Conservative Amazons

An analysis from the Cato Institute aptly illustrates my suspicions about environmentally-friendly politics. We do know that the climate is changing. We also know that the climate of the earth is constantly in flux. We don’t know how the climate is currently changing or what the consequences will be. We know that human activities amount to a very small portion of greenhouse gas emissions. We don’t know how much we would have to change human activities to affect “climate change,” or even if such a thing is possible.

And yet the good folks in Washington are obsessed with appearing environmentally friendly, regardless of how their proposed laws and programs will actually affect the climate. From this desire to be PC, we get the push for increased fuel economy standards, mandated by law. In support of this premise, politicians and political commentators are fond of pointing out that technology has greatly increased since the last time fuel economy standards were raised. The same justification is used in support of all kinds of environmentally sustainable projects.

But the people who invoke technological advancements rarely bother to explain which advancements actually relate to their proposed climate change solution. In their zeal for change, they ignore the fact that not all technology is equal. The discoveries that improve computer processor speed or allow us to fit more music on a smaller iPod don’t necessarily translate to improved fuel efficiency of cars or creation of biofuels.

Americans especially have great faith in the human capacity for imagination and creation, so the word technology is politically expedient. Technology means there don’t have to be trade-offs. Invoke technology and you can ignore the messy fact that increased fuel economy is most often generated by decreasing car size and weight, which in turn makes cars less safe in a crash. I am immediately suspicious of people who use the word technology loosely; if we did have the technology to do what they claim we should be able to, they would be able to tell us what new process or material has been discovered/created to make it work.

Vagueness is always the enemy of truth, because that which is not specific cannot be proved either true or false.

All this reminds me of a Facebook group called “Use Science to Turn Rain into Cupcakes.” That’s the kind of research I could get behind.

In addition to blogging, I’m also the Opinions Editor/Token Conservative Columnist at the venerable George Street Observer.  My latest article covers the reflexive anti-religious feelings that some people get, illustrated by the enraged reaction from some parents when a high school here in the Lowcountry offered a course studying the Bible.  A snippet:

 At Fort Dorchester High School in Summerville, some parents objected to a new elective course that would focus on the Bible and its influence on language, art, culture and history. The mere suggestion that high school students might have the option of taking a course where the Bible is required reading was enough to send this particular group of touchy secularists into hysterics. The Washington D.C.-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State even intervened, writing a strongly-worded letter to the religious fanatics of Dorchester County, reprimanding them for their audacity.

The full article is here.  

I keep running across women my age laboring under the misconception that the conservative movement, in addition to not representing women’s interests, doesn’t really like them that much. More often than not, these are smart, ambitious young women who want to have both careers and families, who work hard for what they want.

What they don’t understand is that conservative principles and policies aren’t just for one kind of person, or one kind of woman. In a world with fewer government constraints, women (and men) are more free to make the choices that are best for them, whether that be marriage and family, or career, or both.