Tag: sustainability

Member Post

 

I admit that one of my gut reactions to the COVID Pandemic was that the big push to view it on the media all the time must mean it was somehow connected with the “Sustainability Movement.” The year 2019 ended on the song and dance where you have Greta Thurnberg chortling about how we have […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Environmentalism: A Long View

 

“Sustainable.” People seem awfully fond of that word, using it more and more to the point where the XKCD guy figured out when the English language becomes only the word “sustainable” over and over and over again.

The problem with sustainability is that it assumes that, well, things can be sustained. That there exists a possible steady-state future where the environment isn’t harmed by mankind. We assume that, left to it’s own devices, the environment stays the same. The environment will change, and it will change in spite of our attempts to sustain it.

Why the Doctrine of Sustainability is Anti-Catholic and the Pope Should Reject It

 

Back in May, I noticed an article on CRISIS magazine’s website that I knew I wouldn’t have the proper time to devote to reading. It was titled, What Does “Sustainability” Really Mean?, so I added it to my menu bar for later perusal. It was worth the wait.

“Sustainability” is one of those watchwords which has found common usage across the political spectrum. On the left, it typically raises concerns about the environmental impact of humans using limited natural resources like water and fossil fuels. On the right, there’s more worry over the sustainability of a government or economic system burdened by $18 trillion of debt. Having read William M. Briggs’s excellent article hasn’t changed my mind about the latter, but it has given me pause about the concept of sustainability generally. There’s just so much we simply don’t (and can’t) know.

Feds: No Steak For You

 

shutterstock_93064210Every five years, the federal government comes out with dietary guidelines. 2015 will see the next set of recommendations. Hamburger lovers should worry, but a quick perusal of notes from the year-long series of meetings show that the committee will likely not break too much new ground: eat less red meat and more vegetables, fruit is good, soda pop is evil, etc.

Well, there is one big change: the assorted nutritionists, cancer specialists, and pediatricians have weighed in on agriculture and found it wanting. We farmers need to be more sustainable. No one could argue with that, although I’m not sure that their definition of sustainability and mine would line up.

Their mistake here is sort of interesting. When the dietary mandarins talk about sustainability, they mean agriculture should use less energy and fewer resources. Well, actually, they don’t know a darned thing about farming, but they know they’d like us to eat less red meat, and surveys of greenhouse gas emission usually credit cows as being large contributors. Although red meat consumption has been dropping like a stone, it hasn’t been fast enough for the dietary panel, and they’ve decided to give their recommendations a decidedly green cast.