Backwards

John Stossel points out that the environmental alarmists have it backwards . Technology is not the villain in the modern world - it is the salvation of the modern world. He slams the three basic drivers of the environmental movement pretty hard.

John Semmens of Arizona's Laissez Faire Institute points out that Earth Day misses an important point. In the April issue of The Freeman magazine, Semmens says the environmental movement overlooks how hospitable the earth has become — thanks to technology. "The environmental alarmists have it backwards. If anything imperils the earth it is ignorant obstruction of science and progress. … That technology provides the best option for serving human wants and conserving the environment should be evident in the progress made in environmental improvement in the United States. Virtually every measure shows that pollution is headed downward and that nature is making a comeback." (Carbon dioxide excepted, if it is really a pollutant.)

Semmens describes his visit to historic Lexington and Concord in Massachusetts, an area "lush with trees and greenery." It wasn't always that way. In 1775, the land was cleared so it could be farmed. Today, technology makes farmers so efficient that only a fraction of the land is needed to produce much more food. As a result, "Massachusetts farmland has been allowed to revert back to forest."

Human ingenuity and technology not only raised living standards, but also restored environmental amenities. How about a day to celebrate that?

I remember the breathless coverage of the very first Earth Day and Walter Conkrite sonorously intoning that it looked unlikely that mankind would survive the next decade. Yeesh. (Can't get the quote of that, but found this gem : "Cronkite: "Good evening. A unique day in American history is ending: a day set aside for a nationwide outpouring of mankind seeking its own survival..")  Anyway, back to Stossel:

Yet, Semmens writes, the environmental movement is skeptical about technology and is attracted to three dubious principles: sustainable development, the precautionary principle, and stakeholder participation.

Stossel cheerfully dismembers each of the dubious ideas in detail. I'd recommend reading the whole thing. I have pointed out that the EPA's own published data shows that pollution of all types has declined by about 1/3 since 1970, despite the population increasing by millions and millions. Is it a good idea to protect the environment? Sure. Is it important to keep it in perspective and not worship the earth as some kind of fetish? Yup.