Sunday, April 6, 2008

What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part III

By Rich Kozlovich

Since I have been publishing Green Notes as a weekly E-Newsletter I have gotten some feedback from readers who have been appreciative and supportive and a number of them have sent me updates on issues and articles worth linking. There also have been some new acquaintances…… who have been….let us say…..not as supportive. But that is what Green Notes is all about; forcing dialogue about issues facing our industry. Green issues in particular. It really comes down to what it means to be green and why we would want to be green. We have to ask; what is this overwhelming need to change what and who we are?

I have linked large numbers of articles dealing with global warming and energy because they are inextricably interlinked. I use these two issues because as I follow them I keep being amazed how irrational this has become. I understand the greenies; they have embraced an irrational misanthropic philosophy with the ultimate goal of destroying humanity. (If anyone has any doubts regarding this I will be happy to forward that information.) Disagreeable and irrational as that may be, it at least this gives understanding to their actions. Yet people who have the intelligence and availability of information to see the long term consequences, and who should know better, keep right on pursuing the same insane course of acquiescing to greenie demands that has proven to be disastrous over and over again. To believe that you will get a different outcome by doing the same things that have consistently failed is insanity! Let’s take some examples.

• Irrational and easily refutable claims against DDT were thrown up? Solution? Ban it! What happens? Millions die! Solution? Ban more pesticides! The fact that millions have and are dying is immaterial to those demanding these bans.

• Availability goes down and the price of gas goes up. Solution! Tax it! What happens? Price of gas goes up. Solution! Forbid drilling and the building of refineries. What happens? Price of gas goes up! Solution? Tax it some more and demand less drilling and add more regulations on refineries and impossible emission standards. What happens? Less refineries and the price of gas goes up. Solution? Demand energy independence by imposing ethanol? What happens? Price of gas goes up and government subsidizes ethanol which is a hidden extra cost. What happens? The price of food rises over time because we are burning food as energy! Cost of fuel and food goes up. What should be obvious to the most casual observer is that eventually the cost of food and fuel will continue to climb and availability of both will diminish. What happens? People all over the world start to starve to death! Starting with those least able to deal with the costs or the lack of nutrition!

• Business and political leaders have available to them all the real science that would allow for them to make wise decisions based on facts. What do they do? Agree to more insane greenie measures that, if followed, will ensure the eventual elimination of manufacturing, mining, logging, pest control, medicines and advanced living in an advanced modern world with all the benefits that entails!

How is it to be turned around? Recently a Green Notes reader sent me an e-mail discussing this very issue.  “Just follow the money now. Even when hard science debunks the climate change mass hysteria--- so much money [and so many political aspirations] are tied to the need to 'change' it will be like turning a large ship to moderate or reverse trends.  WSJ on 3-13-08 outlined how an English firm that is making millions or even billions trading 'carbon credits'--- it will soon be an important subsidy for US farmers as well as they begin to receive per acre payments for carbon sequestration. Once these practices become embedded--- some group becomes at least partially dependent--- then facts become less and less important.”

I agreed with him that in the beginning there would be a great deal of money made by a handful of people, but eventually the economy would force everyone to change course. Between the free flowing information of the internet and the economic costs of all of this nonsense people would demand a change of course.  After years of following this stuff, I’m no longer so sure. Armored from head to toe with the “invincibility of ignorance” the “momentum of the misinformed” is overwhelming because the informed are so colossally outnumbered.

There are three forces that are driving this insanity; the irrational misanthropy of the greenies, the short sighted greed and self interest of the business and academic communities and the pandering self interest of political leaders. They have instituted changes to society without consideration of the long range consequences, except for the activists; they know what they want. A pristine world!

The word “change” has become a mantra and is in the air constantly now. You can’t watch or read the news without being bombarded with this undefined “philosophy” with change as a goal. Change isn’t a goal! Change is an alteration! For change to be a goal it would mean that everything would be in a state of flux unendingly. There is a term for that – anarchy. So we have to ask ourselves; does change necessarily mean improvement? What are the overall costs of such actions? What are the benefits? What about unintended consequences?

When it comes to becoming “green” in pest control these are questions that are not being asked, yet the history of the green movement has been misanthropic since John Muir started the Sierra Club. Teddy Roosevelt is credited with being the first president to be concerned with preservation of the environment. That is a fallacy. The difference between Roosevelt and Muir was that Muir wanted “preservation” and Roosevelt wanted “conservation”. Those are two different concepts with two entirely different goals. Preservation wants everything pristine unsullied and primitive, untouched by mankind. Conservation implies continued use by humanity. Those two didn’t see eye to eye, nor did they like each other.

The leaders of our industry are making the decision to “go green”. This appeared as a promotion for activity at Legislative Day:
This is an action that I find disheartening and I have some questions.

• What does “taking green to the next level” really mean in the long term?
• How many levels of green are there?
• Is it a finite number?
• Is it possible that the number of levels is infinite?
• Who determines that?
• Who told them to do this?
• Do the directors of our national and state associations direct the industry or does the industry direct them?
• No one asked me what I thought; was I accidently left out of the polling? .
• Did the state associations decide this and then tell the national association that this is what they wanted? If that is the case, I don’t remember being involved in any discussions regarding this.
• Perhaps Ohio was left out of the polling?

Green demands will never cease and their actions in Canada should be a clarion call to all the pest control related industries. For pest control to become green is to publically take a stand that tells the world that we were wrong for sixty years. We are telling the world that the activists have enlightened us. We are telling the world that all the health claims by the environmental activists against us were right. "Being “green” is like being a little bit pregnant. The green movement is all consuming; once in, it is all or nothing. “You cannot cut deals with, or offer alliances to misanthropic environmental activists without being a promoter of misanthropic environmentalism or advancing the goals of misanthropic environmentalism.”

“The Green Council Meeting (Monday Morning). During Legislative Day there will be a forum discussion and an educational program that will include industry experts to take green to the next level. As a follow up to NPMA’s Going Green meeting in November, topics discussed will include the definition of green, the industry's approach to green, green consumer research, the industry's strategy to green, a review of the green tool kit, and much more.”

What Does It Mean To Be Green?
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part II
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part III
What Does It Mean To Be Green, Part IV


No comments: