The Logical Conclusion

You could see this coming; it was only a matter of time. Once the global warming crowd had a chance to sit down and think about all the ways that we supposedly contribute to their theory of climate change, they were inevitably going to arrive at the conclusion that living is bad for all of us.

One guy has decided that mankind is simply a “virus in shoes.” A British think tank has declared that having children is “bad for the planet” and should be frowned upon the same as “long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags.” And finally, a travel writer has decided that “ travelling is so environmentally destructive that there is no such thing as a genuinely ethical holiday.” He compares the travel industry to big tobacco, and wants the industry to educate travellers about the damage their holidays do to the environment. I suppose that means little warning signs like the ones on a pack of cigarettes.
“WARNING: Taking this cross country flight may put New York City underwater!”

And Sheryl Crow is back on the scene. She got all sorts of grief heaped upon her when she made a suggestion about limiting toilet paper. So the public ridiculed her for a couple of days and she issued a statement that she had been joking, of course. But it had the same feel as the Keith Richards fiasco when he stated that he had snorted his father’s ashes and then said he was just joking. I think they were both caught saying something that only sounded incredibly stupid to them when they heard it the next day. That’s when it became a “joke.” But Crow has now written about how galled she is by the “arrogance” of those who don’t see it her way. That’s funny because “arrogant” is exactly how I would describe Crow and her cohort, Laurie David. They are so sure they are right. You’d think that when somebody is in the business of predicting the future, they might couch their words or at least choose them carefully. These people talk as if they are looking back on history with 20 20 vision.

Who knows, maybe they’re right. But if they are, then I think we need to follow this train of thought to it’s logical conclusion. For example, it should be obvious to everybody that it is a frivolous waste of energy to travel around the country putting on concerts, even in a bio diesel bus. Bio diesel may put out less greenhouse gas than regular diesel, but it’s not zero. And what about all the concert goers, are they only riding bicycles to the show? If Sheryl Crow doesn’t come to town, all those people wouldn’t fire up their hybrid SUV’s and take yet another unnecessary trip across town. Her music can be delivered over the internet. There is no valid reason to go on tour any more, even to “raise our awareness.” There aren’t enough light bulbs to change that could make up for the waste a full fledged rock tour could produce. And don’t give me this crap about how you’re doing it in such and such a way that produces less greenhouse gas. Let me know when it’s zero.

And hey, Leonardo DiCaprio, what’s with the movie making? Talk about a frivolous waste! I wonder how many flights on a private jet you take during each film? And that’s just you. I’m sure Martin Scorcese and Jack Nicholson make a few runs for golf on the weekends. The budget on some of these films is in the hundreds of millions. How much gasoline and coal might that entail? And all for what? So teenagers will have someplace to drive their dates on Saturday night? Hardly seems like a crucial economic function to me. We don’t need movies.