S
Courtesy AP Images.
The December 18 release of Star Wars: The Force Awakens may be the most anticipated in film history. The film will feature the return of characters not seen onscreen since 1983. Among those will be smuggler and scruffy-looking scoundrel Han Solo, portrayed by the legendary Harrison Ford.
Promoting the film in an Australian interview, Ford plotted an odd course toward a different sort of fantasy, climate change hysteria. From ABC News Online:
The veteran star of the Indiana Jones and Star Wars franchises did not mince words when pointing out his disdain for arguments between leaders and countries."People think of [dealing with climate change] as an adversarial process," Ford said."They think, well the United States did this with their resources, why are they now telling us that ... we have to adopt a behaviour that apparently they did not."Well, that's all water under the bridge. We're now all in this point in time on this planet. And if we don't work together, the consequences are disastrous."
Consider what Ford is implying here. He's acknowledging the tremendous benefits that modernization and technological development have provided for the first world, while urging us to deny that to the developing world. He's saying, in essence, that we ought to stifle the world's poor. His comments are constant with sentiments expressed throughout the broader green movement.
My friend and colleague David Strom, who advocates for life-affirming energy policies, notes the actor's blatant hypocrisy:
Ford owns a fleet of planes, including a jet he uses often, and he likes to fly up the coast of California to enjoy his favorite burger for lunch.It's hard to reconcile his carbon intensive lifestyle with his professed concern for the planet.
Indeed, Ford owns what The Daily Mail describes as "an enviable collection of aircraft." But even if he didn't, even if he drove a hybrid or lived off the grid, his success is due entirely to carbon-producing fossil fuels. The very instruments utilized to record and distribute his films were crafted from fossil fuels. Every production he's ever been a part of depended upon carbon-producing energy. The dollars spent to purchase tickets to his films were earned through carbon-producing activity. The world runs on energy.
Ford's hypocrisy, which is the green movement's hypocrisy, doesn't end with not walking the talk. It's worse than that. He wants to deny others the benefits which he continues to enjoy, even if it means sickness, poverty, or death!
This should be stunning. This should be scandalous. Consider it. What Ford and those who share his sentiments regarding climate change advocate is, in practice, the same thing critics of capitalism accuse the rich of doing. He's openly saying that he ought to be able to enjoy the wealth enabled by abundant energy while others do not. What a 1 percenter, right? Where are the equity cops on this one? Where's all the concern over inequality and the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer?
Ford's position on climate change, whether he realizes it or not, calls for the stifling of human life. This proves ironic given his offered reasoning:
"Nature will take care of itself — nature doesn't need people, people need nature to survive," Ford told presenter Leigh Sales."The planet will be OK, there just won't be any damn people on it."
Nevermind the particulars of how climate change gets us from here to a planet with no people on it. Let's consider how a lack of energy does the same thing, only quicker. Imagine life without fossil fuels. Imagine no natural gas to keep homes warm in winter. Imagine no fuel to transport goods to grocery stores. Imagine no petroleum derivatives with which to build computers, tires, or film stock. Life starts to look fairly bleak, doesn't it?
Is that really the world Harrison Ford wants to live in? Is that the world any green-movement acolyte wants? Or have they fooled themselves into believing that a planet without energy can somehow support the human population?
The green movement's chief thought leaders are keenly aware that a world without carbon-producing energy cannot sustain the world's 7 billion people. They advocate for fewer people. They advocate for a lower quality of life which at best deters reproduction and at worst literally kills people. Their view, while morally reprehensible, at least has a sort of logic.
Ford's position is stranger. How do you express concern for the Earth's capacity to sustain human life and then prescribe policy that removes that capacity? It's bizarre. Even if climate change will eventually kill us all, it will do so a hell of a lot slower than powering down.
Posts
