. . . as Homer Simpson might say:

An Environmentalist Bashes Electricity

Also: If environmentalism is a religion, shouldn't it be banned from public schools?

A Prayer for the Earth Summit

My favorite quote from the first article: "you can't really have poverty unless you have wealthy people on the scene"

So if people don't know they're poor, they're not? ... Idiot ...

Some environmentalists need to get over the fact that human existence necessarily causes the destruction of nature -- doesn't have to be a bad thing -- tempering the destruction is the key.

Nothing surprising here; the environmentalist movement is full of confused scientists and frustrated folks who'd rather reap headlines than sow seeds for REAL change. That's why so many of them are hugging trees and destroying jobs out West instead of embracing local grassroots movements in the Midwest and East which are seriously working to clean up the serious air and water problems that persist there.

But I digress: don't think of progress as "destroying" nature; that's an either/or approach. Nature is amazingly adaptable, which is why it's survived as the basic mode of life on this planet. Instead, take a Zen approach, and view nature adapting to progress in most cases. And consider, when it doesn't, i.e., species die out, that maybe those species weren't so vital after all.

[quote]Originally posted by DCBucky:

Some environmentalists need to get over the fact that human existence necessarily causes the destruction of nature -- doesn't have to be a bad thing -- tempering the destruction is the key.

---

Lotta truth to that. Here's what some perhaps not-so-confused scientists are doing with our tax dollars.

Making homes more efficient and afordable

IF their ideas find (have found?) implementation, they may actually more than earn their salaries.

Ultimately we as a group will make the call through our various socio-economic policies. And unless we can find a couple of accessible, exploitable planets, we will live with the results.

[ August 29, 2002: Message edited by: sportinlife ]

A rather Darwinian viewpoint, if I may say so, gmgsinfo. Dont you believe we have a duty of custodianship of our built heritage/natural environment. If not, why not?

We are not struggling to eke out an existence in a hostile wilderness which justified previous generations in their attitude to nature. We have a choice whether we protect it or not.

If logging,etc is banned it doesn't cause a net loss of jobs. The investment dollars that would have gone into that would simply go into something else instead.

JW, Darwinian, sure, destructive, no. Having grown up in one of the most air and water polluted regions of the country, I believe VERY strongly not just in environmental stewardship (maintenance), but in environmental improvement; nothing in my post could be reasonably read to suggest otherwise.

There's nothing wrong with Darwinism per se - it is the rule of nature, after all - only in its misapplication. The same goes for environmentalism. Properly applied, it's a good thing. Misapplied, as in the case of eco-terrorism, which is a very real issue in this country, or in the impoverishment of whole communities due to overlegislation, it's a terrible injustice.

Obviously the WEEKLY STANDARD is taking an extremist view and promoting it as mainstream. Okay, so let's keep drilling and clearcutting and stripmining and digging and damming and concreting wetlands and dumping all kinds of toxins--let's just keep destroying and degrading the environment, and when island nations are underwater and we have even more severe droughts and storms, melted permafrost in the arctic, no ice at the North pole, no ozone layer, no arable land for growing non-mutant food, etc., I guess we'll truly see how thoroughly Darwinism--not just the social kind--applies and the failure to get our acts together have damned us.

But here are other views--from experts--on this:
Environmental Impacts of Globalization and Trade by Corey Lefdahl
Energy and Environment by James Fay and Dan S. Golomb
Boston Globe article on Doctor's Group on Environment
Hart & Milstein on Global Sustainability
Nobel Prize-winner Mario J. Molina of MIT

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: fantomas ]

The Weekly Standard chose one extreme "environmentalist" to smear in that lazy, poorly written piece. How easy for them. How anyone with a brain can't see how destructive we've been with the air and water alone is beyond me. Greed and consumerism has created a massive level of denial. But, the planet will also win out. It will survive long after we do...but wouldn't it be nice if we concerned ourselves with future generations? Hello? Mr. Bush?

And gmgsfo, do you actually stand by this quote of yours:

"And consider, when it doesn't, i.e., species die out, that maybe those species weren't so vital after all."

Come on....you're smarter than that...

[ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: bryan d. ]

FT & Bryan, You guys are obviously looking for a scrap. FT's distortion of what I believe is nowhere grounded in anything I've ever written and, for the record - I really dislike wasting my time refuting such nonsense - I am opposed to each and every environmental horror he mentioned. Not included in that list are his vague references to drilling, digging and damming, all of which can be - and are! - done with absolutely no harm to the environment and usually a substantial benefit to it. (And yes, I'm opposed to offshore drilling.) Query, how woodpeckers, gophers and beavers would survive under his regime.

As to Bryan's worries over the death of species, there is no dearth of them; some ARE expendable with no loss. Again - to head off any exaggeration at the pass - I'm talking about lower life forms like harmful insects, bacteria (surely you wouldn't regret the disappearance of the smallpox bacter, would you Bryan?), and a reduction in the number of disease vectors such as mice, rats, pigeons and - the latest pest brought to us courtesy of misguided species protection - urban crows.

Some of us in the human species have adapted our brains to recognize both the values of capitalism and environmentalism - and are alive to tell about it! I don't know what you two are smarting over, but it sure comes across as DUMB!

Free Markets Are Good for the Environment I

Free Markets . . . II

Free Markets . . . III

[ August 29, 2002: Message edited by: William1865 ]

Also, I'm glad The New York Times was able to get this into print before Ann Coulter bombs the place:

Environmentalists are Wrong

I've been meaning to get this guy's book. I hear it is quite good.

He sounds well-informed. I like the fuller explanations that he provides even in a short piece like that.

Ambient pollution starts to decrease when a country reaches a certain level of prosperity, the man from the Cato Institute says. But why should that be?

Not, surely, because of some magical economic formula but because the populations of those countries (no longer concerned with the battle for subsistence and increasingly well-educated and articulate) start to demand clean-up operations, stricter and better enforced anti-pollution laws, etc. If that country shifts from dictatorship to democracy as part of the same process that public opinion can start to outweigh the political influence of the polluters.

For example, it would be impossible to build a dirty factory in the town where I live because the middle-class residents would not regard the jobs created as worth the environmental damage and would fight all out to prevent it. It ceases to be an economic issue in their minds and becomes a quality of life issue.

Since we're quoting selectively from the NY TIMES, here go a few other viewpoints:

Development and a Drought Cut Carolina's Water Supply
Forecast for Future: Deluge and Drought
As the Earth Warms, Will Companies Pay?

[quote]Originally posted by gmginsfo:
FT & Bryan, You guys are obviously looking for a scrap. FT's distortion of what I believe is nowhere grounded in anything I've ever written and, for the record - I really dislike wasting my time refuting such nonsense - I am opposed to each and every environmental horror he mentioned. Not included in that list are his vague references to drilling, digging and damming, all of which can be - and are! - done with absolutely no harm to the environment and usually a substantial benefit to it. (And yes, I'm opposed to offshore drilling.) Query, how woodpeckers, gophers and beavers would survive under his regime.

---

Look, if you have to insult people, then you really should check your responses. DUMB is really a pathetic little epithet, so leave it at the keyboard.

Capitalism and respect for the environment do not have to be antagonistic. An industrialized city like Curitiba (with over 1 million people, and one of the most prosperous in this hemisphere) in Brazil or Reyjkavik in Iceland are two excellent examples of capitalism working in conjunction with environmental protection and a long-term view towards the preservation of our earth.

In fact, most instances of damming, drilling for oil, gas and metals, and various kinds of mining--as they are practiced now DO have environmental consequences that we as societies tend to overlook because the economic benefits outweigh the detriment to the earth. However, we eventually find that we have to pay prices--not just monetarily--for such actions. The terrible mess in China with the man-made lake, created by damming rivers and re-directing waterways, or the damming of rivers and concreting of so much of the central European wetlands over centuries, coupled with the warmer atmosphere, has led to the severe floods that China in the first case, and Germany and the Czech Republic in the second place, have experienced this summer. There are always floods, but in some cases, we worsen the situation in ways we cannot anticipate. I am not saying that all dams are bad, but sometimes can lead to outcomes that even engineers cannot predict.

BTW, what this has to do with beavers, gophers and woodpeckers is beyond me. Since when were they engaged in economics of any sort? You are really, really spinning!

[quote]Originally posted by fantomas:
Since we're quoting selectively from the NY TIMES, here go a few other viewpoints:

---

For what it worth, any quote is a selective quote. I can't very well cut and paste every single article from the NY Times into this post. Thus I must be selective, just as the NY Times is selective in the news they publish. Remember, it's "All the news that's fit to print." Who decides what's "fit?" The people at the Times. They're selective, I'm selective, you're selective, we're selective. Wouldn't you like to be selective too? Go for it. Or, if you want to read every word ever written in the times regarding the environment, go to the Times archives.

[quote]Originally posted by William1865:
For what it worth, any quote is a selective quote. I can't very well cut and paste every single article from the NY Times into this post. Thus I must be selective, just as the NY Times is selective in the news they publish. Remember, it's "All the news that's fit to print." Who decides what's "fit?" The people at the Times. They're selective, I'm selective, you're selective, we're selective. Wouldn't you like to be selective too? Go for it. Or, if you want to read every word ever written in the times regarding the environment, go to the Times archives.

---

I love when you start hairsplitting, William. It really suits you. One can quote selectively, wantonly, promiscuously, abruptly, whatever. By their very nature all quotes involve selection, but in varying degrees. I suppose that wasn't clear. To you. So now it is.