Environmental Talk

Who can it be, now? …

Whenever I see a story like this next one, I give myself a pat on the back and enjoy a smug inner smile. I take a minute out of my busy day to congratulate myself on the policy I have about generally distrusting “experts.”

Pretty much any time you see the phrase “experts say” it’s usually followed by one of two alternatives:

Either a conclusion so insipid you really didn’t need an expert to figure it out like “Experts Say Driving With Eyes Closed Could Increase Likelihood of Accidents” or “Study Shows People Really Like Sex, Experts Say.”

Or, some wildly insane idea you’d reject out of hand if your best friend came up with it — even if you were both high at the time. Ideas like “Experts Say You Can Reduce the Effects of Aging by Drinking Your Own Urine” or “Training Anteaters to Deliver Babies Necessary to Cut Medical Costs, Experts Say.”

Given my view of the world, how could I resist a story headlined: Baby Tax Needed to Save Planet, Claims Expert.

Needed?! Really? So, there’s nothing else we could do that would help?

According to Associate Professor Barry Walters, families should “pay a $5000-plus ‘baby levy’ at birth and an annual carbon tax of up to $800 a child.”

Even more shocking, “.. he implied the Federal Government should ditch the $4133 baby bonus and consider population controls like those in China and India.”

Wait, …what? You get a $4100 bonus for having a baby in Australia? Crikey! A sexy guy like me could retire in less than a year.

*humming to self … “I come in a land down under…”*

Why does everyone hate babies all of a sudden?

The associate prof goes on to say, “Every newborn baby in Australia represents a potent source of greenhouse gas emissions for an average of 80 years, not simply by breathing but by the profligate consumption of resources typical of our society.”

There it is, kids. Climate change’s version of “original sin.” You’re guilty for just being born. All you’ll ever do is engage in “profligate consumption” and emit greenhouse gases. It’s not like you might invent the CFL light bulb or discover an affordable way to harness solar power.

It’s hard to figure out which is more annoying: Walters’ negative view of humanity or his presumption that he knows best how to cope with it.

I think I’d attend a class on people skills given by Dick Cheney before sitting through one of Barry’s lectures on how to save the planet … but I also believe I’d feel a distinct chill going down my spine in both cases.

It is absolutely amazing to me that many of the same people who will rail against the Patriot Act as a violation of individual rights, have absolutely no problem trampling over those same rights in the name of future generations of polar bears or pine trees.

These are two sides of the same coin. In both cases, government officials and other “experts” are trying to scare people into acquiescing in the elimination of their individual rights.

See, you don’t understand (and for some reason can’t possibly grasp) how dangerous al-Qaeda is or how threatened the planet is. So … it looks like we’ll just have to tax you, restrict your ability to choose and force you to kowtow to the whims of a bunch of politicians whose only real interest is in accumulating and exercising power.

If it’s all the same to you, I prefer to find my wisdom elsewhere.

“I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive.”*

Experts say.

——————————–
* -Thomas Jefferson

global warming, climate change, George Orwell, Barry Walters, Men at Work limiting your freedom