When a class of eighth graders at a Rhode Island private school noticed Greenpeace on a list of possible environmentalist groups to contact for a school project, numerous students inquired, ‘Why are we going to be writing to terrorists?’ But student Stephen Paquin turned this around and directed the ‘why’ toward Greenpeace itself.
After conducting thorough research that turned up such fiendish deeds as bombing Japanese ships and instigating a blockade at International Forrest Products that deprived 29 hard-working laborers of $120,000 in wages, he put forth in a letter two very thoughtful, probing questions: 1) ‘Why do you feel you must destroy things and murder people to get people to protect the environment?’ and 2) ‘Why do you have to disrupt peoples’ way of life to make a point about the environment?’
Kids are heralded for their enduring thirst for knowledge, disdain for hypocrisy and refusal to simply accept the status quo. As Stephen matures, he will undoubtedly remain a remarkable individual who wishes to make the most of the world, while the vast majority of his classmates will eventually forfeit asking ‘Why,’ opting instead for the timeless ‘Who am I to know?’ The quest for freedom and success will gradually subside into the desire for protection and ‘equality,’ and those who don’t end up becoming the next John Kerrys of the world will surely end up voting for them.
Kerry has already pulled out the environment and race cards, deriding in a recent speech the ‘disproportionate amount of environmental risks’ facing low-income communities in comparison to ‘more affluent white communities.’ Ignoring the obvious free-market (and race-independent) reality that low-income communities’ lesser property values translates into less savory surroundings and potentially greater environmental risks, Kerry promised to ‘penalize these companies.’ While Kerry is certainly attempting to court minorities and disaffected liberals to secure the nomination, his environmentalist fervor shouldn’t be entirely discounted as mere politics. He has amassed quite the record in voting with the environmentalist lobby, and his calls for a ‘regime change’ are genuine. While Kerry’s stubborn preoccupation with hackneyed diplomacy would guarantee a reverse course from Bush’s aggressive foreign policy, his environmentalist agenda would prove to be even more radical. He would be an ineffective administrator for the war on terror and wouldn’t even attempt to wage the war on eco-terrorism.
This is not to say that Bush and Co. have been particularly deft at the task either, but at least they haven’t continued the Clinton era preference for the suicidal Kyoto Protocol. The Bush administration has had logic and science on its side in reversing myriad pardon-esque executive orders from Clinton, but it hasn’t bothered explaining any of this logic or science to the public. Instead of putting themselves on the aggressive, and launching an intellectual assault against ‘environmental-friendly’ policies (and perhaps calling in Newt Gingrich as a spokesman), it has been on a very timid and embarrassing defensive, orchestrating and implementing most of their policy in the dark. To an extent, its bashful behavior is entirely understandable, as very little of the American public would buy their logic or science anyway. But if Bush or any other conservative president ever plans on winning this war, the weeds of the ‘green’ philosophy will have to be uprooted eventually and hopefully, before it’s too late.
The term ‘environmentalism’ itself is disturbing enough, even without any unearthing of its historical and ideological agenda. Any paradigm that places a titular emphasis on nature instead of humankind cannot claim to be the friend of man. Of course the likely retort is that man is part of nature, which is a harmless-sounding but explicit equivocation of man to nature. And any movement that disregards the superiority of man the only perfectly rational, infinitely capable being on earth is most certainly his enemy. The average American understands very little of the overall economic implications of all-out environmentalism (hint: the costs are greater than the benefits) and is entirely ignorant of the end goal: the complete move back to nature. ‘Moderate’ environmentalists may squawk at such language, and I might be a little more understanding if they dropped the latter noun from their title. At its heart, environmentalism is a duly named, anti-life way of life (practiced by Hitler and Pol Pot), and anyone seeking to advance the rational interests of man shouldn’t be caught dead under its oppressive banner.
Under a framework of reason, sound science and private property rights (perhaps Coase’s Theorem could actually be implemented), there is a place for environmental agencies. But the focus must be the protection of man, not those who seek to establish him in a permanent backseat position.
The war on (Islamic fundamentalist) terror deserves our utmost attention and is the paramount threat to the Western world. But there is such a thing as a two-front war.
Jacob Cote, a freshman in the College of Communication, has been a weekly columnist for The Daily Free Press and can be reached at favtak@bu.edu.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
