Save the Planet, Ban Bonfires

One of my major problem with the environmental movement is that they focus on restriction rather than a solution. In Seattle, the Parks and Recreation Board is trying to decide whether beach bonfires should be banned because of carbon emissions. Story from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.

But Seattle Parks and Recreation might do what even this week's chilly weather couldn't -- douse the long tradition of beach bonfires at Alki and at Golden Gardens.

Park department staff is recommending reducing bonfires at the two beaches this summer and possibly banning them altogether next year.

The park board will hear the recommendation Thursday, and the city plans to run public-service announcements and hand out brochures later this month about the effects of bonfires on global warming.

According to a memo to the park board from the staff released Thursday, "The overall policy question for the Board is whether it is good policy for Seattle Parks to continue public beach fires when the carbon ... emissions produced by thousands of beach fires per year contributes to global warming."

Under the proposal, the department in July would reduce the number of fire rings at Alki from six currently to three and at Golden Gardens from 12 to seven.

Then later this year, the department would consider banning bonfires or requiring fees and permits to reduce the number of bonfires next year.

When you think of things that give off the most carbon emissions, you automatically think of bonfires, right? What an utter waste of time and taxpayer money. Especially the public service announcements and brochures. If you're going to ban bonfires, what other fires are going to be banned as well? Why not ban all outdoor fires? You have to do everything possible to stop global warming, don't you? Nothing should be off the table, right?

This is a problem I have with much of environmentalism today. Just for argument's sake, I'm going to take global warming as a given. With that given does it make more sense to look for innovative solutions to a problem or restrict carbon emissions and go back a few decades technologically. I would hope the former would be the way to go. Unfortunately, many seem to think that you should just restrict all actions that create carbon emissions. I find it utterly ludicrous that we should just stop technological progress to stop global warming immediately. But that's the message one gets from much of the environmental movement.

And that leads me to another question. Is this really about global warming? For many environmentalists, I don't believe so. I personally believe many are using the threat of global warming to try and push through socialism and punish the capitalist West. If you are opposed to capitalism and the industrialism associated with it, what better way to get rid of it than by claiming that industrialism is destroying the planet. That's certainly not true for all of the environmental movement, but this motivation is nonetheless significant.