This post may contain affiliate links. Please read our disclosure for more information.
Last year I went to Dallas on business and had the opportunity to meet up with an old friend from college. Tim, a fellow Long Island boy, had recently got a promotion and transferred to Dallas so he and his girlfriend could be closer to her aging parents.
I hadn’t seen Tim in at least ten years. But before the bartender delivered the first round of PBRs, I was transported back in time. It was as if I saw Tim just yesterday and we were now shooting the breeze at PJ Bottoms or some other godawful dive bar that parked itself just beyond the sweep of Buffalo University’s bucolic campus. Tim is that type of a guy.
But here’s where things get interesting. Tim is the quintessential liberal. And I don’t mean that in a bad way. He’s not a trigger-seeking SJW who can’t wait to preen his superior ethics in front of anyone who dares to run afoul of the progressive catechism. No, he has the “right” beliefs, not because they were handed down to him from the high priests of liberalism, but because they are the wellspring of his reason and intellect. In other words, Tim is an honorable man. And though we’re on opposite ends of the political spectrum, I’ve always respected him for his views. In fact, I’ve always looked to him as a sort of moral compass.
Okay, the stage is set. In one bar stool sits the cool liberal guy. In the other bar stool sits the deplorable right-winger. All of a sudden, the cool liberal guy whips out his smartphone and shows the deplorable right-winger a video he recently shot. For his girlfriend’s birthday, he bought her a brand new car, and he captured her reaction when she opened the garage and saw it. It’s a great video. And his girlfriend’s reaction is indeed priceless. But something about the video alarmed me. As Tim panned across the driveway to hone in on his girlfriend, he managed to catch a chunk of his house, and his house is huge. It’s a freakin’ McMansion.
Now don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against McMansions. And Tim can certainly afford his. But Tim’s a firm believer in man-made climate change, and it just struck me as odd that someone with his environmental concerns would own a home so big. It’s just him and his girlfriend, after all. Do they really need a 4,000 square foot house?
In Tim’s Defense
To be fair to Tim, I didn’t question him about the size of his home. I hadn’t seen him in at least ten years, and for me to imply that his housing purchase was an ethical lapse would have been beyond rude. So let me come to Tim’s defense.
First, I think part of the reason Tim bought a McMansion is because he lived in a 600 square-foot apartment in Manhattan. And while tiny homes are all the rage now, not everyone is psychologically suited to dwell in a confined space for eternity. So I can understand why Tim would want more elbow room—especially when the price of elbow room in Texas is remarkably cheap. I know this sounds ridiculous, but a 4,000 square-foot house in Dallas is cheaper to purchase and maintain than a 600 square-foot apartment in Manhattan.
Second, I think the main reason Tim bought a McMansion is because he’s human. Scarcity has haunted man ever since he emerged from primordial ooze, and it’s in man’s DNA to horde, stockpile, and prefer the larger over the smaller. Our ancestors who behaved otherwise were less likely to survive the next drought, plague, or war. Tim, therefore, is just obeying thousands of years of evolutionary biology. It’s not his fault that he lives in a country where the scourge of scarcity has been largely subdued.
Final Thoughts
I penned this post, not to chastise an old college buddy, but to comment on the powerful lure of stuff. Tim is a far better person than I am, and yet he couldn’t control his impulse for more. Despite all his concerns for rising CO2 levels, he chose a house with a prodigious carbon footprint over a house with a modest carbon footprint.
Now consider the 2.5 billion Chinese and Indians. They are now approaching an era where they too can subdue scarcity. Do you think they’ll forego such things as cars, paved roads, indoor plumbing, electricity, central heating, air conditioning, and, yes, McMansions in order to save the planet?
They may talk a good game at UN climate summits, but they have the same DNA as Tim. So my guess is that they’ll say, “Damn CO2 levels. Full speed ahead with modern conveniences.” And if this is the case, we’re all doomed. You can’t deliver modern conveniences to billions of people without a crapload of carbon.
Okay, groovy freedomists, that’s all I got. I’m a man-made climate change skeptic because I’m an eternal optimist. But what say you? Are 99% of climate scientists correct? Will our DNA and rising CO2 levels conspire to cook the planet? I’d love to hear your thoughts. Peace.
Leave a Reply to Michael Cancel reply