The world (or at least the media) celebrated Earth Day this past Tuesday, but all I could think about was unintended consequences. You know, where “the best laid plans of mice and men” lead to disasters far greater than the problems they were supposed to resolve.
It’s the Law of Unintended Consequences, and an often cited example is American financial support for Islamic freedom fighters during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 1980s. Funding the fight against Soviet expansionism seemed like a good idea at the time but, in hindsight, it also proved to be a lightning rod for gathering together a generation of militant jihadists to gain military savvy, share extremist ideologies and get cosy with their comrade in arms, Osama bin Laden.
We all know how well that turned out for the U.S.
Similarly, we are now seeing how well our environmentally friendly plan to use biofuels (derived from plants) instead of oil and gas has now led to reduced food production, high food prices and predictions of food riots and massive starvation over the next number of months.
Oops. Who would have guessed that a well-intended plan to save the environment would lead to food shortages, skyrocketing prices and death?
Yet the European Union made this plan a key environmental strategy and it seems determined to stay on this disastrous course to save the planet, even at the expense of human life. In the U.S., the demand for biofuels has led to the deforestation of large portions of previously undisturbed land. In North America, farmers are increasingly using their land to satisfy the global demand for corn (to create biofuels like ethanol). That means less land for growing less-lucrative staple crops like wheat.
The lowly light bulb is another example of bad environmental policy and the Law of Unintended Consequences. Power companies, governments and manufacturers (who really haven’t had a dramatically new concept to sell since the light bulb was invented) have all jumped on the energy-saving bandwagon to urge consumers to toss out traditional incandescent light bulbs in favour of the new CFL’s (compact fluorescent light bulbs) that consume 75 per cent less energy, cost less and last much longer.
But CFL’s are also toxic to humans and to the environment when we eventually dispose of them. Oops.
CFL’s contain the neurotoxin mercury in amounts that are said to be very small (about five milligrams and smaller than the point of a pen). But even that is enough to contaminate 6,000 gallons of drinking water beyond safe drinking levels.
An even bigger problem is presented when CFL’s break, so it’s worthwhile to check the Internet for the 11-step protocol for cleaning up a broken CFL. The first steps involve leaving the room and shutting off air conditioners or furnaces that move the air around. If you’re pregnant, I suggest you go out the door and keep right on walking. For everyone else, a complicated cleanup procedure ensues. Let’s just say you may want to keep the HAZ-MAT number up on the fridge.
Finally, there are the unintended consequences that will inevitably follow our plan to reduce carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels that have been widely condemned (rightly or wrongly) as the cause of global warming. Therefore, the latest fad is for individuals to become “carbon neutral” or to reduce their “carbon footprint” on the Earth by reducing use of electricity and gasoline, by walking instead of riding and staying home instead of taking a flight to some exotic vacation resort.
Many western governments, including Canada’s, have committed to large reductions in CO2 emissions and are in the process of creating costly new regulations and laws to enforce them.
But in our haste to demonize CO2, we can’t lose sight of the fact that CO2 isn’t a pollutant. It has nothing to do with smog or acid rain. Rather, it is a naturally occurring gas that plants need.
In fact, greenhouse operators have long used increased CO2 levels to increase production of hothouse crops. It is estimated that a CO2-infused greenhouse enhances crop production by 40 to 50 per cent. Take time to consider that CO2 is mankind’s friend the next time you bite into a juicy hothouse-grown tomato.
Frankly, we still don’t know what the consequences will be for setting emissions reduction targets. Costs of production of basically everything will rise significantly, as will the prices of related goods and services. All of this is expected to undermine economic growth, job creation and our standard of living.
We’re already complaining about high gas and food prices; but they could be nothing when compared to the costs we will face when carbon emissions are taxed and regulated.
Dr. Ross McKitrick, an environmental economist at the University of Guelph, believes that rational decision-making on environmental issues is being squeezed out by highly emotional political rhetoric (another unintended consequence of environmentalism).
He says: “It’s easy for governments to impose targets, but if the consequences involve slashing energy consumption and wrecking the economy, then where’s the benefit?”
Beware of our bungled and short-sighted attempts to save the environment. This situation is ripe for manipulation by the Law of Unintended Consequences.
- Defender to defendant - Saturday January 29, 2011 at 9:16 am
- Grief or glamour? - Saturday January 22, 2011 at 8:24 am
- Forget blame game - Saturday January 15, 2011 at 7:48 am
