Eco-illogical

Ben-Peter Terpstra
In the Green Inc. section of The New York Times, James Kanter walks readers through the eco-benefits of naturism. Apparently, nude vacations are green vacations.

The Green Inc. section, ironically enough, seeks to promote issues relating to "Energy, the Environment and the Bottom Line."

The suspiciously knowledgeable writer types:

Where to go? France is already a top destination for "textilists" (a term some naturists use to describe clothes-wearers) but also seems to be one of the most appealing spots for vacationing in the buff.

Readers are also introduced to the walk-through-the snow nudists:

In the Swiss Alps, nude hiking in winter seems to be a growing phenomenon - although some locals are trying to outlaw the practice, as my colleague John Tagliabue wrote this year.

Of course, it never occurs to the tree-first writer to raise the obvious questions: If global-warming and skin cancers are good friends, then why are "green" naturists exposing themselves? And, do global cooling trends across the globe suggest that the beach nudists are in trouble? Or how about this for logic: Do we really need more obese mammals on our beaches?

Face it. Green writers are eco-illogical thinkers.

Need more evidence? You don't have to walk too far (but you do have to walk with the traffic). Tree-first exercise gurus are leaders in stupidity. Of particular interest, though, is the disciple who cycles or walks to work to "save the planet."

I cannot overstress the idiocy of walking with traffic. Wouldn't it be healthier to take a long walk in the park, and cool down with a juicy Cuban? Or are car fumes healthy and cigar emissions less so? The more you question "the science" the less science you'll see. And, in any event, is showering (before and after cycling) and drinking copious amounts of water ecologically sustainable?

In 2009's Heaven and Earth Australia's Professor Ian Plimer points out (p.443):

In the UK, a high school book version of An Inconvenient Truth has been circulated. It is replete with a good dose of schoolboy howlers. For example, the photograph of the mosquito is that of a parasitic wasp and the photograph of the tsetse fly is indeed a photograph of a tsetse fly, but with two legs missing.

And it gets sillier (p.449):

Almost every time a global warming story is featured on television, there is a background image of a cooling tower on a coal-fired power station. The visible plume is not CO2, it is H20. The plume of minute water droplets is the visual stimulus to support the popular view that CO2 is a pollutant of human origin. Not only is this a misleading image, but without the power station the television program could not be broadcast.

Many liberal Democrats, though, if questioned, will locate the foundation for their green fundamentalist faith on Planet Gore. They live to make a new state-controlled tomorrow. Still others (eco-feminists come to mind) are trying to get back at daddy. God, the Father? No. Mother Earth rules!

In older times, green hysteria was less fashionable because people lived deeper, more meaningful religious and philosophical lives outside The Church of Global Warming. Or because they prized mathematics more than we do, or because they believed in holding their politicians to account, or because they lived outside cities and were closer to nature's mood swings.

This is not to say we can't laugh at liberals. It beats crying. It beats using one square-sheet of toilet paper too. Statements that the warming movement is, or, should be viewed as a morally superior system, are as persuasive as Meghan McCain's temper tantrums.

But green organizations like the National Resources Defense Council (NRCD) thrive on hypocrisy - and in Green Inc. Christine MacDonald give us another hilarious example (p.79):

...NRDC, meanwhile, has enlisted the rock band Green Day. For a $10 dollar donation, you can get dog tags, specifically designed out of recycled metal by lead singer Billie Joe Armstrong and his wife, Adrienne Nesser. WWF sells panda coffee mugs, T-shirts, and safari hats.

What about the "carbon footprints" involved in making these products? The raw materials, manufacturing, and shipping come with greenhouse gas bills attached...

I buy, therefore I'm green? It's very Californian.

Romans and countrymen, logic tells us that critical-thinkers are heretics in a global-warming culture; it's only how you feel the so-called facts. The unwritten liberal law determining which philosophy gets to keep the ball is clear. Whichever side, screams the loudest, makes up the most apocalyptic stories, or promotes a hypocritical lifestyle, gains the dead-tree media's respect (until a depression hits Malibu).

In: Totally nude beaches, walk-to-work-and-preach customs, naked ski camps, global warming, driving "hybrids" to airports, recycled dog tags, panda coffee mugs.

Out: Textilists, man-sized cars, engineers, leather belts, climate history, meat consumption, pizza trays, nuclear technology, calculators.
In the Green Inc. section of The New York Times, James Kanter walks readers through the eco-benefits of naturism. Apparently, nude vacations are green vacations.

The Green Inc. section, ironically enough, seeks to promote issues relating to "Energy, the Environment and the Bottom Line."

The suspiciously knowledgeable writer types:

Where to go? France is already a top destination for "textilists" (a term some naturists use to describe clothes-wearers) but also seems to be one of the most appealing spots for vacationing in the buff.

Readers are also introduced to the walk-through-the snow nudists:

In the Swiss Alps, nude hiking in winter seems to be a growing phenomenon - although some locals are trying to outlaw the practice, as my colleague John Tagliabue wrote this year.

Of course, it never occurs to the tree-first writer to raise the obvious questions: If global-warming and skin cancers are good friends, then why are "green" naturists exposing themselves? And, do global cooling trends across the globe suggest that the beach nudists are in trouble? Or how about this for logic: Do we really need more obese mammals on our beaches?

Face it. Green writers are eco-illogical thinkers.

Need more evidence? You don't have to walk too far (but you do have to walk with the traffic). Tree-first exercise gurus are leaders in stupidity. Of particular interest, though, is the disciple who cycles or walks to work to "save the planet."

I cannot overstress the idiocy of walking with traffic. Wouldn't it be healthier to take a long walk in the park, and cool down with a juicy Cuban? Or are car fumes healthy and cigar emissions less so? The more you question "the science" the less science you'll see. And, in any event, is showering (before and after cycling) and drinking copious amounts of water ecologically sustainable?

In 2009's Heaven and Earth Australia's Professor Ian Plimer points out (p.443):

In the UK, a high school book version of An Inconvenient Truth has been circulated. It is replete with a good dose of schoolboy howlers. For example, the photograph of the mosquito is that of a parasitic wasp and the photograph of the tsetse fly is indeed a photograph of a tsetse fly, but with two legs missing.

And it gets sillier (p.449):

Almost every time a global warming story is featured on television, there is a background image of a cooling tower on a coal-fired power station. The visible plume is not CO2, it is H20. The plume of minute water droplets is the visual stimulus to support the popular view that CO2 is a pollutant of human origin. Not only is this a misleading image, but without the power station the television program could not be broadcast.

Many liberal Democrats, though, if questioned, will locate the foundation for their green fundamentalist faith on Planet Gore. They live to make a new state-controlled tomorrow. Still others (eco-feminists come to mind) are trying to get back at daddy. God, the Father? No. Mother Earth rules!

In older times, green hysteria was less fashionable because people lived deeper, more meaningful religious and philosophical lives outside The Church of Global Warming. Or because they prized mathematics more than we do, or because they believed in holding their politicians to account, or because they lived outside cities and were closer to nature's mood swings.

This is not to say we can't laugh at liberals. It beats crying. It beats using one square-sheet of toilet paper too. Statements that the warming movement is, or, should be viewed as a morally superior system, are as persuasive as Meghan McCain's temper tantrums.

But green organizations like the National Resources Defense Council (NRCD) thrive on hypocrisy - and in Green Inc. Christine MacDonald give us another hilarious example (p.79):

...NRDC, meanwhile, has enlisted the rock band Green Day. For a $10 dollar donation, you can get dog tags, specifically designed out of recycled metal by lead singer Billie Joe Armstrong and his wife, Adrienne Nesser. WWF sells panda coffee mugs, T-shirts, and safari hats.

What about the "carbon footprints" involved in making these products? The raw materials, manufacturing, and shipping come with greenhouse gas bills attached...

I buy, therefore I'm green? It's very Californian.

Romans and countrymen, logic tells us that critical-thinkers are heretics in a global-warming culture; it's only how you feel the so-called facts. The unwritten liberal law determining which philosophy gets to keep the ball is clear. Whichever side, screams the loudest, makes up the most apocalyptic stories, or promotes a hypocritical lifestyle, gains the dead-tree media's respect (until a depression hits Malibu).

In: Totally nude beaches, walk-to-work-and-preach customs, naked ski camps, global warming, driving "hybrids" to airports, recycled dog tags, panda coffee mugs.

Out: Textilists, man-sized cars, engineers, leather belts, climate history, meat consumption, pizza trays, nuclear technology, calculators.