Letâ€™s say I do bother, big time. I turn my life upside-down, start biking to work, plant a big garden, turn down the thermostat so low I need the Jimmy Carter signature cardigan, forsake the clothes dryer for a laundry line across the yard, trade in the station wagon for a hybrid, get off the beef, go completely local. I could theoretically do all that, but what would be the point when I know full well that halfway around the world there lives my evil twin, some carbon-footprint doppelgÃ¤nger in Shanghai or Chongqing who has just bought his first car (Chinese car ownership is where ours was back in 1918), is eager to swallow every bite of meat I forswear and whoâ€™s positively itching to replace every last pound of CO2 Iâ€™m struggling no longer to emit. So what exactly would I have to show for all my trouble?
A sense of personal virtue, you might suggest, somewhat sheepishly. But what good is that when virtue itself is quickly becoming a term of derision? And not just on the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal or on the lips of the vice president, who famously dismissed energy conservation as a â€œsign of personal virtue.â€ No, even in the pages of The New York Times and The New Yorker, it seems the epithet â€œvirtuous,â€ when applied to an act of personal environmental responsibility, may be used only ironically. Tell me: How did it come to pass that virtue â€” a quality that for most of history has generally been deemed, well, a virtue â€” became a mark of liberal softheadedness?
Some good stuff in the article following, but he never resolves this question. The fact is that overpopulation is the enemy of all things green, and we’re unwilling to do what’s required to stop it: strong centralized leadership.