There was an article this weekend in the Wall Street Journal called It’s Too Easy Being Green, by David Owen. Here’s the letter I wrote to the editor in response–maybe they’ll publish it, maybe they won’t, but in any case, I can share it here.
Dear Sir:
David Owen, in his article, It’s Too Easy Being Green, points out the paradox of trying to be green in a consumption-driven world and cites the ease and push to consume as the real problem. I agree with Mr. Owen that over-consumption is a problem (though my concern is more for the wasteful and rapid use of finite resources than fear of global warming.) In any case, Mr. Owen failed to cite the real reason driving and flying are so cheap, and why fuel itself is so affordable: government policy.
Governments build roads and airports socializing the cost of infrastructure and removing that part of the equation from end-user consumption decisions. By building ever-widening networks of highways, the government encourages developers to build further out of town and allows workers to make farther commutes; by building more airports, the government subsidizes airfare allowing businesses and families to budget for more travel. (Many believe private transportation infrastructure is impossible but all airports used to be private and before the Civil War there were over 400 private road companies in the U.S.)
Another way the government promotes energy use is by employing America’s military to ensure that Middle Eastern oil is in friendly hands. These costly adventures, while greatly increasing the ultimate tax burden on Americans overall, greatly reduces the cost of fuel to the individual consumer.
Finally, government itself is responsible for the low cost of polluting, having decided more than a century ago not to allow strict interpretation of property rights to interfere with pollutants spewed onto private property from factories.
We don’t need government solutions to government-driven problems–take government down to its true function of protecting people and their property and the market will limit consumption and pollution.
Sincerely,
Monica Perez
3 thoughts on “Letter to the WSJ: It IS Too Easy Being Green, But Why?”
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Regarding your response to the WSJ article on the ease of being green, I’d like to add to your observation, ‘before the Civil War there were over 400 private road companies.’ The MTA in NYC, subsidized by revenue collected at the tolls of the intracity tunnels and bridges, with regular fare increases de rigueur, was formerly run by two private corporations. They were clean, safe and rarely introduced a fare increase. Then the NYC bureaucrazy stepped in, folded the private lines into one and dot, dot, dot.
Please try to take over Alan Hunt’s Sunday night show. See, I go to bed at 10 p.m. all nights of the week, even Saturday. But, I adore you!Also, please delve a little deeper, on your show, into the Federal Reserve and fiat money’s role in funding the wasteful spending of wars, welfare, and bridges to nowhere. If we could get rid of those 2 entities, we wouldn’t need to worry quite as much about who is elected to what position, because the gov’t credit cards/purse strings would be cut. The Left will love to hate the fact that the Fed is really just a non-regulated banking cartel anyway and increases inflation. Most Americans beleive the Fed is a gov’t agency, so even the voters on the Right may be happy to see the Fed go.
Thanks for the comment! I will try to get more air-time and earlier (my bedtime is usually 10pm too!) I did a whole segment on the Fed awhile back, I just asked my producer to dig it up for me so I could post it as a podcast. I will also make a point of addressing it again on the air sometime soon. Without the Fed the government would never be able to fight unjust wars and otherwise oppress us coming and going, I agree with you. Please keep listening when you can and don’t forget to call in to the show!