Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

But implementing environmentalist ideals has a price. Across a gamut of fundamental areas including energy, transportation and housing, environmentalist-influenced policies have slowed economic growth.

Replanting the World’s Forests Read “Reforesting Central America”

Eliminating pollution and protecting wildlife habitats are important goals, worthy of measured economic trade-offs, but many environmentalists have become extreme.

The following Environmentalist Myths, in which far too many environmentalists blindly believe, have, for non-environmentalists, stigmatized the very idea of environmentalism. Any environmentalist, whether they are extreme or mainstream, would do well to examine these assumptions. In the spirit of creating healthy discourse, from within the environmentalist camp, with the desire to promote deeper understanding and a broader movement; here we throw down the gauntlet. And for those readers who are ready to excommunicate EcoWorld from the environmentalist world, stay tuned for the Ten Capitalist Myths…

Myth #1
Being environmentally correct requires lower standards of living.

Not true. The idea that a sustainable and pollution-free lifestyle requires sacrifice is a myth. It is how we get to sustainable and pollution-free lifestyles, not getting there, which will determine whether or not sacrifice is required. Heavily regulated energy and water markets nurture cartels and discourage innovators. Narrowly defined regulatory approaches to controlling pollution are usually obsolete before the ink is dry; they do as much harm as good. It’s over-legislated “solutions” that cause economic misery and sacrifice, not true environmentalism.

Myth #2
Any good Environmentalist is a socialist.

Baloney. The precious bird of environmentalism has been flying for too long with one wing, the left one. No ideology can own the desire (or the ideas) to control pollution and use energy efficiently, just innovation, with true believers backed up by inventors and entrepreneurs. Government regulations and “takings” aren’t always bad, but they aren’t always good either. Sustainable business should mean perpetual profit as often as it means taxes and regulations. Whether or not socialists or capitalists claim moral high ground can vary, but the claim that any genuine environmentalist has to be a socialist is a myth.

Solar/Coal Hybrid Power Read “Serious Megawatts”

Myth #3
Hydrogen and other renewable energy are the answer to our energy needs.

Maybe so, but for the forseeable future they are only part of the answer. Renewables (not including energy from dams) still provide less than 1% of the world’s energy, and cleaning up and improving the efficiency of our conventional energy infrastructure is a compelling alternative to renewables when choosing where to invest – both for financial and ecological returns. Burning fossil fuels more efficiently with virtually no pollution, either via huge gas turbines, modern diesel engines, or super-efficient hybrid engines, is still much cheaper and nearly as clean as using pure hydrogen. Fuel cells are still very expensive and they wear out quickly, especially when their hydrogen is extracted from fossil fuels, and extracting hydrogen from water requires vast amounts of electricity that must be produced somewhere. Hydrogen has interesting potential as an ultimate energy carrier, but must more persuasively demonstrate it can be competitive with super-efficient, virtually zero-polluting fossil fuel solutions. Should we continue to develop renewable energy? Yes we should, but we also need to find more efficient, cleaner ways to use non-renewable energy.

Cleaning Contaminated Soil Read “Toxins into Topsoil”

Myth #4
We have to recycle everything.

No we don’t. Landfills in the U.S., strictly regulated and ultra-safe, can handle many decades of waste input at current levels, and there are countless additional areas that can be used for new landfills. Recycling is far less efficient than using existing landfills and building new ones. Landfills are at least as safe as other civil engineering necessities, such as power plants, harbors, and the like, and they are now set up to screen virtually all valuable or hazardous materials out of whatever they store. Recycling programs for glass and many other common recycling items consume far more energy and create far more pollution in their recycling process compared to the cost to inter the old in a landfill and manufacture replacements.

Myth #5
New housing developments must be limited to within existing cities.

Why? Private property is the foundation of free enterprise, a core American value. The constant war of Environmentalists against developers drives home prices artificially high, and homes become unaffordable unless built on lots barely big enough for the structure. There is nothing wrong with building more homes on the former farms, dairy farms or cattle ranches that typically surround urban areas; they are far from pristine already. Should there be reasonable community oversight over developers? Yes, but environmentalists want zero development outside of existing cities, which is totally unrealistic.

Myth #6
Natural Wilderness and Biodiversity are sacred.

No they aren’t, unfortunately. Using the discovery of some obscure insect or creature to prevent building a power plant, or a road, or homes, factories and cities is not always right. Europeans get along just fine without much pristine wilderness left in most of their continent. Having wilderness and biodiversity at all costs is a choice that societies make, it isn’t sacred and it has little to do with their well-being. Environmentalists are not wrong to want to preserve wilderness and wildlife, more should be preserved, but the idea we must protect all biodiversity at all costs is a myth.

Myth #7
We must have mass-transit.

Not really. If “mass transit” means more freeways, more cars, and more busses, then full speed ahead. Instead, unfortunately, current U.S. federal law mandates that “light-rail” and “carpool lane” options must always come first. This is a huge waste of taxpayer money, the unwitting result of a barely contested environmentalist myth that costs Americans billions to build slow trains that hardly anyone rides, and carpool lanes that are 75% empty during rush hour when extra lane capacity is most needed. Spend taxes on more freeways and more busses. Government funding should save trains for high-speed projects. Government regulations should focus on encouraging pollution-free cars, instead of mandating carpool lanes in a futile attempt to drive people out of cars altogether.

Water Markets Increase Supply Read “What Shortage?”

Myth #8
There are going to be worldwide energy and water shortages.

Well if there are shortages, then environmentalists will share blame. Centrally planned mega-solutions and micro-managed regulations alike are the natural output of leftist environmentalist-influenced governments. Over-regulated water and energy markets can lead to shortages where no real shortage need exist. Water and energy will be more abundant and affordable when inventors and entrepreneurs can invent solutions without red-tape. Solutions to increasing available water range from small, decentralized rain-harvesting systems, to piping and underground storage systems built on a continental scale. These can co-exist in proper free-enterprise economies. The same holds for energy.

Myth #9
There is a population explosion.

Not anymore. Some human populations are still increasing alarmingly quickly, in diminishing pockets of the world. But population growth always slows when prosperity grows. Extreme environmentalists and their myths, by fighting against new homes and roads, by over-regulating energy and water systems, create economic misery instead of prosperity. If prosperity slowed population growth, there would be more money to fight pollution, and fewer people to pollute. In any case, all population projections promulgated by environmentalists have been way over the mark. The current projected peak human population, eight billion in about twenty years, is at the lowest point since serious projections began over 50 years ago. There aren’t too many humans for this earth to support, and there never will be.

Restoring Healthy Ecosystems Read “Rishi Valley”

Myth #10
If we don’t make drastic changes right now the earth will become uninhabitable.

This is a tough one. Even if this is true, it can’t be proven, and making a statement like this is not likely to convince anyone who isn’t already convinced. And even if global warming, for example, were to cause the oceans to inundate low-lying coastal areas across the planet, it probably wouldn’t destroy the bulk of human civilization. Habitats, overall, would migrate northwards, with the tropical belt extending somewhat further up from the equator, and vast, viable summer agricultural regions opening up in the ample landmass of the upper northern hemisphere.

To say an icecap meltdown would be horribly disruptive is an understatement, but so adaptible are we, it would be a business opportunity alongside the human catastrophe. Moreover, the theory of global warming, and the related evidence, is substantial but not conclusive. Fundamental uncertainties remain in all models of global warming that render their predictive value nearly worthless. Should we stop polluting? Of course we should, and we will, but not because everyone is going to die tomorrow if we don’t.

Being capitalist and being environmentalist are not incompatible, if the assumptions of environmentalism are carefully challenged when determining public policy, and companies that use and process energy and water efficiently are rewarded in a less-regulated marketplace.

Does a myth-free environmentalist still want to save species, preserve wilderness, biodiversity? Yes, of course, even passionately, but with passion moderated by practical compromises.

Ed Ring is Editor and CEO of EcoWorld Inc., publisher of www.EcoWorld.com.

REACTION TO ECOWORLD’S “TEN ENVIRONMENTALIST MYTHS”

“FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED”

—–Original Message—–

From: anonomous [mailto:anon@anon.com]

Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 12:43 AM

To: ed@ecoworld.com

Subject: TEN ENVIRONMENTALIST MYTHS

Ed – I just read this piece you wrote. Not only is it fundamentally flawed, but it also demonstrates deep ignorance of the larger environmental arena.

Sincerely,

anonomous

“COMPLETELY WRONG”

—–Original Message—–

From: Aida [mailto:anon@anon.edu]

Sent: Friday, April 18, 2003 8:42 AM

To: ed@ecoworld.com

Subject: 10 Environmentalist Myths

Ed Ring:

What are your credentials?! You are completely wrong on all 10 of your “myths”. You are wrong in their defense and in the belief that some of the myths even exist at all! Have you even studied environmental science or economics??? Stop wasting internet space with such ignorance!

EDITOR’S REPLY:

Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 2:56 PM

Subject: RE: 10 Environmentalist Myths

Aida,

You are welcome to submit a rebuttal to any of the points raised. Time permitting we would be happy to post any thoughtful replies. If you read other stories on EcoWorld you will see we care deeply about the environment. The story was intended to provoke comments, and it’s working.

Ed

“WILDERNESS IS SACRED”

—Original Message—–

From: Richard Jackson [mailto:anon@anon.com]

Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 8:32 PM

To: ed@ecoworld.com

Subject: Myths

Dear Sir,

Your article ‘Ten Environmentalist Myths’ for supporters of capitalism who may be environmentally concerned provokes rebuttals on many levels. Time restraints only permit me to respond to your perspective briefly, but ‘myth six’ is extremely ‘provoking’ and warrants discussion.

Your comment that the natural wilderness and biodiversity are not sacred is only partially correct. For example, the Indigenous Australian people believed nature to be the centre of the universe rather than man! In line with this, it was thought that one had to work within the natural environment to ensure their future survival. The idolising of nature by these Aboriginal people is clearly portrayed in early rock art and obviously these views are sacred yet they are forced to live according to the dominating Western capitalist perspective which is based on your comments. In turn, therefore, not only is the natural wilderness and biodiversity sacred to many people who relate to the Indigenous Australian perspective, but the very idea that the natural wilderness and biodiversity is not sacred and can be used solely for human purpose is indeed itself a myth.

Yours Sincerely,

Richard Jackson

Media student

Swinburne University

Melbourne, Australia

EDITOR’S REPLY:

—–Original Message—–

From: Ed Ring [mailto:ed@ecoworld.com]

Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2003 4:55 PM

To: Richard Jackson

Subject: RE: Myths

Richard,

I agree with your points completely except capitalists are capitalists, north, south, east, west. My point is that environmentalists HAVE to say nature is sacred, we have to admit it. It is that value that inspires environmentalists, but also has credibility with non-environmentalists. Telling someone who is unsympathetic to environmentalism that we have to stifle economic growth or we’ll all die is fearmongering and only breeds more opposition. Environmentalists have to appeal to the compassion of capitalists because when it comes to economic or ecologic arguments, totally unfettered capitalist development can hold its own. Assuming pollution is sufficiently mitigated, it’s not at all clear that if we carve the world into a giant industrial plantation with corporate crops and weedy species crowding out virtually 100% of the original ecosystems, that the world’s environment wouldn’t be perfectly habitable.

Environmentalists have to face the challenge of how do you allow rapid economic development for everyone, everywhere, without ending up with that? Capitalists create wealth, allowing many more options for society, including health, education, welfare, and more resources to protect the environment! The capitalist challenge to create wealth for everyone while not dominating cultures, creating pollution, and destroying wilderness and biodiversity is also not easy – but we need capitalism as much as we need environmentalism.

David Brower photo: F.O.E.

David Brower was one of those rare and exceptional people, someone it would have been an honor to spend a day with. He is described by author John McPhee, in his book Encounters with the Archdruid, (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1971), as “the most powerful voice in the conservation movement in his country.” After interviewing three people who knew David Brower, one of them being his son Ken, it was clear that McPhee’s statement is indeed true. To say that David Brower accomplished a lot in his lifetime is an understatement. He was a single force that led thousands of people in a fight to preserve the Earth’s wilderness. Though often described as shy, he was a leader of people and a voice for nature. This article can only begin to describe some of his accomplishments and his legacy today.

Denali National Park photo: National Park Service

John McPhee described Brower in his fifties as being a “prepossessing figure” with a “delicate, handsome, ruddy face.” Brower was born in Berkeley, California in 1912, and his love for nature was apparent even when he was very young. His major accomplishments, which came much later in life, stretch all the way from preventing planned dams along the Grand Canyon, to preserving Alaskan wilderness, the Redwoods, the North Cascades, and more. One of his greatest victories, described in McPhee’s book, was known as “The Dinosaur Battle.” In this “battle,” Brower was able to draw together “sportsmen, ecologists, wilderness preservers, park advocates, and so forth” in a common cause that prevented a dam from being built that would have flooded large parts of Dinosaur National Monument.

Dr. Brent Blackwelder is the President of Friends of the Earth (www.foe.org), one of the organizations founded by David Brower. Friends of the Earth is the largest environmental advocacy organization in the world, spanning 70 countries. Dr. Blackwelder described David Brower as “a visionary thinker for our movement, who challenged modern technology and was rooted in traditional land conservation.” Blackwelder called Brower a “pioneer thinker with global vision.” I asked Dr. Blackwelder about some of the current projects and strategies that Friends of the Earth is currently working on. He mentioned campaigns against genetically engineered food, global warming, and some of the uses of World Bank funds. He stated that Friends of the Earth campaigns on every level to achieve success, from the community level all the way to the top officials of governments worldwide. One of the ways FOE informs the public is through extensive use of the media. The organization utilizes local members of every community to mobilize campaigns and get the ball rolling, gradually working with local government representatives and then top government officials to motivate earth-friendly change.

Dr. Brent Blackwelder Friends of the Earth photo: F.O.E.

Mikhail Davis is a representative of another powerful organization created by Brower, the Earth Island Institute (www.earthisland.org). He was Assistant to the Chairman and Project Manager for Brower, and was able to work directly with Brower in his last 2 1/2 years. He states, “it was an amazing experience to work with David on a daily basis and to meet all of his brilliant friends.” Davis is the director of the Brower Fund, which is dedicated to carrying on Brower’s legacy of environmental leadership. The fund awards money to youths who have shown extraordinary promise as conservationists. The third annual Brower Youth Awards took place in the fall of 2002. Monetary awards of $3,000 and a trip to Yosemite go to six carefully selected environmental activists in the US who are between the ages of 13 to 22 years. Davis describes the Brower Youth Awards as a way to inspire and encourage youth conservationists, and he is dedicated to continuing on the Brower legacy through the awards and other Earth Island Institute programs. He says David was “always a big believer in youth leadership. He believed if people have their ideals straight it makes them better leaders than those with more experience who might compromise their values.”

The Earth Island Institute is an organization that has a unique organizational structure, in which projects are headed by local experts within the organization and in the project area. This is to allow the people who know the issues best to work on each project instead of being led from afar by central office. Right now EII it is working on about 30 projects that are largely autonomous. Davis says, “David never liked having to focus on only one issue, and didn’t try to control anyone from a central office. The projects raise their own money, and the people who know the issues best make the decisions. This reduces bureaucracy, and increases the effectiveness of grassroots advocacy.”

Brower’s son, Ken Brower, is a well known writer who has written articles for many prestigious magazines, including Smithsonian and National Geographic. He is also a board member for Earth Island Institute. I asked him what it was like to have a father who was always in the limelight. He said, “it always seemed kind of natural. I was proud, I knew that he was great. He had amazing physical energy, and was a really driven guy.” Ken Brower helped his father create the “exhibit format” books that David Brower and the Sierra club became famous for. These were oversized books featuring magnificent, large format photos of wilderness. David believed size was important for impact, and Ken helped him edit the books and select some of the pictures for these unique books. Ken states that his father traveled a tremendous amount. He said it was tough on the last two of David’s four children, for David “couldn’t save the world and be a perfect father at the same time. He traveled 80% of the time.” Yet, he is still proud of his father, and of his father’s fundamental belief that individuals can make a difference.

Dr. Blackwelder, Mr. Davis, and Mr. Brower all mentioned Brower’s instrumental leadership that brought about the great success of the Sierra Club (www.sierraclub.org), for which Brower was Executive Director for 17 years. He made the organization the force it is today, raising it from about 2,000 to over 70,000 members. Ken Brower says, “He was one of the primary shapers in the history of the Sierra Club, and it would not be the organization it is today without David Brower.”

Brower used and encouraged many different strategies to bring environmental issues to public attention. Some of these strategies included full-page ads in the paper, editorial boards, TV publicity, and environmental advocacy films. These strategies helped to bring about successful consumer boycotts and the ability for general consumers and environmental experts to unite in conserving the environment. Mikhail Davis says, “The core of this work is education and advocacy, to give the public the opportunity to effect change.”

nature’s Turtle soup photo: Richard Wollocombe, WildAid

David Brower was also a three-time nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, a renowned mountaineer, and a World War II veteran. He was also awarded the Blue Planet Prize, called by the Earth Island Institute website as “the richest environmental prize in the world.” Such a pioneer for environmental conservation should not be forgotten. It is true that David Brower, along with his many supporters, also made his fair share of enemies. While his preservation efforts stemmed from his belief that the rest of the world’s wilderness should be left untouched and unaltered, he knew that society would continue to administer its immense demands on the Earth. He fought for nature and in his lifetime helped curb the disastrous effects of some of these demands and slow down others.

The Brower legacy lives on, not only through such programs as the

Brower Youth Awards,

and through the work of his children, but also through the numerous organizations that were influenced by or have been created directly from existing organizations that Brower founded. Thus, besides such giants as the

Sierra Club,

Earth Island Institute,

and Friends of the Earth

which are directly linked to Brower – he either founded them and/or directed them – there are now several other organizations that have been influenced by these larger organizations to cater to specific environmental areas. One of these is the

Rainforest Action Network (www.ran.org). Others are the

International Rivers Network (www.irn.org), the

Bluewater Network (www.bluewaternetwork.org), the

Sea Turtle Restoration Project (www.seaturtles.org), the

Pesticide Action Network (panna.igc.org), and the

International Marine Mammal Project (www.earthisland.org/immp).

There are many ways to find out more about the work of David Brower. John McPhee’s book, “Encounter with the Archdruid” is a terrific place to start. Brower’s work lives on through the exhibit-format books made popular by the Sierra Club,

and reprised by his son Robert Brower on a new website

Wildness Within. Earth Island Institute also maintains a memorial site at

www.DavidBrower.org.

David Brower has left a legacy of organizations and followers that will help lessen the impact of technology today by allowing it to coincide more peacefully with the environment. We can learn from his ability to bring together businesspeople, scientists and environmentalists in a positive way to help put nature and technology in harmony.

EMAIL TO THE EDITOR

—–Original Message—–

From: anonomous

Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 9:04 PM

To: editor@ecoworld.com

Subject: Luna Tree

What happened to Julia “Butterfly” Hill’s “Luna” Tree? All the articles that I can find on the internet are years old, saying that they (all of the scientists, etc…) are doing their best to save it after Luna was attacked with a chainsaw. I do hope that Luna survived!
EDITOR’S REPLY

The Redwood tree known as “Luna” had about 60% of its trunk sawn away, but the tree was stapled back together along the gash from the chain saw, and “collars” around the trunk higher up have been installed and used to cable the tree to the trunks of neighboring tall Redwoods, in order to prevent the tree from falling. In 1999 Julia “Butterfly” Hill formed the Circle of Life Foundation, which is “building a movement of social and environmental change which is rooted deeply in love and respect for the interconnectedness of all life.” In the “scrapbook” section of Hill’s website you can view photos of the repaired Luna tree. The prognosis for the tree when undergoing treatment in late 2000 was that it would probably survive. In June 2000 Julia’s foundation officially became a project of, you guessed it, the Brower-inspired Earth Island Institute.

Ed Ring, Editor of EcoWorld