From A SANE ENVIRONMENTALIST at Andrew Sullivan’s book club:
I couldn’t agree more. Where have you been? Speaking only for myself, of course, I was intensely hoping for some genuine environmentalist counter-arguments. But basically none were forthcoming.
That’s awfully coy, isn’t it? How does this differ from all of the design engineers in the world? Or, for that matter, from Jack Welch? Doing more with less is a recipe for riches. It doesn’t differentiate environmentalists from anybody else.
Dodge Viper. What do you think of the Dodge Viper? “Using resources more efficiently” doesn’t mean “using resources more efficiently as defined by me.” Viper owners think the resources devoted to creating that machine were worth the cost. I.e., they were efficiently utilized. Does your concept of efficient resource utilization allow for the possibility that the Viper is an “efficient” automobile? I have no trouble saying it is, using the appropriate definition efficiency: providing more benefit to its owners, as subjectively perceived by them, than the next best alternative use of those resources.
What do you think about CAFÉ requirements? The most recent “Environment Show,” (a reasonably well-made local public radio show) aired an “environmentalist” complaining that American cars don't get high enough gas mileage. Well, an exhausting one minute web search revealed that Chevrolet makes a car that gets 40mpg, and Ford one that gets 36mpg (both highway). This person is obviously can’t be complaining that GM and Ford don’t make high mileage cars. He’s complaining that, darn it, they make other cars, too! And those stupid consumers go and buy ‘em!
When environmentalists stop arguing that people who don’t share their tastes in cars constitute a “problem” to be “dealt with” by the government, I’ll stop considering them authoritarian.
I am reflexively anti-environmentalist, but I used to be reflexively pro-environmentalist, as I suspect most people are. I changed because being pro-environmentalist went from adding catalytic converters, removing lead from gasoline, and installing smokestack cleaners where previously none existed to arguing over whether a child could eat a teaspoon of dirt a day for 83 days or 245 days and driving water impurities down to levels that couldn’t even have been detected 10 years ago. Somewhere between 1970 and now the environmental movement went from advocating reasonable restrictions that almost everyone would agree with if they only had the proper knowledge, to pushing policies that no one would agree with if they truly knew the facts. The movement itself is still living off of capital accumulated during the 70’s when it was doing obvious, recognizable good.
Let me be clear: I want to be an “environmentalist.” I want to have the government take proper, prudent actions to protect the environment. But the outrageous zealotry of professional environmentalists has cost them my trust.
Sad to say, when asked to trust General Electric or the EPA (dredging the Hudson for PCP’s dumped by GE a generation or two ago is a big local issue at the moment), I have to hold my nose and go with GE, because they at least have to overcome the withering glare of recognized self-interest. I can’t see the EPA as any more disinterested than GE (they don't get budget increases when they don't find problems), but it’s rarely ever portrayed that way. Glenn Reynolds likes to note that the winners of Brown vs Board of Education wished they were up against better lawyers so that the case would have generated better law. The EPA needs to be up against better public scrutiny for analogous reasons.
Having a greater diversity of opinions in this Book Club discussion would really have helped. Your readership is what it is, but given it's rightward slant, you're getting a lot of "head nodding" without much to counter it.
I couldn’t agree more. Where have you been? Speaking only for myself, of course, I was intensely hoping for some genuine environmentalist counter-arguments. But basically none were forthcoming.
This is particularly obvious in the answers to the question of "what motivates the environmental movement." Ever since I started paying attention to what the anti-enviro crowd has to say about environmentalists, I've been both aggravated and amused at how we are portrayed, and how it seems so removed from my own day-to-day experience of working in an environmental field. If you want a personal opinion on what drives this environmental advocate, it's simple: in very broad terms, I believe that making the transition to a more sustainable economy would actually make things better for us all. Basically, thinking more "sustainably" would mean using less to get more - using resources more efficiently, taking advantage of new technologies that can help us get way more output for input than could have been imagined just 100 years ago, or just thinking smarter about how we do things.
That’s awfully coy, isn’t it? How does this differ from all of the design engineers in the world? Or, for that matter, from Jack Welch? Doing more with less is a recipe for riches. It doesn’t differentiate environmentalists from anybody else.
It doesn't involve living in a cave or returning to some mythic, pre-industrial paradise. It actually means moving forward to use 21st century knowledge and resources - and, crazily enough, I think we can do it. It won't be simple or easy, and we'll make mistakes along the way and will bump up against other priorities, but the goal is still a good one. So, there you go, that's what drives at least one environmentalist.
Does that sound crazy? I doubt it, but to hear the you, the Wall Street Journal, the Hudson Institute, etc - you'd think I must be a tree-hugging, people-hating, anticapitalist, social-authoritarian, pantheistic, unscientific Luddite boob.
Dodge Viper. What do you think of the Dodge Viper? “Using resources more efficiently” doesn’t mean “using resources more efficiently as defined by me.” Viper owners think the resources devoted to creating that machine were worth the cost. I.e., they were efficiently utilized. Does your concept of efficient resource utilization allow for the possibility that the Viper is an “efficient” automobile? I have no trouble saying it is, using the appropriate definition efficiency: providing more benefit to its owners, as subjectively perceived by them, than the next best alternative use of those resources.
What do you think about CAFÉ requirements? The most recent “Environment Show,” (a reasonably well-made local public radio show) aired an “environmentalist” complaining that American cars don't get high enough gas mileage. Well, an exhausting one minute web search revealed that Chevrolet makes a car that gets 40mpg, and Ford one that gets 36mpg (both highway). This person is obviously can’t be complaining that GM and Ford don’t make high mileage cars. He’s complaining that, darn it, they make other cars, too! And those stupid consumers go and buy ‘em!
When environmentalists stop arguing that people who don’t share their tastes in cars constitute a “problem” to be “dealt with” by the government, I’ll stop considering them authoritarian.
The "Luddite" claim is particularly annoying, as most mainstream environmental organizations focus a lot on advocating use of advanced technologies (fuel cells, for example) and are roundly denounced for doing so. I'm always confused - am I a Luddite, or am I a techno-wacko who wants us all to drive Borox-fuelled cars?
So, I'd like to counter the question about what drives enviros with another - what drives the persistent, seemingly reflexive anti-environmentalism of the right in this country? It's a problem for the American right, I believe, that they have failed to develop a coherent, credible environmental policy, and instead just react (negatively) to proposals by the liberal/left.
I am reflexively anti-environmentalist, but I used to be reflexively pro-environmentalist, as I suspect most people are. I changed because being pro-environmentalist went from adding catalytic converters, removing lead from gasoline, and installing smokestack cleaners where previously none existed to arguing over whether a child could eat a teaspoon of dirt a day for 83 days or 245 days and driving water impurities down to levels that couldn’t even have been detected 10 years ago. Somewhere between 1970 and now the environmental movement went from advocating reasonable restrictions that almost everyone would agree with if they only had the proper knowledge, to pushing policies that no one would agree with if they truly knew the facts. The movement itself is still living off of capital accumulated during the 70’s when it was doing obvious, recognizable good.
Let me be clear: I want to be an “environmentalist.” I want to have the government take proper, prudent actions to protect the environment. But the outrageous zealotry of professional environmentalists has cost them my trust.
Sad to say, when asked to trust General Electric or the EPA (dredging the Hudson for PCP’s dumped by GE a generation or two ago is a big local issue at the moment), I have to hold my nose and go with GE, because they at least have to overcome the withering glare of recognized self-interest. I can’t see the EPA as any more disinterested than GE (they don't get budget increases when they don't find problems), but it’s rarely ever portrayed that way. Glenn Reynolds likes to note that the winners of Brown vs Board of Education wished they were up against better lawyers so that the case would have generated better law. The EPA needs to be up against better public scrutiny for analogous reasons.
posted by Scott at
9:54 PM
