Envirocrap

Let’s call modern environmentalism what it is: envirocrap.

Most of the time when I read an article that is obviously meant to be “pro-environment,” I come up with critical flaws in the presentation of the subject matter. These flaws reveal what appears to be the author’s true intent in writing the article: pushing a personal agenda.

Take for example, this article. The article basically states that the Minneapolis City Council has voted to pass an ordinance limiting vehicular idling to no more than three minutes. Of course, I see tons of problems with the legislation itself: police idle all day long by necessity, some vehicles require idling to operate (cement trucks for example), and semis must idle for an extended period of time– especially in Minneapolis winters– to properly warm up the engine, just to name a few.

Hell, I even think it’s a good idea to limit idling– if a person chooses to do so. I am, of course, opposed to any laws such as this. I refuse to consider government-enforced environmentalism as being conducted under the right motives until, at a minimum, the legislative body exerting their power outlaws drive through windows, mandates closed-cooling grocery stores, and mandates automatic door closers for homes. Hell, what am I saying? There are no “right motives” for the government to enforce their opinions upon the populace.

But anyway, back to this article, and why I don’t like it. Here’s the quote:

Vehicle motors release particulate matter, dirt, nitrous oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide into the air. These chemicals are linked to increased rates of cancer, heart and lung disease and asthma and are the major source of human-caused climate change.

OK, this statement is clearly presented as fact, correct? Now, answer me this:

If a chemical like dirt is “linked to increased rates of cancer, heart and lung disease and asthma and are [is] the major source of human-caused climate change,” then why can I buy bags of dirt at the store? Why can I have dirt in my yard? Why can a person who works at a greenhouse, as I once did, conduct their work without the same sorts of chemical suits that are used when spraying pesticides?

If a chemical like dust– referenced here as “particulate matter”– is “linked to increased rates of cancer, heart and lung disease and asthma and are [is] the major source of human-caused climate change,” then why– in the name of national health and safety– do we not have a National Dusting Corp whose duty it is to eradicate the deadly dust that brings us closer to death with each passing day?

Ooooh. I get it. The author is saying that the particulate matter and the dust– the items listed first– can cause asthma– the symptom/disease listed third. Is this spin? Is this pushing an agenda? Is this just careless or incompetent journalism? I’d argue it’s the second and third.

All the author had to do in order to remove the agenda from these two sentences was to substitute an “and” with an “or,” and add in “believed to be.” It is likely that either careless or incompetent journalism dictated otherwise.

Compare these, my bolding. The original:

Vehicle motors release particulate matter, dirt, nitrous oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide into the air. These chemicals are linked to increased rates of cancer, heart and lung disease and asthma and are the major source of human-caused climate change.

My one-word change and three word addition:

Vehicle motors release particulate matter, dirt, nitrous oxides, hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide into the air. These chemicals are linked to increased rates of cancer, heart and lung disease or asthma and are believed to be the major source of human-caused climate change.

There, see how easy that was? Now any reader who implied that dirt caused cancer or was the major source of human-caused climate change would be a fool. As it stands, it is the author who appears foolish.

I could go on and on dissecting this piece, but I’m not going to go any further. I will say, however, that the cumulative effect of articles like these– articles that distort reality– is that the masses of asses eventually begin to believe whatever assertions that those in a position of information authority decide to make. And that can not be good.

One thought on “Envirocrap

  1. The fact of the matter is extreme environmentalism is the cause of our oil and food shortages today. America is one of the leading growers of food in the world, but if we waste all our time growing corn for ethanol which will never be used than the price of just about everything we need is just going to go up. It is unbelievably unethical to turn food into fuel in the middle of a food crisis.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>