The Radical “Environmentalists” Are Too Often the Problem, Not the Answer

Modern “environmentalists” are increasingly not the answer to environmental problems; they are too often the primary problem. They are attempting to remake society, government, and the economy to solve what they claim are environmental problems. Their “cures” are often much worse than the problems, which are increasingly more minor or even non-problems.

Some of the Policies Promoted by Modern Environmentalism

Often justified largely on the basis of junk science they have come up with such wonderful policy prescriptions as using only unreliable sources of energy because they are “sustainable,” keeping natural resources in the ground rather than using them to meet human needs, having government tell manufacturers what requirements their products must meet to use less energy rather than encouraging manufacturers to meet the needs of their customers, all in the name of “energy efficiency,” substituting government dictates for market solutions on any issue related to energy use, and teaching school children junk science that happens to meet “environmentalists” ideological beliefs in hopes of perpetuating these beliefs to future generations even though they do not conform to the scientific method, the basis of science.

Yes, there have been and will continue to be real environmental problems that cannot be solved by sole reliance on the economic marketplace. But many of the more urgent and solvable ones have already been resolved after almost 50 years of environmental concern and the formation of environmental agencies at many levels of government. But instead of working to address the most solvable and important remaining problems, the “environmentalists” have increasingly taken to inventing problems that do not exist or are so difficult to resolve that they practically cannot be. Their “answer” is always more government regulation and control and a reduced role for private initiative, personal choice, and private property rights.

Some Government Control and Regulation Is Needed, but Only When Justified

Some government control and regulation is needed because of what economists call negative externalities where they actually exist, but this should be undertaken only when problems are well defined, solutions are clear and carefully thought through, and based on sound science, and the economic benefits exceed the economic costs of government intervention. Increasingly this has not been the case. Junk science is even being invented to justify the alleged existence of environmental problems and then used to attack anyone who dares to differ from the “environmental” orthodoxy.

To date, the high point of support for regulating such environmental non-problems or non-soluble problems was during the Obama Administration, which encouraged such behavior and took no interest in the real problem, excessive intrusion of government into the lives of people and decisions better left to the private marketplace. The best example of this is climate alarmism, although there are many others such as fine particles (called PM_2.5). Climate does vary and that can be a problem, but it is doubtful that government can do anything useful about it, particularly since there is little understanding why it occurs and the most widely accepted hypothesis appears to be wrong.

These and other examples can be found in my book, called Environmentalism Gone Mad, and previous posts on this blog.
It is time to look after the real and solvable problems, not the fake ones too often promoted by the “environmentalists” for their own purposes.