The Left has been preaching about empowering individuals to affect massive changes to our greenhouse gas emissions. The argument goes that if we all just act individually to do our own part, the problem will be solved. This is a false argument and does not withstand any scrutiny.
But the argument continues and persists. I think in part this is because people who have been told about the impending destruction of the earth want to feel personally empowered to do something to make a difference. Yet many of the things people do have no effect. Other than the zealots, most people now know that recycling plastics and paper is no longer cost-effective and most of that stuff goes into landfills. An article just this week revealed that most clothes that people donate do not get used but go into landfills. And many nuts think that banning plastic straws is going to save the planet. One used car tire probably weighs more than a million plastic straws, and that doesn’t count when people get sick from drinking from “washable” straws that really can’t be cleaned.
Recycling plastic was the big ask a decade or so ago, and many people and communities have embraced this activity, which uses a lot of water and wastes a lot of time, and evidently hasn’t had any impact on global warming, at least not according to “the scientists.” We are facing our imminent demise in 10 years, we are told. How come recycling hasn’t extending the timeframe for the end of humanity? We’ve been recycling for 10 or 20 years and that hasn’t bought us any survival time? What a farce.
Could it be that recycling was…a hoax? Could it be that washing out plastic containers and putting them in bins and having companies sort them and offer them for reuse instead of putting them in landfills has had no measurable impact on climate change? If that is so, why are we doing it…and why are we falling for the next thing we need to do?
AOC says we need to stop eating beef, riding on airplanes, driving cars, and all buildings need to be retrofitted to reduce energy use. Add to that list today’s author who claims we need to stop watching Netflix because that uses electricity.
But this just goes to show how most of these arguments are illogical. If people go to the movies instead of watching TV at home, they probably use 100x more carbon to drive there and back. The amount of energy used by an LCD TV is minimal, nothing compared to operating a car engine for an hour.
Actually, what the author really wants you to do is VOTE. “As citizens, we have a responsibility to put environmentally progressive leaders in office.” So the real agenda is finally revealed. The way to change the climate is to elect Leftist politicians who really care and will force society to reduce its use of fossil fuels, even if that means a collapsed economy, the rise of our geopolitical adversaries, even the eventual loss of our freedoms not just from enemies without but from within. But before they force you to change your behavior, they had better take away your guns because you might use them to defend your Constitutionally protected freedoms.
*Requires minimim of 5 Ratings to be displayed
Grading articles for bias is subjective. We hope that with widespread participation, we can give the reporters and editors at the Boston Globe valuable feedback on their professional work. Here are our suggestions for grading news articles for bias. (We do not rate editorial opinion columns for bias. But we do analyze the Boston Globe for overall editorial balance.)
Consider whether the article is completely free of bias (a grade of 10 or A), has been mostly free of bias (8 or 9, A- or B+), has been biased but not terribly or where the bias did not hurt the integrity of the underlying information (7 or 6, B or B-).
If the article was fairly biased overall, but subtle; or where the bias was particularly prominent but isolated to a single section, give the article a 5 or 4 (C+ or C). If the article was very biased but perhaps not intentionally so, perhaps a C- (3) would be deserved.
If the article was extremely prejudiced with major misstatements of fact, intentionally misleading, or ignored well known facts to advance a false narrative, give the article a D or F (2 or 1).
Reviewers must subscribe to Public Editor and agree to our terms of service to participate. Subscriptions are currently free. We recommend that all readers subscribe to the Boston Globe or the newspaper of their choice to support journalism, and to send the Boston Globe your feedback directly. Thank you for participating in Public Editor’s bias rating project!