/  Featured Articles   /  Want to Save the Planet? Make a Better Case – Red Dirt Liberty Report

Want to Save the Planet? Make a Better Case – Red Dirt Liberty Report




No matter how based in science you believe your opinions to be, there is never any moral superiority in forcing those opinions onto others. No matter how convinced you are, and no matter how much you think your beliefs are rooted in solid facts, it is always immoral to require, by force, others to agree. It is not only immoral, but also unwise. I hate to break it to everyone here reading, but it is entirely possible, no matter what you believe, to be wrong in your beliefs. Even when they are carefully studied and well thought out.

You can call people who are against the enforcement of regulations and laws intended to save the planet “climate skeptics” or the more passive-aggressive term of “science deniers.” But, simply restating a person’s disagreement with you as an insult does not make your case. When there is a difference of opinion and one wants to implement large, sweeping change in behaviors and attitudes throughout the world, it is not incumbent upon the world’s populace to refute your claims. Rather, it is incumbent upon those that assert the claims to make the case for them well enough that others may be willing to make the changes free from force and of their own free will.

Using government to force change means that those seeking the change have become too mentally lazy to convince others that change needs to be made. Perceived threats and damages to the planet are not the result of ignorant people too stupid to want to save it. Rather, it is the result of those wanting to make the change, not making their case well enough that people believe the change is necessary. It’s an unethical and lazy shortcut to making a good case. I’m not saying that there are not changes that should be made to be better stewards of our environment, but I am saying that the best way to make those changes is to convince others that the changes should be made and how they should be made. If the use of force through government is necessary, then the climate alarmists have failed.

The focus on changing consumer behavior is the best aspect of the climate change movement.  It is very nice that recognition amongst the most prominent leaders within the movement have been that, if you change consumer behavior, you have a much better chance of making a real impact than if the focus were changing corporate behavior.

The individual is truly powerful when given the room to use the freedom and powers the individual inherently possesses. People often accuse large companies of being greedy in their pursuit of profits, and that in that greed they will carelessly do severe damage to the environment when left unregulated. The truth of the matter is that companies are machines that do not operate as human beings. They can be better thought of as amoral creatures, like animals, that simply act to consume and reproduce. They seek profits for consumption in order to provide income for their owners, and they, like any animal, look to grow larger and produce offspring. So, individual consumers, when their numbers are large enough, have a much greater and more effective impact than regulations. A hungry company always follows profits, and if those profits are in making changes to better protect the environment in order to maintain and gain profits, then that is exactly what they will do.

Many of the environmental alarmists would argue that corporate greed and capitalism will always control and influence government, so it is necessary in their summation to gain control of those corporate entities to some extent or another. The more extreme of them would prefer socialism as a means to own certain industries and run them through government, so that they can be operated in a more environmentally-friendly manner. The problem is that there is more control and influence coming from corporate entities that desire to profit from environmentalist preferences than there are corporate entities that want less regulation. In other words, the businesses that sell things considered to be environmentally friendly are influencing government for their own benefit to increase their own profits, and they are using the environmental movement to get what they want. Environmental alarmists are trading one group of corporate influencers for another, and their criticisms of corporate influence on government aren’t very relevant.

If people want to truly make an impact on environmental concerns, then the best way to do it is to step up their game in making their case. They do more harm than good by forcing their beliefs onto others. Often times, the same crowd of people demanding that government quit forcing beliefs of morality onto them is the same crowd of people that push their own brand of religious style fundamentalism of environmentalism onto everyone.

If you believe that socialist control of industries makes it possible to better protect the environment, then look at historical examples. The most prolific polluters have always been state operated industries. Although it has been a few decades, one can still notice the black soot of pollution on the buildings of eastern Germany, as compared to relatively cleaner buildings on the west side. Government-run business in order to preserve the environment doesn’t work, and neither does forcing your beliefs onto others. Real change requires a more difficult route of winning hearts and changing minds. If you believe the planet is in peril and you want to save it, then don’t be lazy. Make a better case and people will follow. The impact will be far greater than anything that can be achieved through force.

The following two tabs change content below.




You don't have permission to register
%d bloggers like this: