Titled “Prove It! Environmental Do-gooders,” the piece marvelously took aim at governments deciding to prevent the use of consumer products – in the name of saving the planet – without any proof that their recommendations actually will benefit anyone (emphasis added throughout, grateful h/t Rush Limbaugh):
Take the recently announced ban on incandescent light bulbs. The federal government's "Action on Climate Change and Air Pollution" boasts the ban "will give Canadian consumers real opportunity both to save money on energy and to help clean up our environment." Prove it!
Delicious, don’t agree? They continued:
Show us the results of comprehensive life cycle analyses that demonstrate the energy savings accrued when operating a compact fluorescent lamp (CFL) more than compensates for the increased manufacturing and mercury disposal impacts associated with CFLs. Prove to us that the loss of convenience and light quality of the incandescent is off-set by a significant net environmental benefit. Or many Canadians will conclude the move was purely political, designed to look good in the press and trump the NDP who had a private members' bill banning incandescents in the works.
They concluded:
Looking "green" is no longer good enough -- governments must demonstrate their decisions really are green if they expect to be seen as anything other than political opportunists.
With this in mind, shouldn’t soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore and his band of not so merry sycophants such as Laurie David, Sheryl Crow, and Leonardo DiCaprio be required to prove their positions on anthropogenic global warming?
Or, is it enough for folks that have had absolutely no formal training in climatology, meteorology, or any earth science to just claim “The debate’s over?”
