Two columns in The Lantern caught my attention this past week, primarily because of their anti-environmentalist attitude and crass language describing those who seek to reduce pollution. The article “Your dog causes carbon emissions” by Jack Millman includes a bar graph indicating that energy is the largest contributor to greenhouse gases and the article ends with the statement “Relax a little, turn up the heat and take a few extra minutes in the shower. You’ll enjoy it.” Is Mr. Millman unable to make a connection between these or does he knowingly advocate pollution? I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt but I can’t decide if stupidity is worse than toxic advice.
He further states that “Countries with the lowest level of pollution per person tend to have names like Haiti and Zimbabwe.” Haiti and Zimbabwe suffer chiefly from political strife and his assertion that these places suffer because of low carbon emissions reflects his ignorance. My grandfather was Haitian; when he lived there the island nation was a tropical paradise. This country’s troubles have been compounded by extensive deforestation that hastens erosion and impedes productive agriculture. Clearly, preservation of the natural environment is in Haiti’s best interest.
Another of his brilliant excerpts states, “Consumption requires a certain amount of pollution and people shouldn’t be bothered by that.” The effects of global warming are felt most severely in the warmer parts of the world, comprised mostly of developing nations. Given that the United States produces the most carbon dioxide per person in the world, I think that we should at the very least recognize that the luxuries we enjoy come at a cost to others. Mr. Millman has either failed to see beyond the borders of the U.S. or the quality of life in other countries doesn’t matter to him.
The second article, “Going green not as popular as you think” by Brad Miller is derogatory toward the following:
1. Reusable containers
2. Educating youngsters to become environmental
stewards
3. Detection of energy loss in the home
4. Using less electricity
I am curious as to his reasons for this. Is there something wrong with wanting a cleaner world? Doesn’t energy efficiency save money for the consumer? Perhaps, as the title of his article suggests, he only does what is popular.
Mr. Miller propounds that reusable grocery bags and driving smaller cars does not make a difference, and he is wrong. Every act of reducing, reusing and recycling makes a difference. A small effort on the part of the individual, multiplied by the 300 million inhabitants of the country is significant.
Throughout the entire article Mr. Miller offers no basis for putting down environmentalism, but he does propose that polar bears should take refuge on garbage floating in the ocean. How funny. Would he think it comical if he lived in a landfill?
The content of these articles demonstrates that the authors do not care about polluting the environment — they certainly have produced some rubbish commentary. Join their ranks if you want your children to inherit dirty water and filthy air. I will continue to feel good every time I make an effort for a cleaner world.
