Ask any environmentalist if they are a long-term thinker, and you will receive a reply in the affirmative. Notions such as the ten thousand year clock emphasize the importance of eternal stewardship. They place the well-being of the planet as priority number one. However, it is impossible to be protectors of what you are given if you are poor. You simply do not possess the resources to do so. As a result, what does anyone do when they absolutely have to consume something to live, such as food or energy, but lack the funds? If there is no work available, they steal it. Herein lies the fundamental problem with the environmental movement. If they claim to be long-term thinkers, they would realize that one cannot possibly responsibly manage his or her resources if they are impoverished. It is simply not a priority. Living, having food on the table each night, providing for your family, educating your children, and hopefully contributing to society in one way or another are all objectives of people, yet they are the only ones attainable by those at the bottom and very bottom of the income scale. As you move up that ladder, you are able to do more things: vote, volunteer, practice sound environmental habits, possibly even donate money to charity, depending on how high you are up the income ladder. That being said, how are people supposed to contribute to society and protect the environment if they are poor? They cannot. As a long-term thinker, I fundamentally know that a time of prosperity and ecological protection could happen if the billions of people in poverty, especially energy poverty, where to overcome their misery. So those who propose solar and wind power for Africa are doing enormous harm to those people. They cannot afford to pay those prices nor want the product. These people need the damned cheapest energy they can get and that is coal. Once they develop into a developed nation versus a third world or developing nation, they can afford energy sources like wind or solar more than they once could, but it will take a while for that to happen. To put it in perspective, renewable energy, unsubsidized, is still expensive in the United States, the wealthiest nation on the planet. Now go back to trying to provide renewable energy to Africa, where people live off dollars a day, some even less. Compare the average American income of 1900 to the income of today in 2011. The coal powered Industrial Revolution had not begun just and items we take for granted today such as our television, refrigerator, toaster, even our radios, were a luxury for people then. Now look at today, if you don’t have the latest iPhone you’re considered practically poor. Everyone has an HDTV, vehicles well-kept can easily last 10 years, sometimes 15 or more, and are comparatively incredibly affordable. My pickup cost $4,000 and works great. My point I want to stress to environmentalists is that things they consider evil, such as coal, are necessary for a prosperous and healthy planet. “Healthy!?” you say? Indeed, I do. Remember, the poor and very poor are desperate to get out of poverty and will do whatever it takes to survive, and hopefully, thrive. An example would be of cutting down a type of tree in South America for their Charcoal, which contributes to deforestation and the death of several Gorillas, with more sure to come. You disregard stewardship for survival. Therefore, you must get to the lower middle class before you can even think of being environmentally friendly.
