problems of nuclear weaponry, environmental degradation, and social injustice. Whether they turn out to be right or wrong, their arguments on these issues deserve to be heard.
Here's our article of belief: "The Earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof." (Psalm 24)
We are stewards. As such, we should be careful not to cause more harm than necessary as we use natural resources.
Meanwhile, thank us for our SUVs: they're keeping the next ice age at bay.