RE: Harvard Crimson: Requiem for Environmentalism and Earth Day

The original quote was that "the U.S. population has more than doubled since
1970." My comment was that, based on the cited website, the increase was
"only" 33%. "More than doubling" means an increase of >100%, not 50%. So
we're not talking about a 17% discrepancy, but a difference of a factor of
three (100%/33%). This is an important difference because the premise was
pollution had decreased in spite of a very large increase in population.

I doubt if environmentalists had not pointed out the problems with lead in
the environment, that we'd still be using gasoline with tetraethyl lead.
Those of us that are old enough may remember the fuss that was raised when
catalytic converters became mandatory. When the effects of acid rain on the
environment became too severe in the Sudbury, ON, area, INCO and
Falconbridge initially "solved" the problem by building taller smokestacks
but only because they were forced to do so. Later on, they installed proper
pollution abatement techniques. As a result, acid rain is much less of a
problem and air quality has improved.

If you spend some time in China or Taiwan, as I have, you'll note the
difference in air quality with that in Canada and the US. Tell me that this
is not due to differences in the environmental movements! When was the last
time the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire?

There is no doubt that, on occasion, environmentalists have overstated their
case but sometimes you have to hit people over the head with a 2x4 to get
their attention.

As to "exporting" our pollution to third world counties, again, the record
is clear: multinational companies will, if they are able, move their
industries offshore if they feel they cannot make a buck or two under more
stringent regulations.

Chuck

  _____

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Janice Matchett
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 12:58 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: RE: Harvard Crimson: Requiem for Environmentalism and Earth Day

At 02:26 PM 4/20/2006, Tjalle T Vandergraaf wrote:

Huh? "The U.S. population has more than doubled since 1970...." Am I
missing something?

@ Yeah. The substance of the commentary - the part you snipped off (which
I restored below). You seem to have a natural instinct for how best to
distract people as you drag your red herrings across the trail.

According to http://www.demographia.com/db-uspop1900.htm, the population in
the US was 205,052,174 in 1970 and 272,690,813 in 1999, or an increase of
'only' 33%.

@ "Only" 33%??? 50 % or 33 % = a 17 % difference. BIG DEAL! Using
logic, please explain how that 17% would change the bottom line --- point by
point -- of what he wrote.

( As an aside - Brezezinski may have mistakenly obtained his numbers from
organizations like this: http://dieoff.org/page54.htm -- where they say:
"More than 50 percent of population growth since 1970 has been caused by
immigrants and their descendants. The institutionalization of
environmentalism began around 1970, and a presidential commission
recommended population stability, yet federal immigration policies have
resulted in an additional 24 million Americans, with no end in sight. Baby
boomers surprised demographers by having small families and thus reducing
the expected population growth. But immigration doubled that growth. .." )

However, I wonder how much of the pollution has been "exported" by the
developed world to third-world countries. - Chuck

@ Ah yes... lets ignore the bottom line --( ie: the fact that
environmentalism is dead because the movement has "lost its credibility with
alarmist rhetoric and obsolete ideological ballast") -- and change the
subject again ... this time with another red herring (the supposed pure,
pristine, "innocent victims" of the eeeevil West).

Who other than the credulous - (who typically buy into negative and/or
alarmist rhetoric) - will fall for that?

~ Janice

From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [ <mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu>
mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On Behalf Of Janice Matchett
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 12:06 PM
To: asa@calvin.edu
Subject: Harvard Crimson: Requiem for Environmentalism and Earth Day
 
Item of interest to some, I'm sure. (Sorry Rich) ~ Janice :)

Requiem for Environmentalism and Earth Day: Long Live the Environment!
The Harvard University Crimson ^ | Thursday, April 20, 2006 2:21 AM | PIOTR
C. BRZEZINSKI
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=512890
Posted on 04/20/2006 10:18:19 AM EDT by rface
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1618257/posts
[snip]

Environmentalism is dead; long live the environment!

This pronouncement might seem a touch premature, especially to the 500
million people who will celebrate the 37th Earth Day this weekend-a
collective "not dead yet" wheeze. However, these numbers mask the growing
irrelevance of the environmentalist movement. Having lost its credibility
with alarmist rhetoric and obsolete ideological ballast, the movement must
develop a moderate discourse while challenging its previous assumptions and
outdated theories.

The contemporary environmentalist movement faces a stark choice: change
tactics or fade into irrelevance. Over the past decade, environmentalists
have achieved few political victories and utterly failed to influence the
general public. As indicated by a recent MIT study, the public knows little
about environmental problems, and cares less. Out of 21 national and
international issues, Americans ranked environmental problems 13th, well
below terrorism, taxes, crime, and drugs.

Alarmism-the environmental movement's basic strategy-has led to this dead
end. Since Rachel Carson's "Silent Spring," the movement has been dominated
by doomsday scenarios. Even on the first Earth Day in 1970, biologist George
Wald predicted that "civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless
immediate action is taken" while the New York Times warned that "man must
stop pollution and conserve his resources.to save the race from intolerable
deterioration and possible extinction." Fortunately, such forecasts have
repeatedly proven to be wrong.

Take biologist Paul Ehrlich's popular Malthusian broadside, "The Population
Bomb." Farsighted Ehrlich predicted that a "population will inevitably and
completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,"
causing world-wide famine and the death of "hundreds of millions of people"
annually from starvation. Oops-in the subsequent 35 years, increased
agricultural productivity exceeded population growth and the total amount of
cultivated land barely increased.

Ehrlich is hardly alone; the environmental movement has spawned a remarkable
number of would-be Cassandras. Between 1970 and 2006, global cooling
predictions mysteriously morphed into global warming fears. Concerns about
rampant Dodo-ism proved baseless: the rate of animal extinction in the U.S.
has been declining since the 1930s, and only seven species have gone extinct
since 1973. And rather than running out of resources, the world has
experienced a commodity glut, with the prices of most metals and minerals
dropping by 30 to 50 percent. The litany of failed apocalypses goes on.

Not that this history of crying wolf has chastened contemporary
environmentalists. Activists and researchers still issue dire warnings with
mind-numbing regularity. Just three weeks ago, a panic-stricken Time
magazine story on global warming shouted, "Be Worried, Be Very Worried."
Harping on worst-case scenarios like a 220-foot rise in the ocean's water
level, the article more closely resembled "The Day After Tomorrow" than a
serious report.

Although such scare mongering persists, it has reached the point of
diminishing returns. Knowing the movement's track record of false alarms,
the American public dismiss dire environmental warnings out of hand. Plus,
these alarming reports attract a disproportionate amount of media attention,
discrediting the environmentalist movement twice over: First when the
sensational predictions drown out more plausible reports, then again when
the highly-publicized disaster fails to occur.

...There are exceptions to this positive trend, but the overall direction is
unmistakable: The U.S. natural environment is improving.

Of course, environmentalists claim credit for this trend. Alarmists can't
lose: either doomsday comes true, or their warnings averted disaster.
Certainly, part of the positive trend is due to activism and government
regulations, but much of the change is a result of increased technological
efficiency as well as longstanding trends that predate the rise of
environmentalism.

Although the impact of these past achievements is uncertain, the movement's
future success clearly depends on a fundamental reevaluation of
long-unquestioned theories and policies. Doomsday warnings no longer shock
the public into action; instead, environmentalists need to develop moderate
arguments that don't depend on some calamity. This means abandoning
Soviet-style "command-and-control" regulation, epitomized by the Kyoto
Treaty, and exploring ideas, like the use of DDT, that are currently
considered heretical.

Thus, on the 37th anniversary of Earth Day, the environmental movement is
looking increasingly long in the tooth. Alarmist environmentalists have
overshadowed moderate, careful researchers, and undermined the credibility
of the entire movement. Until environmentalists cease depending on nightmare
scenarios, they will fail to influence the public at large. Let the next
generation of environmentalists begin to reestablish the movement's
credibility by exploring currently heretical ideas and producing moderate,
nuanced reports, even if they do not make for good press.

Piotr C. Brzezinski '07, an editorial associate chair, is a social studies
concentrator in Winthrop House. He is a member of the Resource Efficiency
Program. On April 22, there will be an Earth Day celebration in Winthrop
House from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m.
Received on Fri Apr 21 18:01:12 2006