Several months ago, after I published my four part article series on global warming, I recall regretting certain parts that I edited out due to normal editing procedures. Most regretfully, I edited out two predictions I made that are already being fulfilled by the environmental alarmists.
I made a statement that if Greenpeace and their ilk win the battle between their tyranny and our freedom that they would not be satisfied with ending coal fired plants and vehicle emissions. That as time progressed they would take up arms against mankind for harvesting solar energy and that they would rail against wind-farms for threatening to devastatingly alter the wind patterns of the planet.
Recently, the Matt Drudge’s fantastic website posted a story that showed the accuracy of my predictions. I must admit, I was surprised to see this sort of nonsense being popularized already, especially since the recent trend is beginning to show massive leanings against this alarm ism.
The article speaks about solar energy harvested by plants which are then harvested by humans. The author quotes scientists who claim that humans are “probably being a bit greedy,” and that humanity uses “a remarkable share,” of the plants on our planet.
The report covered in this article states that an entire quarter of solar energy is snatched out of the mouths of deer, goats, elephants, polar bears and bees and who is this evil thief? Why, we are, of course!
What the article fails to mention is that humanity plants most of those natural solar panels and cares for them as they grow. We live in a world of demand. We demand to have food, clothing, shelter, entertainment, security, rest etc. These things cannot be generated from nothing.
Imagine a world where humanity did not exist. All other species remain how they are today but humanity never existed (incidentally, this isn’t possible in any respect as all species interlock with one another in that the ecological world is quite economic). Imagine that there are no corn rows, no wheat fields nor tobacco. Imagine there are no tree farms for furniture and paper. Imagine no one crops pines in hopes of making a good Christmas dollar in December. Imagine that no one was here to cut the grass on the vacant lots that would be our homes.
What would that be like? Would there be any more animals? Economically, it is quite possible that other animals would compete for the resources humanity consumes. However, this is to ignore the obvious fact that humanity has developed advanced technology to help us produce more to meet our consumer demands.
Why are crops dusted? Why are trees hybridized? Why do we genetically engineer better corn stalks? We do this because it helps us produce more. Humans not only harvest energy captured by these solar generators we call plants; we put the initial seeds in the ground. We water these plants. We put fertilizer out. We weed for them. We clip away damaged parts to help them grow. Humanity may harvest one quarter of the energy from plants but we drum up a fair amount of that with sheer ingenuity.
If humanity were not here to consume much of this energy then it is quite likely that many forests would experience burn offs of the energy. A quick conversation with any dendrologist will show how antiquated our notions of forest fires truly are. The energy stored in dying trunks doesn’t simply disappear and the average forest produces far more energy than all the wildlife can consume. At some point a fire is natural and beneficial to keep the forest from eventually becoming a raging inferno that is impossible to stop.
This article contends that humanity dominates the resource of solar energy to the detriment of the rest of the natural world. What is more probable is a massive increase in the ability of other animals to flourish. Trees farms, which are planted with the maximum efficiency to receive sunlight as well as water and nutrients from the soil, result in the best wood harvest for the businesses that plant them. But with a farmed trees’ life span running between 25 and 30 years, several times the average life span of a tree nesting bird, these farms become perpetual grounds for flocking birds.
Food crops help animals because in any given harvest there will be certain percentages of crops that are discarded. Because of maximizing the efficiency of the system the growers can discard parts of the harvest. This obviously becomes food for wildlife again. Not to mention the fact that every farm takes into account losses from wildlife. Even with attempts to curb animal theft of crops, there will always be a loss.
What it comes down to is that articles such as the one mentioned here clearly leave massive holes in their arguments in hopes that the average reader will not pick up on them and buy the whole argument. Additionally, environmental articles are attempting to create a combative atmosphere between nature and humanity. That is quite easy to do since most of first world lives nearly and in some cases totally secluded from actual wildlife. Ecology is an economic system with give and take and mutual benefit all around. Humanity is a benefit to this planet not a detriment.
