ecorazzi.com :: the latest in green gossip

January 10th 2008

Pat Sajak Says We Should Live A More Spartan Lifestyle

Simon says "All or Nothing"

Filed under: not green — michael @ 9:32 pm

Fresh on the heels of his recent article challenging yet again the hard science on climate change, game show host Pat Sajak has penned a new tirade on the topic over on his personal site.

Titled “A Solution To Global Warming“, the article describes Pat’s grand idea that all environmentalists should eschew the modern lifestyle in favor of a more Spartan existence. Instead of demanding governments to step in and develop sustainable solutions for our energy needs, curb pollution, and improve the health and well-being of the populace — Sajak believes that environmentalists (or those who believe in climate change) should first reduce their own impact, “live in communes”, and have their own “uniforms and badges and secret handshakes.” Then, and only when millions have joined, does Sajak believe this collective will be able to prove any meaningful impact on global warming.

As usual, Sajak spins the wheel a little too hard and ends up coming across as some loon that believes environmentalism is some dark, underground society. He’s also a couple years late in writing this article as the U.S. is a much more environmentally-conscious society today than it was a short time ago. People are in fact living “greener” lives, saving energy, looking hard at where their products come from, and making healthier choices in terms of food production and building materials. We still have a long way to go — but no society simply switches overnight — nor does this one have to “give up” the modern lifestyle as Sajak alludes. With the eventual help of the U.S. government, we’ll be able to create technologies that advance our society in a more sustainable direction, not drag it back.

Here’s a funny paragraph:

“In short, they could become a major force for change. Carmakers would be driven out of business or forced to dramatically alter their products to meet the demands of this eco-friendly Gorian tsunami. Companies of all stripes would, similarly, have to adapt or perish.”

Where has this guy been the past year? Can anyone name one car company that’s not releasing or planning to release environmentally-friendly vehicles? Is there a major corporation out there that has not touched upon climate change or sustainability?

Someone needs to get Pat out of the studio more. I think a little fresh air — maybe even some time in a “commune” — might do him a bit of good.

January 2nd 2008

Pat Sajak Fires Up Global Warming Skeptics With 10 Questions

"Spins" the wheel of climate change dissent

Filed under: television — michael @ 7:55 pm

Leave it to a game show host to get everyone talking about global warming.

Pat Sajak, legendary host of Wheel of Fortune, is also something of a part-time blogger. Needless to say, his political views are firmly ingrained with the right — having served on the board of directors for the conservative think-tank Claremont Institute and penning occasional articles for the online site Human Events. You know you’re in scary territory when fellow writers Robert Novak and Ann Coulter share the same space as you.

Anyways, Sajak has just released a new piece titled “Man-Made Global Warming: 10 Questions” that seeks to spark further debate on the issue and how it is being addressed in the media, by politicians, scientists, etc. He has a very neutral, disarming tone to his writing that I respect — it opens up the doors for debate. Unfortunately, his questions are a bit flippant — almost mocking. Like #2: “Just what is the average temperature of the earth?” Um, 59 degrees. I found this by asking the question in Google.

I can completely see where he is coming from — these are reasonable questions — but without any answers it feels to me like Sajak is simply questioning the hard science; once again providing banter to muddy the waters. Needless to say, his comments have sparked over 200 replies going back and forth over man’s role in global warming. You can have a read over two different sets here and here.

I do want to point out one bizarre point Sajak makes in the article here: “If we were to dramatically reduce our need for international oil, what happens to the economies of the Middle East and the populations that rely on oil income?” This seems like a ridiculous reason to reconsider America’s shift to a more sustainable economy. Yes, there will be unintended consequences, but the United States will do itself well to develop a self-sustaining infrastructure. The Middle East has the same opportunities to evolve as we do. What’s embarrassing is if everyone else gets there before us.