To the Editor:
Re “Will Big Business Save the Earth?” (Op-Ed, Dec. 6):
Jared Diamond highlights three of this country’s largest polluters as green advocates. In each example—Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola and Chevron—he acknowledges the enormous footprint that each company has. After each example, we hear the concessions that these companies are prepared to make toward resource conservation.
Unfortunately, no concession that these companies make at this point will make up for Wal-Mart’s carbon footprint across its corporate history, all the clean water thus far consumed by Coca-Cola, and the ecological resilience and indigenous food security that have been lost through Chevron’s trial-and-error prospecting.
Mr. Diamond’s and these companies’ apologetics will do nothing to stay the environmental crisis that we face as a species. In the end, attempts to appease green consumers, readers and voters are really an admission of the endgame that we are in.
In answer to the headline question, “Will Big Business Save the Earth?”: No it won’t; it is probably too late.
David John Goldstein
Columbia, S.C., Dec. 8, 2009
The writer is a visiting scholar of historical ecology at the University of South Carolina.
Note from KBJ: Two things. First, the Earth doesn't need saving. The Earth will be around long after there are human beings (though cockroaches might remain). Even the Hoover Dam will crumble eventually. Second, if it's too late to "save" the Earth, why is everyone (including the letter writer) in such a tizzy? Lie back and enjoy it!
Note 2 from KBJ: I'm reminded of the words of the great philosopher (and sometime baseball player) Mickey Rivers, who was asked why he never worries. "Either you're in control of the situation or you're not," he said. "If you're in control, there's no need to worry. If you're not in control, there's no need to worry." (This is my paraphrase, from memory.)
Note 3 from KBJ: The letter writer is a scientist (either natural or social or both). As such, he has no normative or evaluative expertise. Since his letter makes value judgments, his credentials are irrelevant and should have been omitted by the editor. Readers who lack training in critical thinking will be tempted to commit the fallacy of appeal to authority by giving the letter writer's values greater weight than they deserve, merely because he has expertise in some other field. David John Goldstein's values are no more important to me than the values of any randomly selected person. If I need moral advice, I will not seek him out. If I need advice about historical ecology, on the other hand, I will contact him.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 