Green is the new black. If you say a particular color is “the new black,” you mean it has become fashionable.

Sustainable living, vegan food, eco-friendly lifestyle, opposition to plastics, and reducing your carbon footprint are the new love-language of Green living.

The 21^st-century environmental movement is impossible to miss. So much so, environmental policies have now become a key political issue.

The most talked about policy in the United States is the Green New Deal, which proposes, among other things, eliminating air travel and beef in diet, and a complete overhaul of the energy sector. 

Businesses are now termed “green” and “climate-friendly.” Green buildings, green buses, green subways, and various other green products have become part of our daily life. “Go green” is the new path to salvation. 

But are these new Green obsessions just a fashion statement of the day, or is there any measurable, substantial impact from the collective Green movement?

Whether you are a person with regular 9 to 5 job or a student or a freelancer or a farmer or a retired veteran at home, different environmental changes have certainly impacted the way you live out your daily life.

The 20^th century saw remarkable changes in our environmental structures. As cities grew, most of the society’s economic activities were based around these “concrete jungles.”

There was also a considerable loss in forest cover due to expanding cities and increased agricultural activity. Concentrated population in cities also meant an increase in the local production of air, liquid, and solid waste.

Rapid industrialization enabled societies to harness natural resources and create transportation and housing facilities that made life easier for billions.

Sadly, there were also gross mismanagement of waste and abuse of the environmental resources. But much of the developed world developed the ability to control and manage these pollutions and mismanagements.

Today, we see most of the Western world largely free from land, water, and air pollution. In the developing countries, though, the situation is grim.

This contrasting state of pollution between developed and developing countries is better explained by the “environmental Kuznets curve.”

Kuznet’s bell shaped curve explains, using empirical data, the relationship between pollution and development. In early development, countries experience a lot of pollution (such is the case currently with India and China). But as these countries reach various levels of industrialization, the pollution begins to drop and eventually reaches levels at or below what it was before industrialization began.

Despite this reclamation of the environment in the post-industrialization developed world, there was huge surge in environmental movements. These movements were radical in their suggestions and began to vilify humans as a cancer on the earth.

This is not to deny the countless genuine environmental programs and organizations that help citizens make environmentally conscious decisions.

The segregation of household waste, planting of trees, proper disposal of sewage, tackling of human-wildlife conflict, and use of reusable and recycled substances are some of the few initiatives that truly addressed some of the major environmental concerns.

However, some meaningless environmental policies made their way into our homes. They were sold to us by emotion, and the public was informed that they had a moral obligation to act on these environmental matters. 

For example, veganism was sold as environmentally friendly, when it is actually not. Some of the key emotional reasoning included things like “killing animals is cruel,” (in which case, why aren’t we trying to stop cheetahs from killing gazelle?), “you can live without animal food,” “man is the only animal to eat for his greed,” etc. None of these reasons is justifiable on either atheistic or theistic moral standards.

The biggest of such blunders is the “carbon footprint” reduction movement. It was said that a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions from our daily activity would help fight a dangerous increase in global temperatures.

“Don’t take the bus, use your bike,” “Don’t eat beef, for the cattle industry contributes to global warming,” “Don’t’ use fossil fuels, they kill our planet.” These are some of the common slogans of today’s mainstream media and largely accepted by our society as facts.

As a consequence of well-planned media propaganda, the masses consumed these half-truths as facts and were persuaded to do “planet-saving actions.” On these issues, there is hardly any debate about the counter-opinion, the validity of presuppositions presented, or the technical aspects of the proposed actions.

Many of the claims made by the “Green brigade” lack substance.

Our world was made green by the very same carbon dioxide that they are against. An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration is scientifically proven to be one of the major reasons for the greening of earth in the past 300 years.

When the Little Ice Age ended in the 17^th century, the temperature began rising. This, coupled with the increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration, has been the primary reason for the significant increase in the rate of plant growth, including that of food crops.

This is the same reason why the greenhouse farming method uses high concentrations of CO2 to expedite plant growth.

So, if you are really going Green, you would promote an increase in CO2 emissions, not curtailment of it.

But what about climate change? Does not CO2 cause global warming?

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat. But has it caused a dangerous increase in global temperature levels? No.

For the last two decades, CO2 emissions have failed to cause a corresponding increase in temperature levels or an increase in mercury that can be deemed significant or dangerous.

All the future forecasts about our climate are now in doubt, because of the spectacular failure of our computer climate models. And please bear in mind, this flaw in our global climate model predictions was acknowledged by some of the staunch global warming proponents.

Currently, there is absolutely no way to predict future temperatures or sufficient evidence to conclude that the current warming is caused by CO2 emissions from human sources.

Until proven otherwise, real Green living is a lifestyle that does not curtail CO2 emission but appreciates the immense benefits from fossil fuels that propelled plant growth, industrialized our economies, and continues to make most of our lives easier every day.

Featured photo by John Cameron on Unsplash.