Red, Green & Blue: Do Environmentalists Always See the Glass Half-Full?
The polar bears are drowning. Large numbers of fish are disappearing from the oceans. Bottled-water companies and farms are depleting the aquifers. Chemicals in cosmetics are linked to birth defects.
The litany of bad news about the environment seems endless. Are things really that bad? Or do environmentalists tend to view everything they see through soot-colored glasses?
In answer to the latter question, I don’t think so. No, the sky isn’t falling and the human race isn’t likely to be wiped off the face of the Earth tomorrow. But there are very real environmental problems around the world, and pointing them out doesn’t make you a gloom-and-doom nabob of negativism. It makes you a realist, one who — I hope — is motivated to change things for the better rather than tempted to throw up one’s hands in despair and surrender.
Tags: environmental problems, environmentalism, environmentalists, negativism, reality, Red, Green and Blue
- Uncategorized
August 1st, 2007 at 8:32 am
The debate about climate change solutions has been hijacked by “negative environmentalism”, the view that thinks that improving the environment has to be done through big government plans to restrict foreign holidays, limit trade, force local shopping, or curb GDP. Bill Maher, for example, wants us to curb cellular usage to protect the American bee–even though there is no scientific validity to this asinine assertion.
Instead, policymakers need to adopt “positive environmentalism”. This view recognizes the importance of dealing with environmental problems but rejects the doom and gloom approach so commonly encountered by far left. In fact, the great environmental achievements over the past century have come from the private sector and we should reject the notion that there are long term limits to economic prosperity. Technology, innovation and economic growth are key to tackle climate change, and thus we must reject the pseudo-science of television jesters such a Bill Maher and the left.
Instead of a fearing economic growth, the far left should see it as a force for good. Within decades, technological progress, funded by growth, will break the relationship between GDP and carbon emissions. An approach to climate change that emphasizes technological progress hand in hand with growth offers the best way to tackle the issue of the developing economies. Our hypocritical argument to India and China, to do as we say instead as we do, must cease in trying to beat them into an international agreements that is not in their interests and would condemn their most vulnerable citizens to continued poverty.
There is a convenient truth about growth and the environment: becoming wealthier and more
prosperous in the coming century is not the enemy of environmental progress: it is its very heart
and soul.
August 1st, 2007 at 1:26 pm
Amen Luis… that’s the point I’ve often tried to make. We progress environmentally as we have the will and resource to do so. No one is out to destroy the planet but if a choice has to be made between eating and polluting we are going to eat. An economy of surplus resource requires no such choice and in fact indulges the general desire for a clean and healthy environment.
August 1st, 2007 at 1:48 pm
Susan… I’ve said before that I like the idea of a tax on oil to help index the cost at the pump to the real environmental and geo-policical costs. Then we could use that money to encourage alternative energy, etc. Do you think something like this would be useful?
August 1st, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Luis, I differ with your notion that "the great environmental achievements over the past century have come from the private sector." Bans on DDT and other chemicals, improvements in industrial emissions, cleaner Great Lakes, less smog in L.A., SuperFund cleanups and other advances have all been possible thanks to government intervention. Yes, the public had to clamor loudly for change in many cases first, but legislation and regulations paved the way for those improvements.
Jimmy, again we meet on the issue of resources: limited or unlimited. You’re right, of course, if it comes to a choice between eating or not polluting, we’ll always eat first. But, as Jared Diamond made clear in "Collapse," other societies now long-gone made that same distinction … until their pollution (or resource depletion) left them with nothing to eat. Then, the only "choice" left was a collapse of society.
I will agree with you, though, on the oil tax: I’d be all for it if the revenues could be used in a way to advance cleaner, more sustainable technologies.
August 1st, 2007 at 3:28 pm
The good thing about the oil tax is that it indexes the costs to the real impact and the market then takes care of controls. No need for a fat over-powerful bureaucracy to impose its will in ways that don’t respond to the needs of the day.
DDT is a great example of what I’m talking about though. We are a rich society and can afford other less harmful pesticides. Other poor countries, though, have suffered tremendously because our environmental zeal has imposed world wide bans in areas where they don’t have the resources to afford better and more targeted pesticides and application methods. As a result billions of people have been sickened and tens of millions have died from malaria because the only pesticide they could afford was banned due to our higher environmental standards.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Rumors of Rachel Carson’s hand in DDT’s (alleged) demise are greatly exaggerated. In fact, DDT continues to be used in many parts of the world. Plus, there’s the additional problem of creating DDT-resistant mosquitoes, which is a real concern. Then, you have to use something else.
Here’s some detail from Wikipedia:
As of 2006, DDT continues to be used in other (primarily tropical) countries where mosquito-borne malaria and typhus are serious health problems. Use of DDT in public health to control mosquitoes is primarily done inside buildings and through inclusion in household products and selective spraying; this greatly reduces environmental damage compared to the earlier widespread use of DDT in agriculture. It also reduces the risk of resistance to DDT.
August 1st, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Only last year did the WHO advocate indoor spraying of DDT for mosquito control. Some countries have operated under an exemption for a bit longer than that but the original ban has killed millions.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:10 pm
I think a lot of the “negative” news can also be very confusing and overly technical to a lot of people.
If you don’t already care about what’s going on and making a difference, people throwing depressing facts using complicated terms isn’t inspiring. And there’s no incentive to read more and try to figure out what people are talking about.
The negative needs to be discussed in simple terms and followed immediately with things people can do to make a change. What’s happening, how does it effect me personally, and what can I do to help. I think presenting things like this can make a big difference in how people relate to environmental issues.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:22 pm
Join in the action!!! http://www.11thhouraction.com