Who Killed the Environmental Movement ?

“When the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power.”

Alston Chase

Tales of doom and gloom are wildly exaggerated by many environmental organizations as a way to get you to care,

At the very least, they emphasize the bad and ignore the positive. Actually things have improved over the last century. Known reserves of fossil fuels and most metals have risen. Agricultural production per head has risen; and the number of people facing starvation has dropped in the developing world. The threat of biodiversity loss is real but overblown, as is the problem of tropical deforestation. And pollution is diminishing. How would I know? I’ve been around to see the changes. So has this guy, Patrick Moore:

Does this mean the world has no problems? That’s not at all what I’m saying. We certainly have problems. In fact, the Copenhagen Consensus Center has ranked the world’s greatest concerns as to where our effort should go. The Copenhagen Consensus (not to be confused with the climate talks just ended in Copenhagen) commissions “research that analyzes the optimal ways to combat the biggest problems facing the world.” It gores many Sacred Calves. Like a buyer for WalMart, the Copenhagen Consensus looks for where we humans can get the most bang for our buck. It turns out anthropogenic (a fancy way to say something caused by people) global warming wound up at #30, a fact that fries most greens and climatologists.

Speaking of goring sacred calves, Bjørn Lomborg‘s The Skeptical Environmentalist is still worth reading ten years after its first printing. It gores many of former-vice president Gore’s sacred calves.

Post to Twitter