Re: Harvard Crimson: Requiem for Environmentalism and Earth Day

On 4/21/06, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> At 03:08 PM 4/20/2006, George Murphy wrote:
>
> & even to the extent that the article's main thesis is correct, the author
> fails to give any credit to the environmental movement for helping to bring
> about improvements in environmental quality. .."
>
>
> *@ Careful readers* know that's not so. They know he wrote this:
>
>
> "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."
>
> *~ Janice
>

I just carefully read it and I'm sorry but it doesn't follow. The author is
right to give credit to technology (and thus engineers like myself) but I
see no credit to environmentalism here. In fact,by saying the trends predate
environmentalism the author is specifically eschewing credit to them. I have
seen no evidence of improvement in the environment before the 1970s while
there has been considerable success in many areas after it. For example, I
recently visited Los Angeles and I can actually breath there now. :-) It is
also helpful to compare and contrast with the former Soviet Union during the
same time period. Eastern Europe suffered great environmental devastation
during the time period we were cleaning up. This is a cautionary tale for
those who might see socialism as a solution to our environmental problems.

What's necessary is to look into the engineering enterprise before credit
for the environmental successes is properly assessed. Engineers are really
good at solving problems put in front of us. Give us a target of time, cost
and quality and as long as it is not unrealistically unconstrained we can
achieve that goal. On the other hand, if we get vague requirements and
constraints and we will flail around experiencing "paralysis by analysis". This
is the value that the environmental movement gave us: clear, unambiguous,
and measurable targets. Engineers working in a free market were able to hit
those targets. If it is true that environmentalism is dying it's dying from
being too successful as we are hitting diminishing returns on a number of
fronts with the notable exception of greenhouse gases. I see no reason why
we cannot be successful here because heretofore we have prioritized aerosol
pollution and eliminating CFCs. If we focus instead on greenhouse gases we
will do more good than squeezing out the last part per billion in other
pollutants. Note to Janice: I am not advocating Kyoto. Kyoto does not
address China and India. The cap and trade provisions rewarded the Russians
for their economy collapsing since the early 1990s (which is the benchmark
for cap and trade). This gave them carbon credits to sell even though they
have some of the dirtiest power plants on the planet.

Call it the Republican War on Science or the Scientists' War on Republicans
we see yet another example where the warfare model has failed us. Some
environmentalists are against business and some businessmen are against
environmentalists. But, what the successes outlined in the essay shows is
that by promoting cooperation we can lick this problem together. Subtle
readers will notice what I am proposing is almost indistinguishable from
what President Bush is proposing. Overselling the problems of
environmentalism damages the President by people who presumably support him.
Being overly alarmist does the same for those who support the environment. I
say to the anti-environmentalist conservatives: yes we have a substantial
problem. I say to the environmental alarmists: yes we can solve it if we
stop fighting and blaming each other (or President Bush) and focus on
fighting the problem at hand instead.
Received on Sat Apr 22 10:19:26 2006