In response to Matt Samet’s anti SUV article:

I am writing this letter in response to Matt Samet’s contribution to the anti SUV campaign in the December edition of Rock and Ice. I didn’t write this to add a shrill or sarcastic tone to the conversation, but rather to point out a few things that are seldom heard from mainstream media sources.

            Because the debate is so unbalanced, it is understandable why Matt and so many other climbers come to the conclusions they have about environmental issues. Environmentalism is – justifiably - a staple of the climber’s mindset, so it’s understandable that many among us are susceptible to the arguments of the environmental extremists in our culture.

            Climbers are independent thinkers, which should mean that we base our opinions about environmentalism - or any issue - on objective facts rather than on one-liner headlines and rhyming bumper sticker slogans, as many in our pop culture do. We should investigate issues more deeply, and not allow a media machine with a documented track record of bias to spoon feed us our “information.”

            Among the facts that are too seldom heard are the following:

            President Bush refused to endorse the Kyoto protocol because it gave the U.N. primary authority over our own environmental policy-making, which would also impact our economy. No one should control that but us. The U.N. – to put it very mildly – does not have our best interests at heart. And even if you think it’s okay to subjugate our autonomy to others, the U.N. is not an effective body for world change of any kind. The proof of that is in their track record. But that’s another letter to another kind of magazine.

            Even more to the heart of the matter, the idea of greenhouse effect global warming is based on theories that are supported only by computer models. The same computer models, by the way, that are not reliable for predicting the weather for your climbing weekend. Why are we relying on them to tell us what will happen one hundred or one thousand years from now? There is no direct observation to support it beyond the fact that the world seems to be getting slightly warmer. In his article, Matt is consistent with the kind of evidence for global warming that is set forth by environmentalists - that snow is melting and some areas are warmer than they were thirty years ago. This observation points out an effect, but no cause. Furthermore, such an attitude makes the assumption that the Earth is supposed to be static and unchanging. It is not.  The Earth's climate runs in cycles - sometimes warmer, sometimes colder. Neither I - nor anyone I have ever read - argues that some areas now have less snow than they used to. What I object to is assigning blame to mankind for these changes.

            There are data and direct observations to show that cyclical solar flare activity has made our sun hotter in recent years – something for which even the most fanatically guilt-preaching environmentalist cannot blame humanity. This solar flare activity has also increased the temperature on Mars. Perhaps we are to blame for having sent that NASA rover SUV up there. 

            Also for consideration, the primary harmful emissions from cars are purported to be fluorocarbons. Yet all the automobiles that have ever been driven have cumulatively never equaled the fluorocarbon emission of one volcanic eruption. You don’t need me to point out that volcanic eruptions have been going on for a long time before we got behind the wheel.

            Our earth is well-designed and Master-crafted, which is why it was able to absorb the impact of Mt. Saint Helens, Chernobyl, and the Gulf War oil fires without the doom and gloom environmental impact predicted by many. It is also important to note that when doomsday forecasts fail to come to pass, the media tend to drop the subject.

            Extreme environmentalists put mankind in a secondary position relative to the “Mother Earth,” yet these same people are arrogant enough to think that we can harm it with our relatively trifling activities. The fact is that we as little humans are unable to have a large impact on our powerful environment by choosing paper or plastic, or by driving cars that use more gas than others

            The automobile industry rates the efficiency of a vehicle not merely by the number of miles it can go on one tank of gas, but by how many people or how much cargo that vehicle can carry with that tank of gas. Try getting seven soccer players, or a construction worker’s tools around town in a little hybrid. It may get great mileage per gallon, but it would take three of four such cars – all burning gas - to do the same thing as one Sequoia. I won’t even go into the fact that I would never put anyone I loved in a vehicle that goes by the name “Mini.” A city bus gets something like four miles to the gallon, but it’s considered “responsible” transportation by judgmental environmentalists because it carries so many people for that consumption. Let’s be consistent in our logic when we look at SUVs.

            I don’t claim to be a scientist, but anyone is able to find the facts on any issue, and scientific opinion is not reserved solely for people with lots of letters after their name. In fact, the next time you hear a doom and gloom environmental scientist, look deeper to see who is signing his paychecks. Of course, I realize that the same is true of scientists on the other side of the aisle. But what we need are people who base their conclusions on the facts - not their preconceptions.

            If you want to dismiss my arguments because I am not a registered authority on the subject, then most people in the environmentalist movement would be similarly disqualified. Anyone with a critical mind can weigh the facts of any issue. Just ask someone who has become an expert on cancer after contracting the disease. They get to understand it pretty thoroughly.

            I’m also not suggesting that oil is the best long term answer. There are alternatives out there being developed as we speak. When that technology is ready, the public will make the transition. That’s the beauty of a capitalist society where competition breeds innovation, and where public demand rewards the visionaries that bring superior technology to life. But in the meantime, we shouldn’t bow at the altar of every half-baked theory that tries to tell us the sky is falling. 

Marc

For a great - and exhaustively documented - read on this subject, pick up Michael Crichton's State of Fear. Or Bjorn Lomborg's Skeptical Environmentalist . Buy both below....