Anyone remember a song that went like this:
Don't it always seem to go, you don't know what you got 'til it's gone, they pave paradise and put up a parking lot.
It’s been covered multiple times since.
I swear the most prominent cover was done by John Mayer, but apparently it was the Counting Crows and I'm having a major Berenstain Bears/Mandela Effect crisis over here.
Oh well. I actually like the song better now that it's the Counting Crows. I tip my hat to whoever altered the original timeline.
Regardless of who sang it, the song is on my mind. As someone who has lived in Michigan for almost 40 years, the onset of fall still creates unique emotions in me every time it hits. There are a lot of cliches that come to mind when I attempt to explain the emotions with words. When the leaves start to change and the air starts to cool it somehow inspires in me feelings of nostalgia. The air truly does feel different, I don't care what anyone says. And despite the ever present knowledge that winter knocking at the door, I still love the fall. It's a time period that never fails to remind me why I love the state.
I took a trip across Michigan this past summer. Drove from the very bottom of the state into the Upper Peninsula. I made this trip a lot as child, but I hadn't done it in probably 15 years. And while I don't remember precisely where it happened – it felt like somewhere just north of Mason, maybe even Lansing – my most recent trip was aggressively and without warning interrupted by a lot of this:
Now I need to make a few things clear here.
One, I don't like to get into the energy debate because it's so massive. It's a discussion with endless roads to go down and each is windy and complex and contains its own set of intersections that are just as confusing and impossible to predict.
Two, I don't have any issue with alternative energy sources and I'm not even opposed to the notion of someday relying less on coal, natural gas, or any other fossil fuel.
But I do have to say, despite those two statements, that it sure felt like Michigan was paving paradise and putting up a parking lot as I made my summer drive.
Now I'mm not so naive as to suggest that humans should never interfere with nature. I consider myself a nature lover, but you won’t find me on a soap box or tied to a tree making some confused claim that I’m here to “save mother earth from the evil humans.”
Quite the opposite, in fact, I consider one of humanity's greatest achievements to be its ability to safely and successfully harness nature to its own benefit. We've beaten treacherous threats to our existence and survived in places we have no right to survive in specifically by domesticating nature to suit our needs.
Energy is no different. Without exploiting nature and conquering the elements, nobody lives in Michigan. You remember the ice storm that hit the Midwest last winter? It was an event that knocked out power and impacted most people for a mere five to seven days in late February, and despite the relatively short duration, those people rightfully had to start worrying about their survival.
Not their convenience, not their preference, their survival.
No, you can’t have life in Michigan or live life they way we’ve become accustomed to in modern America without exploiting nature.
And yet, I’m still not sure about the direction Michigan is heading in this battle over energy.
Every five years or so some gravel pit or quarry attempts to get a permit to open shop in the area where I live. Their hope is to extract resources for profit for a decade or so and then move on. And while that doesn’t sit well with me as a potential neighbor for a number of reasons, I do understand that the reason these ventures are taken on is because they are a sure thing. They’re inconvenient, destructive to nature, loud, and for profit. But entrepreneurs fund these quarries for one reason: They know they will generate resources which humans desire and use, and they will never fail to do so.
As with any interference in nature, it's a give and take scenario, and different people have different opinions about when it becomes too one sided to be worth it.
Which brings me to the biggest issue I have with what is happening in Michigan under America's proposed green energy plan. I understand humans need energy, and I understand that people on the left truly believe that if we don’t alter our current energy situation, it will lead to devastating consequences in the future. But I always want a few questions answered when it comes to the give and take of how we wield nature to our benefit:
1. Will the human interaction with nature negatively impact the beauty of nature?
2. Will the human interaction produce resources/results useful to humanity?
3. In spite of the human interaction, could nature, under realistic scenarios, naturally reset to
what it was given enough time?
4. Without the human interaction, will negative consequences arise to humans?
5. Are we absolutely certain of the first four answers, or is the intervention based on massive
amounts of conjecture?
Consider the clearing of a forest for example. If you ask me if I want you to do it, my initial answer is no. I like the forest. But I am reasonable enough to understand that if you do it anyways, these things are true:
1. You are going to impact the beauty of nature - Negative
2. You will without question produce resources useful to humanity - Positive
3. Nature can and has recovered from such events - Positive
4. Not doing it will not cause future issues to humans - Positive
5. We know these things to be true and can verify it historically - Positive
So based on that, despite some pretty trees being harvested, which I don’t like, I do understand the logic of the move in light of how it impacts humanity and how it can be naturally “undone” over time. Interfering with nature is never going to be all positives, and I get that.
But let’s say it’s not trees being cut down.
Let’s say instead it’s a four million dollar windmill being erected in the middle of a field.
More realistically, let’s say it’s 150 four million dollar windmills being erected in the middle of a hundred fields. Or 500. Or 10,000.
In that scenario, based on the questions above, the only argument the left has on its side is their highly questionable claim that NOT doing this will cause future issues to humanity.
And to be clear, that is absolutely a legitimate concern, IF the claim is undeniably true and the future issues are undeniably massive.
But those things aren't undeniably true, and filling Michigan with 10 million windmills fails every other metric.
It DOES negatively impact the beauty of nature - Negative
It DOESN’T produce guaranteed results - Negative
Nature CANNOT naturally recover from the event over time - Negative
So can we really justify such a wholesale impact on the beauty of nature based largely on unpredictable conjecture?
The left seems to think so.
But I’m wondering if all we’re doing is paving paradise now to put up a parking lot we're guessing people might need in 500 years.