Global Warming: The Green Utopia

Preface

"As only 11,000 years has passed since the last Ice Age, scientists can not be certain that we are indeed living in a post-glacial Holocene epoch instead of an interglacial period of the Pleistocene and thus due for another ice age in the geologic future. Some scientists believe that an increase in global temperature, as we are now experiencing, could be a sign of an impending ice age and could actually increase the amount of ice on the earth's surface." Matt Rosenberg, member of the Association of American Geographers, National Council for Geographic Education, and the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers.

Does Global Warming exist or doesn’t it? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. But, how would we know, as no single scientist can say what the appropriate temperature of the planet actually should be. Climate is ever changing.

Is it caused solely by man? Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. Who can say, as our planet has been much hotter and much colder many times throughout its history. And through no fault of we homo-sapiens. Climate is always changing.

But sadly, in reality, these questions no longer even matter. For now there is consensus.

Dangerous, all consuming unquestionable consensus. That climate change must be stopped at all costs.

So where is the consensus? In the science?

Well no, not there.

“Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science. There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastrophe. What most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare.” Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

So if no consensus in science, then where?
Well, in the pandering of politicians. In the implicitness of the media. In the indoctrination of the malleable minds in our schools and universities. In the greedy outstretched hands and elitist battering rams of those with the power over the way you may live your life.

So, you see, it no longer really even matters whether Global Warming is real or not. It is being treated as if it were.

And it matters little whether humans are, indeed, causing Global Warming or even whether we as a species can have any real affect upon stopping it. We all will be subjected to and affected by the changes that the Greens, and the politicians that pander to them, have in store for us whether any of this is really true or not.
This boat has sailed.

And so the real question is, just what are the Greens prepared to have us do about it?

The Question

“The answer to global warming is in the abolition of private property and production for human need.” Louis Proyect, programmer in the Administrative Information Services department Columbia University.

If the above quote is the answer, well then what pray tell is the question?
Maybe something along the lines of, “What are you as an American prepared to sacrifice in order to avoid a possible future consequence which your actions today may or may not be, in fact, affecting?”
Think about that one for a moment.

And at the same time, why not mull over just what sacrifices the Greens and their gathering legions are intent upon forcing you, through the policing power of government, to make.

Sound alarmist? Read on.

Consequences

“The climate is crashing, and global warming is to blame.”-CNN.com.

If one truly believes that we are in the midst of an actual Global Warming phenomena, he must then ask himself two questions.
Is Global Warming a natural phenomena, controlled simply by the whims of nature, physics, and time?
And if is not, then is it the artificial outcome of humanity’s insatiable lust for more and greater creature comfort?
If it is the first, then we measly humans most probably can have little to no affect upon the trend towards warming. Even if we could, would it not be immoral to the code of the Greens for humanity to try to step in and affect a naturally occurring cycle?
Ah, but if it is the second and we humans are in fact responsible, then we must ask what are we prepared to do about it?
Most consciences decent people would be more happy to do their part. That is, if that part included rational, reasonable actions. Such as turning down the furnace a couple degrees, cutting back on unnecessary driving, choosing more efficient vehicles and appliances, turning off unneeded lighting, and weatherstripping windows and doors. Rational, reasonable actions.
And we as a nation could do our part as well. Ever heard of Nuclear power?
Not from the Greens, you haven’t.
But the French have...80% of their electricity is owed to our friend the atom. Safely.
Nuclear power would also cut the release of the dreaded human induced CO2's into our atmosphere by a huge amount. And help to wean us from our dependence on Middle East fossil fuels, as well.

But these are not options that our friends in the Global Warming apocalypse crowd have in mind for us. They have in mind, instead, a fundamental change in the way we humans now live our lives on this planet.

We will get to just what those changes are a bit later.

But first, how are the Global Warming advocates to get average Americans to agree to such elemental changes in the way in which we live our lives?

With fear, of course.

The Politics of Fear

“Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic." James Lovelock, scientist, author, researcher, environmentalist and futurologist.

One can no longer turn on the television or radio, or open a newspaper or magazine, and not hear another story of the certain coming doom caused by manmade Global warming.
“Heat Wave slams the Southwest”...manmade Global Warming. “Strong Hurricane Season Predicted”...manmade Global Warming. “Unseasonable Heat Dampens Skiing Season”...manmade Global Warming. Even “Record Coldest April Easter in 57 Years”...manmade Global Warming.

When Al Gore, in his shockumentary, “An Inconvenient Truth” tells our kids, in our publically funded schools no less, that the sea levels are going to rise 18 to 20 feet and flood coastal cities, this is scary stuff.
And that is nothing compared to the hype from Greenpeace International, “Between the Greenland ice sheet and the Western Antarctic ice sheet the world could well be facing a 13 metre (43 foot) rise in sea level if we do not drastically curb our greenhouse gas emissions.” Frightening.
When ABC News correspondent Bill Blakemore states, "It's surreal to have pre-eminent scientists tell us very seriously that civilization as we know it is over. The scale is unprecedented. It touches every aspect of life.” What are we and our children to think?
When Chris Thomas, professor of Conservation Biology at England’s University of Leeds writes, "A quarter of all species of plants and land animals, or more than a million in all, could be driven to extinction." What is a decent caring human being to do?
Al Gore on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos”, "George, we have a planetary emergency. That phrase may sound shrill or alarmist but it's not. … We may have less than 10 years before we cross the point of no return." “Planetary emergency”, “Point of no return”? Oh my God, is it truly the end?

And as if instilling terror in the minds of Americans and children were not bad enough, those who do so willingly admit to being somewhat less than truthful.
"[W]e have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."-Stephen Schneider, Stanford University Climatologist.
"Unless we announce disasters no one will listen." Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC.
“I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous [global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are.” Al Gore, messiah of the Green religion.

They do this, all the while denying, or deliberately ignoring, any positive affects that Global Warming may actually have on our planet.

However, in The Old Farmer’s Almanac 2007 one can find another view. The article “The Good News About Climate Change” takes a somewhat more positive approach to the looming Global Warming disaster.
It quotes an American study that claims, “...that a warming of 4.5 degrees F(2.5 degrees C) would lower the annual death rate in the Unites States by 40,000, while reducing medical costs by almost $20 billion per year.”
And further since “most of the warming has been in the form of warmer nighttime and winter temperatures...expenditures for heating and cooling would be cut by at least $12.2 billion annually.”
It goes on to show that increases in fresh water because of the warmer temperatures would actually help those in the poorest parts of Asia and Africa, that warmer weather would boost production of “crops such as wheat, rice, and soybeans”, and since the “warming is greatest in the oceans around the poles”, it could open up new and more efficient Northern shipping lanes.

Ah, but enough of the good news.

Instead, we have Tim Flannery, author of "The Weather Makers” stating, "If humans pursue a business-as-usual course for the first half of this century, I believe the collapse of civilisation[sic] due to climate change becomes inevitable."
And from Jeffrey Kluger senior writer at Time magazine, "Never mind what you've heard about global warming as a slow-motion emergency that would take decades to play out. Suddenly and unexpectedly, the crisis is upon us. From heat waves to storms to floods to fires to massive glacial melts, the global climate seems to be crashing around us."

So now that we have been scared to death by this certain impending complete climatic apocalypse, what would they have us do?

Sacrifices

“There are 1.5 billion cattle and buffalo on the planet, along with 1.7 billion sheep and goats...Given the amount of energy consumed raising, shipping and selling livestock, a 16-oz.T-bone is like a Hummer on a plate...If you switch to vegetarianism, you can shrink your carbon footprint by up to 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide a year.” Time.com, ‘The Global Warming Survival Guide’.

So, what are you as an American willing to give up in order to appease the Global Warming warriors?
Would you be willing to give up your home? Your choice of automobile? The types of foods you eat? Large chunks of your paycheck? Choice as to the size of family you would raise? How about the basic system under which your economy is run...would you be willing to give that up? Would you be willing to give up the rights granted you by the Constitution? Even something as simple as the amount of toilet paper you can legally use, would you let them wipe that freedom away?

Would you be willing to change every aspect of your life?

Well, you had better be. Because if the Global Warming zealots win the day, these freedoms are the spoils the Green fighters will demand. And through force of law, these are the sacrifices they will ecstatically require us to make.
“...in the U.S., big houses are becoming the norm, even though a relatively inefficient small house consumes less energy than a greener large house and uses fewer building materials, which expand the carbon footprint. A typical new single-family home in the U.S. is nearly 2,500 square feet today, up from about 1,000 square feet in 1950, even as the average household has shrunk from 3.4 to 2.6 people.”
The message here certainly is, “you knuckle dragging consumer driven Americans and your insatiable lust for large homes, you should be ashamed of yourselves”.
Still, as Americans, we think, “It’s our money, we should be able to choose the size and/or type of house that suits our fancies.”
That may be so, but it will be much harder to buy the house of our dreams with the enactment of the Green’s pet project. Your environmental penance, the Carbon Tax.

The Carbon Tax Center explains, “Charging American businesses and individuals a price to emit carbon dioxide (CO2) is essential to reduce U.S. emissions quickly enough to prevent atmospheric concentrations of CO2 from reaching an irreversible tipping point.”
So what exactly does that mean to the average American tax payer?
“(I)f the taxes are set high enough to have the needed impacts. A federal “starter” carbon tax equating to 10 cents a gallon of gasoline, but applied to all U.S. fossil fuel burning, will bring in roughly $55 billion a year in revenue. This equates to around $180 per U.S. resident, or $720 for a family of four.”
That’s not so bad, but unfortunately it is just the beginning.
You see, our power companies will also be taxed on their Carbon emissions. Taxes that will be passed onto you, the consumer.
And let us not forget that all our consumer goods must somehow get to the stores from which we acquire them. Usually via large gas guzzling trucks. The producers of these products, as well as those who deliver them, will not simply take the hit of the Carbon Tax on their bottom lines. They will embed those taxes in the prices of their goods. Which means again, you the consumer, will pay.

And that is not all.
This from GlobalWarming.org,”The United Nations is studying proposals for global taxes as a means to generate sources of financing for development in poor countries. The proposals being considered include a carbon tax on fuel use, a tax on currency transactions (the Tobin tax), an arms sales tax, a global lottery, and a tax on international airline travel.”
If there is a way to be taxed, the Greens will want it.

Ever heard of a ‘Carbon Budget’? You will.
“(D)ivide greenhouse-gas emissions by population, and give everyone in the world the right to emit the same amount of carbon—a personal carbon allowance...Bike to work and live beneath your allowance, and you can sell your carbon credits to energy spendthrifts who refuse to give up their SUVs. The balance of your allowance might be recorded on a sort of carbon-debit card, so if you buy that SUV, you'll be spending carbon too. If you want to keep living as if it's 1989, all you have to do is pay for it.”
Brings up the interesting question of just who will have oversight of your evil insidious Carbon Dioxide production. Another great governmental bureaucracy? Maybe the Internal Combustion Service?
Whoever it will be, it surely means more money out of your pocket. That 1000 square foot house is looking better all the time. Looks like grandma’s gonna have to find another place to crash.

But what of that car you drive? Surely, in a country that believes in freedom as much as America claims to, the right to drive the auto of one’s choice will always be protected. This is probably true...on the face of it.
But there are ways around that. Ways that make it nearly impossible for you to afford that SUV or minivan you’ve had your eye on.
One way is, you guessed it, an additional tax on gasoline.
Gregory Mankiw from ClimateArk.org thinks that’s a great idea, “We should raise the tax on gasoline. Not quickly, but substantially. I would like to see Congress increase the gas tax by $1 per gallon, phased in gradually by 10 cents per year over the next decade.”
As does the Governator, “California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger may increase petrol taxes as part of an ambitious plan to lower greenhouse gases in America's richest and most populous state.”
Seem like your whole paycheck is headed down the drain? Well, you had just better be careful what else you’re putting down there.
"I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting...I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required. " Singer and environmentalist Sheryl Crowe.
Now who gets the job of enforcing that limitation?

“But I am safe from these things, I have rights under the Constitution!” Oh, really?
"I would like to say we’re at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let’s just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future." Ellen Goodman, columnist for the Boston Globe.
Already there is ‘hate crime’ legislation in Europe making it illegal to deny the Holocaust. With our ever evolving ‘hate crime’ laws in America how far are we from that end? And if “global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers” how long until denying becomes a crime?
Think it can never happen here? Think that your freedom of speech is safe? That your job or even your life is safe if you have the audacity to actually question Warming dogma?
Think again. The intimidation has already begun.
Through the use of threats against one’s livelihood.
As from Heidi Cullen who hosts The Weather Channel's weekly global warming program The Climate Code, "If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval.”
Or pointed out by Richard Lidzen, “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse.”
How about threats of jail or hanging. From David Roberts staff writer for Grist magazine, ”It's about the climate-change "denial industry," which most of you are probably familiar with. What you may not know about is the peculiar role of the tobacco industry in the whole mess. I've read about this stuff for years and even I was surprised by some of the details.
When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

Sure, taxation, toilet paper, and even basic rights are one thing, but by far, the most frightening and dangerous side of our Green friends is their implicit unbending hatred for the entire human race.

"Us homo sapiens are turning out to be as destructive a force as any asteroid. Earth’s intricate web of ecosystems thrived for millions of years, as natural paradises, till we came along...The stark reality is that there are simply too many of us. And we consume way too much. Especially here at home...The solutions are not a secret: control population, recycle, reduce consumption..." Matt Lauer's "Countdown to Doomsday" special on the Sci-Fi Channel.
"If we had half as many people, we wouldn't have much of a climatic warming problem." Ric Oberlink, a spokesman for Californians for Population Stabilization.

Now just what do you think they are implying here?

Oh, this must be what they mean, “Population is the underlying problem - the catalyst for the whole thing, but we didn't get into that in the film. That is the underlying problem - too many people..." Thank you, Karen Coshof, producer of "The Great Warming".
I think I’m starting to get it.
The Green’s hatred of humankind has become as clear as the ice that once existed a long, long time ago on an Earth far, far away.

A shout out to Mark Steyn for this gem from Dr. Sue Blakemore freelance writer, lecturer and broadcaster, and a Visiting Lecturer at the University of the West of England, “In all probability billions of people are going to die in the next few decades. Our poor, abused planet cannot take much more...If we take the unselfish route and try to save everyone the outcome is likely to be horrific conflict in the fight over resources, and continuing devastation of the planet until most, or all, of humanity is dead.
If we decide to put the planet first, then we ourselves are the pathogen. So we should let as many people die as possible, so that other species may live, and accept the destruction of civilization and of everything we have achieved.
Finally, we might decide that civilization itself is worth preserving. In that case we have to work out what to save and which people would be needed in a drastically reduced population-weighing the value of scientists and musicians, against that of politicians, for example.”
Humans are “the pathogen”, it can’t get any clearer than that.

You must not be allowed to breed.

Just ask Garrett Hardin. Before his death, this leading ecologist and member of The Hemlock Society stated,“Freedom to breed will bring ruin to us all.”
So your freedom to choose something as basic as family size is now at risk.
Heck, if certain Greens had their way you yourself, as a “pathogen”, may not even be worth saving at all.
Still, just what would a Green friendly utopian future look like?

The Brave New World

“We must have population control at home, hopefully through changes in our value system, but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail.” Paul Ehrlich, author of The Population Bomb.

So just what would the temperature stable environmentally sustainable future envisioned by Mr. Ehrlich and his Green friends’ look like?

Well, we must first start with far, far fewer humans. Homo-sapiens are the root of all evil to the Global Warming crowd.
But, how many fewer? We have seen them state with an almost religious fervor that “billions” will die. We have heard them cry that humans are “as destructive a force as any asteroid”. We have read the statement, “we ourselves are the pathogen”.
OK, so how many fewer?
Well, Dr. Eric R. Pianka, University of Texas ecologist, named the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist recently said 90% fewer. Oh, and just for laughs, the humans as “pathogens” angle, “We are behaving like bacteria growing on an agar plate, flourishing until natural limits are reached or until another microbe colonizes and takes over, using them as their resource. In addition to our extremely high population density, we are social and mobile, exactly the conditions that favor growth and spread of pathogenic (disease-causing) microbes.”

This is just one man’s opinion, but one cannot deny that nearly all the Global Warming zealots at some point call for a largely reduced human population.

So let us do the math. There are presently around 6.5 billion humans on the planet, 90% of which is 5.85 billion “pathogens”. Just imagine the amount of methane released by that many decaying bodies. It would be an environmental disaster...somebody call the EPA.
OK, so 10% would leave us with a mere 650 million humans left on Earth. Roughly half the population of China. To cover the entire Earth.

That may still seem like a lot, but the societies those 650 million live in will be much different than those we enjoy today..
George Monbiot, environmentalist, political activist, and writer for The Guardian had this to say in November of 2000, “All that needs to be done to bring our contribution to climate change to an end is for the government to announce that in five years' time the burning of fossil fuel in the United Kingdom will be illegal.”
And from our friends in the UN 2005 “Promotion of Solar Panels” Resolution #122 which stated,
“After the period of ten years and seven months all burning of fossil fuels shall be halted and electricity shall be generated by Solar Panels, together with and environmentally friendly methods each respective nation should wish to introduce.”

Two factors as to the makeup of the Green’s utopia may be gleaned from these statements.
1) Fossil fuels will be a thing of the past.
Man will have to rely on the whims of solar energy, unproven battery and hydrogen technologies, and/or human and animal power. Land transportation will thus be largely restricted to basic local movements. Air travel will no longer exist. Sea travel will be costly and time consuming. The average human will then rarely journey far from his own small community.
Without the advantage of fossil fuels, and of course no nuclear energy, electricity will be an iffy proposition. Solar and wind power are simply not reliable sources of constant power. Hydro is more so, but it limits one’s choices in location as well as being hypocritical to the Green’s want for no human intrusion on nature.
Without electricity and a ban on natural gas and heating oil, heating of the domicile will be an interesting endeavor. Burning wood will be out of the question, as both causing pollution and being destructive of the environment. Homes will have to be small and natural. Air conditioning will consist of opening the flap on the tepee.
But what of something as basic as food supply?
No more energy sucking supermarkets with their massive overhead lighting and huge refrigerators. Food storage will have to be local. And without refrigeration most foods will have to be cooked and dried.
However, cooking itself will be tricky. No natural gas, propane, or wood products.
No more gas guzzling combines to plant and reap. Back breaking manual labor will have to do.
Something as basic as lighting will now be a constant struggle.
Forget computers, iPods, or various other entertainment devices...they are made mostly of plastic, which is made from fossil fuels.
Hospitals as we know them will cease to exist. Just think of all the electronics used in modern health care. An MRI machine, alone, can use as much as 50 kilowatts of electricity. Is it realistic to rely on solar energy to supply that amount? And what to use as a backup supply...gas powered generators? Not on your life.
Life will be primitive. And hard. And short.

2) Massive loss of personal freedom and hugely intrusive governmental control.
Ehrlich’s statement at the beginning of this section says it all, “...but by compulsion if voluntary methods fail”.
Today’s environmentalists understand human nature all too well. They understand that when people see the struggle involved in primitive living, they will likely want to return to the easier, more comfortable lifestyle we live today. Punitive, “compulsive” laws will have to be enacted to stop that from happening. Laws designed to force one into the type of lifestyle envisioned by the elites.
Laws that limit your breeding. Population control is a mainstay of today’s environmentalist doctrine and as we have seen it assuredly will be even more so in the future. To keep populations in control, maximum age limits may have to be implemented if control of the ‘breeders’ proves insufficient.
Laws that limit your consumption. With limited electricity, governments will not simply sit by while their people needlessly waste this important resource. The use of lighting will be tightly restricted. Heating of water for washing and bathing will be strictly controlled. The limited use of electricity will be a mainstay of government intrusion and intervention into the lives of its subjects.
Laws that limit your output. The natural urge of man to have more and better for his own will need to be quelled. It leads inevitably towards Capitalism and the unsustainable use of resources...we will get into this idea more a bit later.
Laws that control nearly every aspect of your life. Expect cradle to grave control of the “pathogen” by those in power.

One last aspect that can not be ignored is the socialist/communist connection to the issue of Global Warming. A quick Yahoo search of “capitalism Global Warming” is all one need do to find the link.
“Official: Capitalism is killing our planet!”
"The root cause of environmental problems is capitalism, the private ownership of the means of production by a relative handful of people.”
“There seems to be almost universal agreement that we are destroying our environment, and that the culture of capitalism is unsustainable.”
“Meanwhile, the ecological consequences of unbridled capitalism will be dire. The collapse of the world’s great ecosystems, driven by capital’s insatiable lust for material wealth, is already well under way and is almost certainly irreversible.”
The connection between the Global Warming doom sayers and the anti-Capitalists is undeniable.
This is important as to the point that there shall be no Capitalism in the Green’s vision of the future. For according to their dogma it is a dangerous doctrine, and one that most probably was the root cause of the disaster in the first place.
In the Green’s vision of a future socialist/communist utopia every man must only have as little as his fellow comrade.

Not convinced?
From David Cromwell, Scottish writer and activist, in his review of Aubrey Meyer’s book Contraction & Convergence: The Global Solution to Climate Change, ”Human-induced climate change is the greatest environmental threat today. Rising to this terrible challenge means overturning the global apartheid between rich and poor.”
And from Climate Ark, “We should all now think about how we can change our lives for the common good.”
And this from Michael Livingston, author at Peoples Weekly World, “Capitalism has gotten us all in hot water...Now capitalism is boiling the human race alive in hot water. We have nothing to confess, but we have much to do, starting with changing the crazy economic system of capitalism that has place us in this hot water in the first place.”

Epilogue

"Primitive INDIVIDUALS and SMALL GROUPS actually had considerable power over nature; or maybe it would be better to say power WITHIN nature. When primitive man needed food he knew how to find and prepare edible roots, how to track game and take it with homemade weapons. He knew how to protect himself from heat, cold, rain, dangerous animals, etc. But primitive man did relatively little damage to nature because the COLLECTIVE power of primitive society was negligible compared to the COLLECTIVE power of industrial society." Theodore Kaczynski, the Unabomber.

So there we have it, the environmental Eden. A world of few human pathogens, hoping the sun remains shining and the winds continue blowing so they can power what few luxuries the oppressive Green government will allow them to even own. Although the term ‘owning’, if referring to private property, is probably not one allowed by the speech police.

For those readers who may be feeling that the above is simply hyperbole and fear mongering, be warned we do indeed have “a planetary emergency” but it is not Global Warming, it is rabid unbridled environmentalism. In the words of Al Gore, himself, “That phrase may sound shrill or alarmist but it's not.”
Finally, for any doubters of the dire future predicted in this essay, one last point to ponder.
Humans are responsible for merely 3-5% of all green house gases. Still, if we were to somehow get rid of all combustion engines, stop all use of fossil fuels, and basically get our CO2 output to zero; what would happen then?
Are there any serious thinkers who believe that weather would then become stable? That there would be no more hurricanes, no more tsunamis, no more hot and cold snaps? Of course there would be. There always have been, there always will be.
So what, you ask?
Here is what. The very next day after the first hurricane of the zero percent CO2 emission age, Al Gore and his ilk would be on CNN screaming, “Apparently, we just haven’t done enough!”

And that is how we ride the slippery slope to environmental utopia.