This
tells me that McVay, while he may have a background in environmental
studies, also has a predisposition to defend an industry that is his
livelihood. This makes his perspective about as reliable as an asbestos
salesman telling me that all those cancer studies are taken out of
context.

Of course, to
his credit, the man he’s taking shots at, Robin Meyers, is likely no
more versed in environmental impact than your average minister. Meyers’
language may have been harsh, but it was not biased by the need for
personal gain; that tends to tip this reader’s favor in his direction.

McVay’s
own agenda is easily qualified by his comment that “people like Robin
can cause severe economic harm and hardship for their fellow human
beings if their rants are followed before they are exposed for following
false prophets.”

That statement implies that in one
swift move mankind will cease the operation of a 100-plus-years-old
infra structure and immediately
begin using a new one simply because of a couple of hippies. Only the
ethos of the masses can dictate change, and it will not happen
overnight. He need not fear his industry collapsing.

I
can’t help but feel that McVay is being shortsighted when viewing the
relationship between climate change and the industry he holds dear. Even
if he’s right, the one thing he cannot attest to is the unlimited
nature of petroleum and its by-products. Because oil is in everything
from plastics to pesticides, it’s in our interest to make it last as
long as possible.

That
doesn’t mean that his industry dies; if anything, it means it lives
longer. A shift to vehicles that run on renewable energy might not
change what’s happening in our environment, but it will ensure we have
oil to produce the things we need in the future, everything from
artificial limbs to Ziploc bags.

McVay
goes on to say, “Haste makes waste, and foolish decisions need to be
avoided before all of the facts are evaluated with regard to man-made
global warming or other environmental concerns.”

I
actually agree with this statement. But the foolish decision is the one
where we waste a vital, extremely versatile and necessary product by
dumping it into the tanks of our cars.

Even
if we could conclusively prove that there is no environmental impact
from burning fossil fuels, we cannot ignore the precious and limited
nature of this commodity. We must do everything in our power to make it
last as long as possible.

The
Kool-Aid analogy isn’t a fair one. This isn’t Jonestown. Meyers and
people like me only want the preservation of life. There’s no cyanide in
our Kool-Aid — just a desire to help the future of humanity.

I
don’t believe that fully exploiting a limited resource does anything
other than leave us ill prepared for when that resource becomes scarce.

Sometimes great discussions happen over a drink. Why can’t that drink be Kool-Aid?

—Brandon Wertz, Norman