In this crazy debate these days on global warming – I guess a debate actually involves more than one side – I find myself being subjected to far too numerous counts of double standards and hypocrisy. There is nothing worse than trying to present supporting information for a taken stance while assuming both sides of the same argument. That’s called talking out both sides of your mouth and/or other bodily orifices.
It is sad for America that one side is claiming victory, stating that the science is settled as it pertains to our warming climate. The reason this is not good is because it threatens to end debate. What if people like Einstein had listened to such nonsense? What if Columbus really believed science was conclusive and the earth was flat?
I have been called a few names because of my position on global warming. Most of that comes because those tossing the stones don’t understand the target they are trying to hit. Far too many advocates for “the sky is falling” approach to climate change point fingers at people like me and claim that I am uncaring, greedy, only interested in corporate power and am not concerned about pollution.
I also get a fair amount of chastising because much of what I do is to promote hunting, fishing, trapping and the outdoors. Are we to assume that because I am an advocate for such that I must be a member of the global warming gang (GWG)? Hardly!
My concerns go far deeper than whether or not warming waters will put brook trout at risk or if changing habitat forces the Canada lynx out of Maine and back into Canada. With the alarmists’ approach to climate change, we see more and more demand to declare habitat critical or list species as endangered, even when there’s no real science to back it up. The method serves only to prohibit people from going fishing, hunting or trapping or worse yet, the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness to own a piece of land – the American dream.
I’m not driven by greed nor is my focus only on my pocketbook. When climate change advocates insist on ceasing the debate on the subject and refusing to listen to the other half of the science world, this is wrong and it’s dangerous. When their proposals infringe on my rights as a free American, I will speak up.
Yesterday I was reading an article written by Deneen Borelli, a fellow with the Project 21 black leadership network. The article was published by the National Center for Public Policy Research. Borelli believes much as I do, that if we continue to shut down dialog on global warming and continue with the approach we are using, this is threatening our liberties. She also puts aside claims by the GWG that critics don’t care.
Despite the numerous flaws and ambiguities in trying to link human behavior and global warming, activists and their allies in government use emotion and alarmism to make their case. They are seeking to cut off any reasonable debate and silence their critics by saying these people are motivated by corporate and personal greed and don’t care about pollution. That, however, is hardly the case.
Critics of the global warming agenda are motivated instead by a love of freedom and civil liberties. They want a discussion based on logic and facts that will address any problems without depriving us of liberty and personal choice. They do not want to sacrifice our way of life based on fears of an unproven theory.
After all, the loss of liberty is a greater cause of alarm than global warming.
If I am going to be deprived of my personal choice to go hunting and fishing, or plant a crop on my land or cut down a tree to pay my taxes because a group of people believe the sky is falling, I’ll take issue with it every time. Contrary to what some believe, our group of hunters and fishermen are real conservationists. We understood long before anyone else the importance of proper management of wildlife and game animals. What we do is not perfect but it’s a far cry from the hypocritical efforts being exemplified by some groups.
Let’s take PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) as an example. Borelli alludes to this group and others in making her case that in an effort to be in style people are forging ahead willy-nilly to be “green” without first considering the entire scope of their decisions.
In some cases these groups have other agendas and really care very little about the climate and are using global warming as a way to raise money and further their cause. PETA is one such entity. They advocate for a vegetarian diet because they don’t want you and I to exploit or kill animals to eat. Fair enough…….or is it?
They also lay claim that farm-raised animals are destroying our atmosphere and are contributing to global warming.
America’s meat addiction is poisoning and depleting our potable water, arable land, and clean air. More than half of the water used in the United States today goes to animal agriculture, and since farmed animals produce 130 times more excrement than the human population, the run-off from their waste is fouling our waterways. Animal excrement emits gases, such as hydrogen sulfide and ammonia, that poison the air around farms, as well as methane and nitrous oxide, which are major contributors to global warming. Forests are being bulldozed to make more room for factory farms and feed crops to feed farmed animals, and this destruction causes soil erosion and contributes to species extinction and habitat loss. Raising animals for food also requires massive amounts of food and raw materials: Farmed animals consume 70 percent of the corn, wheat, and other grains that we grow, and one-third of all the raw materials and fossil fuels used in the U.S. go to raising animals for food. In short, our country’s meat addiction is wrecking the earth.
Do you know how ridiculous this statement is? First of all, why pick on domestic animals, which by the way is necessary for survival. I’m not a vegetarian, never have been a vegetarian and have no plans to ever be one and I’m not alone. We hear everyday that groups like PETA want to rid the world of farm animals because they emit natural gases through flatulence.
Maybe PETA doesn’t realize that all animals fart, even wild ones. They defecate too! Are there not substantial enough populations of wild animals that fart worldwide that we should be concerned with that? On the one hand you have PETA saying that we need to eliminate farming because the animals are destroying the earth, while at the same time, making every effort to make sure that all animals are left alone to multiply and grow as “Mother Nature” would allow. Is this having it both ways? Or is this part of the “emotion and alarmism” that Borelli speaks of in her column?
It’s not just PETA. It’s everywhere. Suppose for a moment that just the United States banned meat eating. The first thing we’d have to do is dispose of all the dead animal bodies and parts and make sure they were kept from multiplying again. We now have to replace all that meat and protein with something. What?
When it comes to vegetarianism, the number one question on most meat-eaters’ minds is, “What do you eat?” The answer: Anything we want! There are vegetarian alternatives to almost any animal food, from soy sausages and “Fib Ribs” to Tofurky jerky and mock lobster. Vegetarian-friendly menus are sprouting up everywhere—even Burger King offers veggie burgers—and more and more eateries are focusing exclusively on vegetarian and vegan foods. There are fantastic alternatives to every dairy product you can imagine, including Soy Delicious ice cream, Silk chocolate soy milk, Tofutti cream cheese, and more.
And where do these alternatives come from? Much of this stuff is manufactured. What kind of a carbon footprint does that leave? If we have to grow plants to replace the meat, where’s that going to happen? Outer space? Who knows how many more acres of land it will take to grow enough vegetables, soy, etc. to replace the meat. Those crops have to be planted, cultivated, harvested, processed, packaged and shipped. And this is saving our planet? We might as well kill all the animals. They are of no use to PETA. Oh, wait! They are supposed to be advocating for animals.
This is the foolishness that needs to be discussed. It’s only one more element of the total debate on global warming that advocates don’t seem to want to talk about anymore. I wonder why that is? Are they afraid you might learn facts and can decide what you want to do about saving the planet based on science and data?
Science never “settles” for anything. If it did, we would cease to exist. We should be prompting science to continue its studies of our climate and stop plunging dangerously headlong into something that is going to cost us dearly in more ways than one.
Tom Remington
