We came across a great site recently that seems to take on the notion of poorly understood climate change science quite nicely. Below is a summary of an article by James M. Taylor and Joseph L. Bast, which appears on the Heartland Institute’s web site, heartlandInstitute.org. They preach “common-sense environmentalism,’ which recognizes that almost everyone today, is an environmentalist.
Common-sense environmentalists recognize that environmental scares are frequently unsupported by sound science and are often launched to further an anti-corporation, anti-free market agenda. Activists use junk science to stampede the public into fearing chemicals in the air, food, and water, and the possible consequences of poorly understood phenomena such as climate change.
The best way to achieve a healthy and green environment is to use sound science to distinguish real environmental issues from imaginary ones, and then to tap the efficiency of market forces to address the environmental issues that truly do exist. This enables us to prioritize environmental and public health problems the first step in any serious effort to address a problem and to solve problems without trampling on other things we value, such as individual freedom and economic prosperity.
Despite what you may hear in the media, air quality in the U.S. is improving dramatically. Air pollution is no longer a significant threat to public health…
Global warming is a prime example of the alarmism that characterizes much of the environmental movement. Media coverage of the topic is heavily slanted toward alarmism because “bad news sells,” making it difficult for climate realists to get a fair hearing.
There is no consensus about the causes, effects, or future rate of global warming. Most climate scientists doubt the reliability of computer models and the accuracy of land-based temperature records Reports by the IPCC are unreliable due to political editing and rewriting of the reports’ conclusions. Some of the key evidence cited in past IPCC reports has been shown to be fraudulent.
There is also disagreement over what to do about global warming. Economists believe the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty intended to reduce human greenhouse gas emissions, would cost its participants trillions of dollars while having little or no effect on the global climate. Meanwhile, the federal and state governments debate and pass legislation that will be similarly futile.
Prior to the global panic over global warming, fear of “toxic chemicals” topped the agenda of many environmental activist groups. But here again we find a reliance on junk science, disregard for the cost of regulation or the risks created unintentionally by regulations, and a willingness to violate individual freedom and private property rights. The nation’s major federal law concerning toxic waste--Superfund--has been an expensive failure.
It is no accident that wealthy countries have made the most progress toward sustainable development. When people are forced to choose between food, clothing, shelter, medicine, or a green environment, a green environment becomes a luxury item. The best way to ensure effective stewardship of the environment is to encourage the development of wealth that makes environmental stewardship possible.
Visit the Heartland Institute web site ...
Common-Sense Environmentalism
By James M. Taylor and Joseph L. Bast
[These links tend to become inactive over time. If this has happened with the above link, you can conduct a Google search by clicking here.]
We agree with Taylor and Bast: we all want a healthy, green environment for ourselves and our families. What distinguishes common-sense environmentalism from more extreme environmental activism is a commitment to fight real environmental problems rather than imagined ones and a realization that free markets are an ally rather than an enemy of environmental stewardship. When it comes to global warming, it is time for common sense to make a comeback.