Thursday, June 27, 2013

Stop Indoctrinating Schoolchildren With Environmentalist Propaganda

In Gov. Christie's Towering Hypocracy on Climate, the NJ Star-Ledger makes hay about New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's environmental policies. In my comments, I chose to zero in on what to the writer Tom Moran was probably intended only as an introductory aside:

The kids at Demarest Elementary School in Bloomfield could teach Gov. Chris Christie a thing or two about climate change.
Their school just won first place in a national contest by cutting its energy use in half. And it wasn’t that hard. They did stuff like turn off the heat on weekends and nights, fix leaky windows and unplug fax machines overnight. Simple measures saved more than $70,000 in the first year, about enough to pay a starting teacher’s salary and benefits.
In the fight against climate change, this is the easy pickin’s. It’s much cheaper than matching the same results by building a windmill or solar farm.
And for third-grader Daniella Estevez and her friend Jaelyn Oranas, the lesson was obvious. “Please take care of Earth,” they told their friends at a ceremony Wednesday marking the prize. “It’s the only planet we can live on.”
Christie doesn’t seem to get that.

Moran goes on to chastise Christie for raiding environment funds intended for "green energy" government subsidies to use for other purposes.

I replied:

Demarest Elementary only proves that government schools are indoctrinating inexperienced, intellectually defenseless children with politically-motivated ideas.

Now, their's nothing wrong with common-sense energy savings that save money (though why precious education time and money is wasted on such silly contests is beyond me). There is something horribly wrong with the deadly environmentalist ideology that prompts kids to spout "Please take care of the Earth" and the like. Such a statement is an outgrowth of the evil premise underpinning environmentalism;  that raw nature has intrinsic value. If so, then every time people apply intelligence and productive work to improve the environment for man, such as building hydro-electric dams, nuclear power plants, oil refineries, pipelines, fossil fuel-powered electric plants, housing developments, shopping malls, pharmaceutical plants, factories, modern industrial agriculture, cars, roads, and office buildings, they are not "taking care of the Earth" but destroying it, because raw nature has "intrinsic value."

In fact, industrialization is precisely man's way of taking care of the Earth. Raw nature is misery and death to man. It is not a value for man, except as a day-trip getaway from our centrally heated, air conditioned, plumbed, electric powered homes and workplaces. Industrialization, powered primarily by fossil fuels, has vastly improved Earth's environment. Compare the health, comfort, and longevity we enjoy today with human history before free market capitalism generated the industrial revolution. Lives were brutal and short, famine and plague were regular scourges, and most children died before the age of ten. I wonder if those children would trade places with that kid who was brainwashed into believing we should "take care of the Earth."

A bit of climate change? So what? It's always been around. Even if you accept that man is primarily responsible for this round of minor climate change--which I don't--it's a small price to pay for our vastly improved environment. If we're still relatively free, we'll adapt to whatever problems it creates through human ingenuity, and otherwise enjoy the benefits of warmer weather. If government schools are going to propagandize, shouldn't they at least be presenting the case for man's efforts to improve Earth's environment for man? Or does "diversity" only apply to race, but not ideas?

As to Christie: No, he shouldn't be using that "green" money to balance the budget. He should be cutting redistributionist spending, instead.  Then, he should repeal the subsidies to the solar and wind industries and lower taxes and electric rates accordingly. The subsidies only prove that solar and wind make no sense and can't compete with other energy sources. If they could compete, people would voluntarily install them with their own money, rather than have their money stolen to feed the corporate welfare subsidies.

Related Reading:

Why I Don't Trust the "Climate Consensus"

What is the Purpose of Education?

No comments: