Magic always comes with a price. That’s a cardinal rule of fantasy fiction.
And it works out great if you’re watching a movie, reading a novel or just playing a video game.
But trouble arises when people in the real world start thinking magically and forget that rule. “Magical thinking” attempts to associate an action with an intended consequence, even though there’s no causal connection.
That’s the type of thinking that marks much of modern environmentalism. Environmentalists believe their “solutions” have no consequences other than the intended one of saving the Earth.
But no matter what villain or shibboleth is threatening to destroy the Earth in environmentalists’ minds, they seem to unfailingly come up with an answer that winds up being more damaging than the ill they are trying to cure.
Windmills, for example, require large swaths of land in order to produce any significant amount of energy, they don’t work consistently, and their spinning blades are a hazard to birds.
Ethanol fuel, as another example, is expensive to make, uses up vast tracts of needed crop lands to grow corn, puts inflation pressures on other crops and has consequential long-term effects on the diets of humans and animals.
Plastic bag bans are supposed to cut down on trash, save resources and prevent animals from getting entangled in plastic refuse. In reality, they put Americans out of work (the plastic bag industry is mostly American), use more resources (paper bags take more energy to produce) and negatively impact businesses in cities that enact the bans.
Congress mandates catalytic converters in cars to deal with carbon monoxide, and now cars spew out carbon dioxide instead. Government bans use of DDT because of supposed harm to birds, and millions of people have died since from malaria.
A recently released study from the Norwegian University of Science and Technology has found that production of electric automobiles has a larger environmental impact than producing internal-combustion cars. Batteries and electric powertrains are among the most energy-intensive parts to make and can have an environmental impact after they are used up.
Furthermore, electric cars depend upon power plants, many of which burn oil or coal, so while they don’t burn conventional fuel themselves, the electric cars effectively burn that fuel at the power plant. Basically, they don’t save energy at all, they just add a step into the process of making an electric car go.
The amount of potential harm environmentalists can cause goes up with the scale of the fantasized disaster.
The ultimate disaster scenario in the liberal book of fairy tales is global warming. We’re living in the economic suffering brought about by leaders who have restricted oil development, fenced off open lands, raised power rates, limited agriculture and rationed housing. The grand plan known as Agenda 21 is a big part of our ongoing economic crisis, all in the name of “sustainability.”
How much more dangerous, then, when liberals start thinking they can “fix” the root symptom of global warming and actually adjust the planet’s thermostat directly?
Space scientists at the University of Strathclyde in Scotland were in the news recently for just such a plan. They actually want to move an asteroid to one of the LaGrange points between Earth and the moon, and use a device called a mass driver to start mining the asteroid and shoot out a cloud of space dust to shade the planet from the sun’s rays.
They estimate they could lower the Earth’s average temperature by three to four degrees Fahrenheit. Considering that a one to two degree difference is supposedly going to decimate the planet, what could possibly go wrong with the giant space umbrella?
It’s just that sort of magical instant cure that ends up being instituted on the backs of living human beings who will always suffer for the environmentalists’ fantasies.