Discover more from Conflicted with Greg Berry
This is Why Everyday People Don't Support Green Energy Initiatives
Nebulous Policies Vs. Everyday Action
So far in 2022, New York City experienced several subway pushes, where someone knocked a fellow citizen onto tracks, placing NYC train-related crime up 42% this year.
I’m not surprised when I see videos like this, unfortunately.
Maybe I’m desensitized.
Why assault precious art, you ask?
Because they want us to know what it’s like “to see something beautiful destroyed before our eyes,” referring to the Earth.
While the masterpieces dripped with soup and what appeared to be overly runny mashed potatoes (the real crime) in all cases, the activists attempted to superglue their hands to the wall and floor.
Only these eco-warriors vastly overestimated the power of 3-5 beads of glue as they failed to stick.
Thankfully, the masterpieces resided in air-tight glass cases, so there was only minor damage to the frames, which I’m sure aren’t original.
But the videos went viral, so I guess they succeeded in their protest.
Yet despite the activist’s passion, they are met with nothing short of confusion from everyday people.
That’s because extreme green agendas that claim to fight climate issues don’t address the common pollution we see at the citizen level.
We know human existence impacts the environment, but many scientists suggest our planet regularly moves between hot and cold periods.
I haven’t studied climate change, so I can’t claim to know one way or the other.
But I do know what I see in everyday life, and these activists ignore the simple human actions that threaten the Earth.
In contrast, vague green initiatives do little more than give the government power and money without an energy replacement plan.
These foodstuff-flingers claim membership in an activist group called Just Stop Oil, which seeks to cut fossil fuel emissions completely.
Just Stop Oil and House Resolution 109, commonly known as The Green New Deal, seek net-zero emissions as soon as possible.
A complete stop, not a safe transition.
But after reading the document, it’s easy to see why everyday people don’t buy the proposal.
While most people agree that sustainable and renewable energy is a good idea, the GND doesn’t offer a real plan.
In fact, the resolution talks more about racial minorities than how renewable energy will replace fossil fuels.
What’s more, the US is but one country on Earth.
And if climate change is a global issue, how does stopping oil production in the US account for the rest of the world?
Even if the US went to zero emissions, countries like Russia and China would not participate, leaving us starving and defenseless.
Electric vehicles might be well-intended, but batteries can’t power tractors to produce food, construction equipment to build shelter, trucks to haul goods, or military vehicles that protect the homeland.
Show me an electric F-35, and we’ll talk, but we can’t afford to have Russian Su-27s and Chinese J-20s entering US airspace while we huddle for shelter because we can’t power our defenses.
In reality, the GND contains lofty ideas that only offer more power to the government to regulate the industries that should be free to innovate and transition to clean energy, not a sudden break that would kill millions.
Nuclear is the cleanest and most sustainable option available, but far-leftists cringe at the idea because they saw Chernobyl on HBO, which is a fantastic series, by the way.
And nuclear isn’t without danger, but we know far more about safety and science than we did years ago.
The Chernobyl meltdown didn’t occur because of accepted risk. It was because the government failed to properly design and maintain the facility.
But if we focus on innovation, we can be energy-independent by improving clean energy options.
That’s what humans do, innovate.
It wasn’t that long ago when we had to print our directions off before a road trip. Now our cars tell us where to turn.
But the GND doesn’t offer creative ideas.
The 14-page text only proposes increased government control with no plan to replace fossil fuels.
I’m not a climate expert, but it doesn’t take a scientist to see the real environmental threat at the individual level.
I spent most of my school days in the 1990s when the running theme for fighting pollution was the “Three R’s: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.”
Today, it seems like that went out the window, at least from where I can see.
For example, I once walked into a sporting goods store for a gym bag.
While perusing the aisles, I saw a handy nylon drawstring sack on sale, grabbed a workout shirt, and headed to the checkout.
As the cashier finalized the transaction, the young man asked if I needed a bag.
I said, “No thanks, I just bought one.”
One could argue that he asked the question out of habit, but he had that look in his eye.
What? No bag?
I’ve seen that look many times.
Whether I stop at the store for a single item, such as a gallon of milk or a carton of eggs, and decline a bag, cashiers look at me like I asked them to dinner.
Here’s a photo I took at the store in question at a later date.
I mean, I’ve seen people buy a single birthday card at this place and watch the cashier put the envelope in a plastic bag.
Sure, these are just the experiences of a single person, but society has a real problem with urban tumbleweeds and other harmful plastics.
So why is there no push to reduce plastic trash that kills wildlife here and now without debate?
Why does the GND only address potential average temperatures in 50 years and ignore direct threats to animal life and habitats?
Some places like California banned single-use plastic bags in 2014, which is excellent, but we still generate trash that’s far more concerning than using oil to sustain human life.
For example, if you’ve ever worked in a restaurant, you know how much garbage employees wheel out the backdoor after each shift.
But even if you haven’t flipped a few burgers in your day, you can relate to the waste levels associated with standard packaging or excessive disposable cup usage at the office.
Take a look at this insanity. Click here for a list of over 100 examples, but here are a few of the most ridiculous instances of over-packaging:
Wow, here’s the winner if you ask me:
Humans could vastly reduce toxic plastics that litter lands and oceans if they spent half the time thinking of alternative packaging rather than trying to gain power and money through obscure policies.
For example, check out what the US veteran-owned company Bravo Sierra did.
Instead of plastic, they use metal cans like this:
Once it’s empty, simply order a six-pack and refill the original:
This simple innovation came from a small company, not a global think tank.
Imagine what we could do if we all targeted everyday threats to our environment instead of yielding more policies and laws that destroy our country.
These eco-activists like their food sourced locally.
Maybe they should try thinking locally, as well.
Elite Waste Production vs. Everyone Else
Another reason we don’t buy into the GND is that the people pushing for these changes are hypocrites.
Elites want us to stop flying while Kylie Jenner takes 3-minute flights across Los Angeles to avoid traffic.
While the world operated on Zoom through 2020, the jets that transported world leaders to the COP26 summit in Glasgow last year released more CO2 emissions than thousands of UK citizens produce in a year.
Speaking of 2020, think of the massive amounts of plastic and styrofoam that restaurants were required to use for to-go containers, useless partitions, and of course, the countless masks that now reside in landfills and parks around the world.
But as 2022 draws to an end and we enter the winter months, countries like Germany fear the Russian power they rely on may not be available to warm their homes.
All because a little girl sailed across the ocean and convinced the world to stop producing energy.
Well, the western world, at least.
So, when people don’t support these green initiatives, it’s not because we’re willing to destroy the Earth in the name of comfort and profit and leave the problem for our kids to resolve.
It’s because the green ambitions presented to us don’t make sense.
Maybe the authors of the GND didn’t think everyday people would ask basic questions.
Yet all we know for sure is the proposed solutions by the left only do two things for sure: to give the government more control and put our citizens at risk of dying because we can’t warm our homes and protect our lands.
Bring a plan that makes sense, and maybe more people will listen.
But as it stands, I have more faith in companies like Bravo Sierra doing more for our environment than politicians in DC or green-haired lunch-lobbers.