Professional environmentalists are all about ideals rather than reality.
With notable exceptions, the same people who deplore fossil-fuels because of the carbon dioxide they emit, also oppose carbon dioxide-free nuclear power.
That’s the only electricity source with the hope of scaling up fast enough to replace large amounts of fossil fuels, but most greens have declared it off the table.
In the grownup world, we need to go with what’s possible rather than our first choice. Significant progress is better than no progress.
It’s a similar situation where waste management is concerned. Over the years, greens have demonized landfills. Humans are capable of extraordinary engineering feats, but greens refuse to believe we have the brains, skills, or technology to construct landfills that won’t damage the environment.
For example, see this video, laden with emotionally manipulative language:
Exhibit 3 is a high-tech incineration. In the view of many greens, the only acceptable waste disposal ‘solution’ is recycling.
In the real world, immense resources are consumed collecting, sorting, and cleaning this material. In the real world, the market for such material has always been precarious.
Two days ago, I discussed a report written for the Ontario government that explores how to transfer responsibility for curbside recycling programs to the private sector. Its author, David Lindsay, is a green idealist.
Rather than prioritizing high population centers, Lindsay insists the smallest, most remote communities must receive the same services as the largest. In his words:
The transition process must ensure there is no fragmentation or gaps in service…All communities must be transitioned fairly, regardless of their size, location, or density… [Section 6.2, bold added]
In his view, concentrating on the largest centers, learning how to do recycling there especially well is unfair.
What nonsense. I was raised in rural Northern Ontario. My husband grew up in the significantly more populated southern part of the province.
Our childhoods were not the same, even though – as the daughter of an auto mechanic and the son of a steelworker – we were both working-class kids.
My family’s telephone was a party-line shared amongst neighbors who could listen in on your conversations. His family’s telephone line was private. I had three television stations. He had several.
Today, people residing in small towns don’t have the same access to high-speed Internet or MRI machines as those who live in large urban centers.
Cannabis, which recently became legal in Canada, is regulated by each province. So far only 25 retail outlets have been approved here in Ontario. Equal access doesn’t apply in that case.
(Take a look at the map appearing above. Notice the large expanse of territory labeled ‘Ontario.’ Then notice where the stores are located.)
This begs an obvious question: what is so bleeping special about curbside recycling? Why does Lindsay insist on a standard in that context that isn’t the norm elsewhere in our lives?
Read more at Big Pic News
Liberals believe they know the one best way that things must be done so everything must be controlled by an all powerful top down government. That is why in the European Union all farmers must place their compost pile on the same place on their property. Having everything the same not only violates freedom of choice, it is not possible because everything isn’t the same. Public transportation will never be feasible where I live. In addition my father’s property will never have cable or high speed internet.
I remember when the government declared that high speed Internet was a priority for all Canadians. In a classic example of virtue signalling, Nunavut was the first on the list. Many years later, rural southern Ontario is still waiting.
My county recently decided to make a lump sum payment to our recycling contractor. Demand for recyclables was so low, their business was bleeding red ink.
In other words, unsustainable.
Nice post Donna.
“Why does Lindsay insist on a standard in that context that isn’t the norm elsewhere in our lives?”
Because Lindsay is a socialist-marxist sociopath.