Am I a big hypocrite when I write about radical climate change but then state I would not have a wind turbine on my land for any amount of money offered? For those unfamiliar with the process, wind turbine companies lease land from rural owners; lease payments are sizeable.
The advice of the publisher is, if we can’t say something in 500 characters, write an article. So here is a brief article.
I have a total of eighteen acres, ten of those are the piece of land where I live. I am anything but well-to-do financially. I maintain a cat sanctuary here because this county does not have an animal shelter, and the need is huge. There are so many sad stories I could tell! All our cats are tested for feline leukemia, and then spayed, neutered, and vaccinated. They enjoy life on our ten acres, and have warmth in the Iowa winter and good food always.
So am I a hypocrite to not allow a wind turbine here, all the while writing about radical climate change, some of which I feel has been brought on by human activity?
Yes, I am a hypocrite but then, we all are in one way or another. My ten acres are used for what I perceive as a very good cause; traffic on my land brought on by turbine trucks, would pose a real hazard to my furry family. I am a writer and need my quiet environment. My barn is “swallow central” in the spring and summer and I have lots of other birds and bats (no, the cats do not bother them much). I would be heart sick to sacrifice my land’s wildlife for the greater global cause. I can’t do it.
However, isn’t this what is wrong? None of us are willing to sacrifice for the sake of lessening radical climate change. You perhaps just cannot bring yourself to bicycle to work, at least not in bad weather. Examples are too numerous to mention.
But beyond this, I am not sure my sacrifice of safety, serenity, and wildlife, would make one bit of difference. Is the one wind turbine which my ten acres could hold, really the one turbine which would give balance back to the climate? Is your one drive to work really the iota of gasoline which makes the difference? (And if you do not feel there is radical climate change, I am sure you are hypocritical in one way or another).
Perhaps those who are anti-radical climate change feel this “laying on of guilt” is something religiously motivated. I offer my steadfast NO to a wind turbine on my land as proof that I do not succumb to a global environmental guilt trip. I could give you other examples wherein I am just plain selfish and feel no guilt. “Religion” is not what I feel, it is not my motivation.
There are extremists out there, either extremely interested in making money from true believers, or sincerely searching for a religious or spiritual belief, who might be called “false prophets” regarding global disasters, upheavals and chaos.
The truth is, we don’t know yet if they are false or not. Of course it can drag on, in what year can we be sure some cataclysm isn’t going to happen? Never?
So what is my point? I hate to sound like Spock, but my point simply is, radical climate change, partially contributed to by humans, EXISTS. It is real.
Reputable science supports it and even is in the forefront of getting information out there. We have given many links, written several articles based in research; it is dishonest to pretend we have not given evidence whereas others (anti) have given evidence. That is just game playing.
However, you do not have to agree with me. (What a huge revelation!) And I am not asking you to join a church or spiritual movement, quite the contrary.
I give you the dignity of not claiming you are brainwashed against radical climate change, so please do not call me brainwashed. It is a matter of integrity in debating not to rush to "tags." It is insulting to so easily claim a different opinion is “brainwashed.”
As for wind turbines, I am offering three links, one is pro-turbines, one is anti-turbines, one presents both sides.
As many others do, I perceive that radical climate change is probably unstoppable at this point. Yes, we have to hunker down and hold on! I am not telling you to crawl into a fall-out shelter with lots of cans of beans.
Reports of anomalous weather across the planet are nearly constant. It is happening. I wish we had tried harder to stop it in the Year 1900, the Year 1985, the Year 2000, and so forth. Maybe you do not think this wish is a valid one, that’s your opinion.
If it is unstoppable at this point, in a sense those of you who say, “It is simply happening, a major cycle that has happened many times on Earth,” are correct. I simply add that this time, for the first time, humans walk this Earth and have an affect (remember the butterfly affect? Multiply it a few million times, or if you prefer, don’t multiply it at all).
Green enterprise can be a good thing. Green enterprise can be sheer folly. We live in a greedy capitalistic society, every enterprise, every cause, every endeavor, is supposed to make money, the more the better. To say otherwise is considered unpatriotic. I am not sure why “green” is judged so harshly on this score.
The weight loss industry is now huge and self-serving (no puns intended). However, this is not to say that it is wise to become extremely heavy; extreme obesity does hurt health. One does not exclude the other. It is the same with “green” and basic climate change.
Also, any kind of innovation has hits and misses; this is true throughout human history.
And if someone wants to TRY to reduce his carbon footprint, he should be able to do so without undo criticism.
No one is trying to sell you a green product. No one is asking you to join church.
I write on what exists, as I perceive it. I base my perception on scientific facts.
You list scientific facts too. We have gone to different sources for our facts. I also have an awareness of all the extreme weather all over the world, rapid mass extinction of animals and so much more.
You feel it is a natural cycle of great change, or it is artificial climate modification, or there is NO climate change (global warming). Why are these inconsistencies not debated amongst you? What is it about “the human footprint” that causes the division?
Don’t we all have different opinions on lots of things? Many of those opinions are passionately felt. However, let’s call a moratorium on this debate. Or if you are up to writing an article, write one, if “climate” articles are accepted at this point (and I would not blame the publisher if they were not). But those 500 character comments will drive us all insane.