Global greening vs. the economy
- Dec 9, 2008
Widespread computer use was supposed to move us toward paperlessness. But, somehow, the opposite has happened. Since the emergence of the Internet, Americans are actually consuming 40 percent more paper.
One of the companies that helped create this problem is now working to solve it. Xerox is developing technology that will allow paper to be reused simply by erasing the printing on it. The company’s research shows that 40 percent of paper copies are tossed within 24 hours. If erasable paper makes it to market, paper sales will drop. That’s fine with Xerox’s Chief Technology Officer Sophie Vandebroek, whose mission is to create a profitable business by helping companies make do with fewer printers and copiers and less paper. Other new inventions include block ink that doesn’t require a cartridge and high-yield paper that is produced from about 90 percent of the tree, a process twice as efficient as the manufacture of traditional paper.
Xerox is saving money for its customers, helping them pollute less, and making billions doing it. The company is accomplishing this without being told to by the U.S. government or any international body.
I’m not sure that’s what the United Nations climate change “hawks,” gathered for a 12-day meeting in Poznan, Poland, have in mind. More than ten thousand people from 190 countries are on the rolls for the conference aimed at paving the way for a new treaty addressing climate change. The treaty, scheduled to be concluded in Denmark a year from now, will replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. That agreement enacted severe emissions limits on the countries that signed it. None of those goals were met. Next year’s Copenhagen Treaty may be enforced by a new International Court for the Environment that will bully governments into making drastic reductions in emissions.
The U.S. stayed out of the Kyoto Treaty. “Too expensive,” we said. “It would penalize growth and depress the economy. Plus, how could our efforts possibly affect global warming when developing nations, huge polluters like China and India, got a pass?”
Now we face another opportunity to place ourselves under a global climate regime. Certain world leaders are all for it: the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown, France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy, and UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon favor a “Green New Deal” involving massive public investments that would lay the groundwork for millions of green jobs to be created in the private sector.
But what kind of a private sector will be left after businesses have been hampered by draconian emissions caps or carbon taxes? And this concept of millions of “green jobs” is baffling. Right now, U.S. venture capitalists are skittish about investing in “green projects.” Attempts to foster widespread use of alternative energy are, at this point, unprofitable. There is money to be made helping people save energy and resources. But this should happen in the natural course of a market economy, not because of a federal or international program mandating actions in the name of “cooling the planet.”
Cathie Adams, president of Texas Eagle Forum, is in Poznan. In one of her communications from the conference she writes:
“…the entire focus of the meeting in Poland and next year’s meeting in Copenhagen is twofold, the creation of an infrastructure for; 1) technology transfers from developed to developing nations and 2) finance transfers from developed to developing countries…to redistribute wealth around the globe.”
Our care for the environment is a high value for most Americans, but the country’s economic survival is higher. We must hope and pray our lawmakers think twice before placing us inside a web of green global redistributionist mandates. Perhaps the fragile state of our economy might actually protect us from buying into the latest plans being hatched by the global socialists.
This won’t stop private businesses from innovating, maximizing profits with green technology and through conservation. Xerox came up with a machine that could make two-sided copies before climate hysteria hit, not because it was green, but because it’s efficient.
By the way, there’s a new “environmentally friendly” Bible out. Its paper is recycled, and its ink is soy-based. More than 1000 verses addressing God’s care for creation appear in green.
It’s God’s idea that man would tend the earth. That reality, not computer-modeled doomsday scenarios, should motivate good environmental stewardship.
Penna Dexter is a conservative activist and frequent panelist on Point of View syndicated radio program. Her weekly commentaries air on the Bott and Moody Radio Networks. She also serves as a consultant for KMA Direct Communications in Plano, Texas.
The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission is involved in representing Southern Baptists on issues such as creation care and environmental stewardship. If you would like to help us continue our efforts, please click here.
Further Learning
Learn more about: Science, Environment