September 29, 2005Environment > Environmentalism as a Religion, Part 2From Steven E. Landsburg's Why I Am Not An Environmentalist: Perhaps that same sort of honest naïveté is what underlies the problems we've had at the JCC this year. Just as Cayley's teachers in Colorado were honestly oblivious to the fact that there is diversity in religion, it may be that her teachers at the JCC have been honestly oblivious that there is diversity in politics. Incidentally, I don't agree with everything Landsburg says. For instance, I think he has an insufficient counterargument to the environmentalist argument that some forms of development are irreversible and we should proceed with caution. I also think his reverence for the science of economics (as he likes to phrase it) is a bit inflated. I gather there's quite a lot that economists haven't figured out. More, even, than in the physical sciences. I also think his attitude to at least a little environmentalism is antagonistic. I do think it's true that environmentalism serves the purpose of a secular religion for some people. Through the good works of recycling and the abstension of not using disposable items the environmentalist hopes to achieve something like a state of grace. Furthermore, unsettled scientific topics like anthropogenic global warming are treated with absolute certainty as a sign of the true believer's faith. See also: Comments
I'm sure you can find environmentalists who treat anthropogenic climate change with undue certainty, but the people who actually do the science ask no such thing. They are attempting to make predictions, and anyone with any scientific literacy knows predictions are "unsettled" science. Climate modellers create arrays of possible outcomes and compute probabilities to go along with the various risks. Nothing about what they do has any certainty to it, though their short-term predictions approach high confidence levels, especially now that they have had decades to refine and calibrate their equations and enhance monitoring. You're talking much more sensibly about climate change in the thread below, talking about "diminishing returns" and "arbitrary standards". That kind of soft language is what is appropriate. Drastic efforts toward reducing air pollution could stifle our economy, but modest efforts can actually enhance it by fueling innovation and improving both human and environmental health. As you point out, we are already tightening our air quality standards, and it certainly has not hurt the overall economy. There is plenty more we can do without risking economic disruption. In fact, if gas prices stabilize around $2.50/gal, those extra moves toward conservation, fuel efficiency, and clean combustion may become necessary to stave off economic disruption. Posted by: hellbent at September 29, 2005Post a comment
|
Search
Sponsors
Archives
Every post A&E - (205) Best Of - (54) Blogging - (252) Comic Books - (30) Dancing Baloney - (26) Dear Lazyweb - (17) E-commerce - (159) East Tennessee - (283) Economics - (93) Environment - (71) European Union - (38) Everything's Illegal - (5) Family Tree - Moore Side - (6) Food & Drink - (77) Funny Ha-Ha - (164) Guns - (390) Health Care - (43) Home Life - (263) John Kerry - (1) Johnia Berry - (48) Macular Degeneration - (11) Media Behaving Badly - (56) Middle East - (47) Misc - (105) Mortgage Crisis - (3) Municipal Wi-Fi - (17) News - (304) Nifty - (97) Photos - (34) Political Survival Kit - (16) Politics - (60) Polls - (19) Population - (31) PSAs - (11) Quotes - (195) Rocky Top Brigade - (38) Science - (126) Scratch Pad - (5) Seventies - (3) Social Security - (9) Star Wars - (54) Tech - (111) The Usual Suspects - (15) Timothy Treadwell - (6) Travel - (60) True Crime - (69) Word of the Day - (98) |