Has environmentalism become the new religion?

Great Debates
41

I really have no idea what to say to someone who believes it is an example of environmental extremism that he can’t go out and buy some DDT and spray it where he wants to because he worries about West Nile Virus! At least it helps me to understand where you are coming from.

Yes, blaming the environmentalists for forest fires has become as much of an industry among a certain segment of the right wing as blaming them for all the deaths from malaria (and, more recently, for the flooding in New Orleans).

42

Yeah, you know where I’m coming from. Boulder, Colorado. Hundreds of people along the front range have been affected by West Nile Virus and it seems to have some extremely long term neurological and fatigue issues around it that we’ve only begun to realize over the last year or two. Yes, I’m concerned about West Nile Virus.

Again, I am not blaming environmentalists for forest fires. It’s a result of a number of issues including a lack of forest thinning but more importantly human encroachment into “forest subdivisions” and a resulting policy of shutting down every fire everywhere as soon as humanly possible regardless of how deep it is in the forest or how it will damage forest ecology and only lead to super-fires later. Crichton wasn’t even suggesting that environmentalists were at all to blame in forest fires, he was providing an example of a complex system that humans have failed to understand and made completely inaccurate predictions about how our actions would affect that system.

So give up your bit with the forest fires.

43

Well, I have to admit that I didn’t even know anyone was really proposing using DDT against West Nile virus in the U.S. until I googled the subject. Indeed, there are such people within the echo chamber…However, strangely enough these seem to be the same people for who DDT is the knee-jerk solution to all ills, i.e., those who have a religious belief in DDT. There seems to be, as near as I can tell, a notable lack of serious scientists and public health professionals proposing this solution. (In fact, those advocating it cite that as evidence that these professionals…such as the CDC…are hamstrung by “political correctness”. However, an alternate theory is that they just know what a dumb idea it would be to use DDT for this problem.)

There are a couple of links I found, one to the aforementioned Tim Lambert and one to Environmental Defense, that explain why it would not be a good idea to use DDT for this. (I wish I could find something from the mainstream scientific community…but they seem to be ignoring this idea of using DDT, probably because they know how dumb an idea it is.) Even the relatively apolitical groups like Malaria Foundation International who fight for use of DDT to fight malaria only fight to have it done as part of an indoor spraying program (because of issues of development of resistance and harm to ecosystems)…which doesn’t seem to be of much use here in the U.S. where we have the technology to put screens on windows and such.

And, by the way, while searching for this, I found a couple of recent papers, here and here, that argue that given the possible magnitude of human effects of DDT, it is not even clear that use of DDT for indoor spraying against malaria will save more people than it potentially harms. I’m not claiming that these papers are right and that all worldwide use of DDT should stop. But I would venture a guess that the case for use of DDT against West Nile will have considerably less positive benefits than against malaria.

Well, sure, such uncertainty exists. But, it seems sort of strange that Crichton uses an example where environmentalists were right and others were wrong in a piece (actually, even within a paragraph) whose thesis is that we must “abandon environmental religion”. Furthermore, I don’t see why Crichton’s argument gets him to where he wants to go on issues such as climate change. Surely, the argument that the climate system may react in unforeseen ways to the known large perturbation that we are putting on it with the increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere ought to argue on the side of doing all we can to minimize this buildup of concentration and thus its unforeseen (as well as foreseen) consequences.

I don’t think you can consider what Crichton has to say on fire suppression without looking at the large context in which he makes his remarks…although it is the best way to do it if you want to avoid the conclusion that Crichton is in many ways self-contradictory.

44

[QUOTE=newcrasher]
I recently read Michael Crichton’s “State of Fear”. He does a pretty good job of taking on environmental "Chicken Little"s and lampoons much of the research that supports man being the culprit behing Global Warming. I thought the book was ok, but I am no scientist.

see, http://www.templeofsolomon.org/orbitalV.htg/variance.htm
for a theory called “Orbital Variance” which is a contraction and expansion of the Earth’s orbit over eons of time which causes shifts from ice ages to tropical conditions. more below…

As an average citizen who has to rely on propaganda from both sides of the global warming issue, I have to admit it is difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff. It seems no one wants to give straight information on what is happening environmentally. It seems people come at the issue with their mind made up, and present the facts to support their point of view. This is the type of issue in which people dig in their heels and don’t want to listen too, much less consider another point of view.

It has always reminded me of religion…

Many earlier societies included an “earth honoring” cosmology. Industrialized/Capitalistic societies confounded by a religious culture that does not include any sense of the Earth being our sacred home contribute greatly to the madness. Humans are the only species that trash their air and water and we are now the most chemically medicated civilization that has ever existed. Our diet is filled with chemicals and chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The handicapped ramp is our “enlightened answer” to the atrophied human species.

45

Good. But what on earth gives you the idea that DDT use is the best option for defending against it? Isn’t your locality currently taking and recommending other, perfectly legal and effective, measures for mosquito eradication and anti-mosquito protection? If it isn’t, then for heaven’s sake, by all means get out there and advocate them. But as jshore points out, there’s no convincing public-health reason to use DDT instead. In fact, your predicament and your ignorance are apparently being exploited by pro-DDT, anti-science groups who care more about scoring political points against environmentalists than about actually protecting people from mosquito-borne disease.

(And I speak as somebody who’s lived in malarial regions of India and is strongly in favor of effective mosquito control. I’m just not willing to jump to the conclusion that DDT must be the best solution simply because the bad ol’ environmentalists got it banned.)

Make up your mind. You seem to be trying to say simultaneously that environmentalists were formerly behind unhealthy forest management policies (although as jshore points out, environmentalists were probably always more on top of the issue than most other people) so you can kvetch about dangerous “environmental rules”, and contrariwise that you don’t actually hold environmentalists responsible for forest fires. You can’t have it both ways.

Good. In that case, you might want to rethink some of your earlier comments here that were inadequately supported and have now been debunked, such as:

  • “global warming “science,” like any “science” where you cannot run experiments and can basically fuck around with any model to vaguely say what you want it to say even though you harldy understand the effect of a million things such as global warming and cooling cycles, the effects of clouds, etc.”;
  • “Ben and Jerry have way more dioxin in their ice cream than anyone else”;
  • “environmentalists twiddle their thumbs and talk about birds that aren’t even likely to be harmed while humans suffr and die”;

That’s doubtless true; a lot of college-age people are simultaneously quite ignorant and quite overconfident, basing exaggerated claims on propaganda and emotion rather than on carefully examined facts. I don’t doubt that most of the overzealous “environmentalists” you’re meeting in school will eventually grow out of this phase, and so will you.

46

Ghanima: well said!!

I would like to bring some additional information to this “Great Debate” by providing my perspective in regards to environmentalism, as one who has worked in both the chemical manufacturing and environmental industries. I currently work for the largest, privately held environmental company in the US. I am quite proud of our company’s ethics and policies from the top down. While some executives and shareholders in the industrial and environmental industries only give “lip service” to protecting the environment, I have personally seen our company turn down business, when it was our position the customer would not allow us (usually due to $$) to use the best management practices for certain waste streams or projects.

Perhaps I have wandered a little off track so far with background info: in a nutshell, I work for a company that, among other services, provides transportation, treatment, and disposal of RCRA hazardous and non-hazardous industrial wastes. We do not manage radioactive or bio-hazardous wastes; rather, we manage flammable, corrosive, reactive, and/or toxic (both inorganic & organic) materials. Most people, environmentalists included, have little idea what happens to industrial wastes from the companies who manufacture the chemicals and goods, which those living in the “first world” use on a daily basis. I will hazard a guess (pun intended), that nearly everyone on this message board has daily access to such things as refrigeration, medicines, motorized transportation – including fuel, TV sets, computers, fire retardant fibers (carpets, mattresses and whatnot), clothing, electricity, artificial lighting, metal tools/cutlery, plastics of all sorts, and a plethora of other products (and services) that produce by-products: be these by-products hazardous or not. Even moving to a communal society to “live off the land” would likely only reduce the amount of items (the manufacture of which created by-products/waste), used on a daily basis, that our post-industrial society provides to us in copious amounts.

I understand and share the general concerns of the “environmentalists” (although not wholly agreeing with or understanding the radical ones), and it is my opinion that many environmentalists let “the perfect become the enemy of the good.” In a perfect world, there would be no waste: we would find a beneficial use for every by-product; although, we have come a long way from the early 70’s when a river in Detroit caught fire due to organic pollutants, and there is quite an extensive laundry list of the industrial pollution caused in the past. In my humble opinion, “the perfect” is not practical at this time, and may never be. However, I believe we (collectively) are significantly better at reducing the risks associated with by-products than we were in the past: industry continues to find ways to reduce and/or recycle/reuse by-products, and we continue to remediate contaminated sites (brownfields and superfund sites) caused by the ecological “sins” (again, pun intended) of the past. This begs the question: are today’s practices good? Some are, some could be better; but we are much better than we were a mere decade ago, and substantially better than we were twenty years ago. If you go back 50 years, today’s management practices are nearly pristine in comparison!

For example, the average person “on the street today” is generally aware of the need to recycle and dispose of household wastes in a responsible manner. Many communities (solid waste districts, generally) now host household hazardous waste collection events, where residents can drop off their used oil, old gasoline and paint, flammable aerosols, pesticides and herbicides, mercury, pool chemicals, etc. etc. so these materials can be treated and/or disposed of properly, rather than end up in the local landfill if one puts these item in the trash dumpster or in the bag on the curb.

Industrial generators of waste are required to abide by significantly stricter standards than the “average person” is aware!! Is there room for improvement? Absolutely! Are we “perfect” today? Absolutely not! However, we have a much higher standard of living, as well as, much better by-product management practices than have ever been seen in recorded (and likely unrecorded!!) human history. We may never be “perfect;” however, I believe the “good” that is being done by both the commodities of modern life and our current waste management practices should not be considered the “enemy of the perfect.”

To bring this back to the question posed by the OP: Has environmentalism become the new religion?

Radical (and sometimes not so radical) environmentalism certainly has some of the trappings of religion: dogma, unquestioning belief (i.e. faith), doomsday/apocalyptic predictions, fanatics/zealots, et al. My answer is: “probably not.” However, I agree with Ghanima: “A little more education, a lot less propaganda is what environmentalists need in order to avoid becoming marginalized by the people who believe that the people described by Crichton represent ordinary people who also happen to be genuinely concerned about the environment.”

-IUchem

47

There are some display problems in this thread tha I have not seen before.

48

Holy crap, Kimstu, where have I advocated DDT spraying for West Nile Virus? I havn’t I’ve only stated that the option of DDT should be on the table when making public or personal health decisions regarding West Nile Virus. As it is, DDT is banned in the United States, and yet, for certain high risk populations, DDT use might be a reasonable approach to dealing with the disease. Why shouldn’t DDT be available in small amounts to nursing homes to be applied internally? I’m not in the position to have the technical expertise to make these decisions, I’m simply saying that DDT’s dangers to human health are apparently non-existant, and its environmental dangers are extremely minor if it’s applied in a responsible and risk-appropriate manner. For example, not using it against agricultural pests, but considering its use for public health applications.

The fact that it is banned altogether in the United States after public outcry from a poorly researched book that made eroneous claims regarding it’s carcinogenic risk to humans is a black mark against modern environmentalism. Get over it.

I have made up my mind and I am being internally consistent. I don’t blame environmentalists in totality for really bad forest fires. I think that they are the minor offender in the game. However, they do hold positions on forest thinning that don’t make sense to me and strike me more as being obstinate than really caring about the health of our forests. We all agree that we want “healthy forests” and I think it’s clear that you can harvest lumber from forests through thinning rather than clear-cutting that won’t damage the ecology of the forest through massive erosion, etc. I think that this is a particularly imortant technique to exercise right now because people in control of forest fire management unfortunately still, “just don’t get it.” So, even if they are doing minor actual harm in their stance of opposing forest thining, it still points to an emotional rather than rational basis to environmentalism.

I will conceed that I was unclear about the Ben and Jerry’s ice-cream thing, although I think the argument of how much relative dioxin is in a certain brand of ice-cream is pretty minor compared to issues such as global warming.

You’ve hardly “debunked” my position on global warming because hardly any of the discussion had been on the actual merits of global warming theory, observations, or what should be done to respond to it. I don’t know how much interest either of us have in going at a debate that has doubtlessly occurred dozens of times before on this board, but global warming “science” still isn’t a science in the literal sense of the word because it doesn’t produce testable or experimental observations. That doesn’t mean that I dismiss it out of hand. I don’t think that macro-evolution is a science in the strictest sense of the word, either, but I have no doubt that macro-evolution was how we’ve come to get here posting on the SDMB. The question is how you want to practically deal with the issues of global warming. For environmentalists, the answer seems to be, “stop driving your car,” but the fact is that people won’t just stop driving their cars because you tell them it’s naughty and that they should stop anymore than you can get seventeen year olds to just not have sex. Rather, the focus should be on alternate energy aside from fossil fuels, and nuclear power clearly has a role in this. The fact that environmentalists seem to hate nuclear energy in spite of its potential to help alleviate global warming also strikes me as irrational.

Is it “religion” per se? Probably not. I’ll go back to my first post:

And the whales. What about the damn Minke whales? Who can make a rational argument that Minke whale populations would be threatened by harvesting a controlled number of the whales every year? Yet Greenpeace is out there opposing any whaling whatsoever.

49

I am certainly glad that you aren’t advocating that. But, I don’t really see any strong argument for keeping it on the table. I think the main concern about DDT is its strong persistance and the way it concentrates up the food chain. That, coupled with the fact that it has known bad reproductive effects on birds and some possible ones on humans (and carcinogenic effects in rats which can be extrapolated to suspect it as a carcinogen in humans…although it hasn’t been demonstrated such and those linear extrapolations are admittedly difficult).

This is coupled with the fact that there are alternative pesticides available that are not so persistent. They may have disadvantages like expense and needing to be re-applied more often that become particularly important in the dirt poor countries of Africa and such…but there is hardly evidence that there is a strong need for it in the developed world.

If you look at where the Sierra Club stands on these things, you will see that they have good arguments to back them up. Maybe you don’t find their arguments compelling, but then you should argue that rather than just concluding that their basis is emotional. I am sure a 1-minute google search would take you to their arguments, but in a nutshell I think it is something like this:

(1) Given limited resources, it makes no sense to concentrate them on thinning in the middle of big national forests but rather the focus should be in areas closer to human habitation. In fact, there is evidence that building roads in national forests increase the likelihood of major fires rather than decreasing them.

(2) The government has not wanted to dedicate the money to thinning so they have tried to do it on the cheap by allowing the companies to come in and harvest trees to make it profitable for them. However, there are fundamentally diverging interests here because the companies want to cut down the big trees and those are the ones that actually are more fire resistant and that often help to control the underbrush (by shading the forest).

There are plenty of testable predictions in climate science. It is not realistic to believe that science only can talk about things we can immediately test in the laboratory. Are you condemning much of astronomy and anstrophysics and geology to not being sciences either? Anyway, there is another thread here at the moment on climate change and have been many in the past, so I agree we should not go off the deep end about it here.

Statements like this make me realize that you are pretty ignorant of what the environmental movement is really advocating. It is true that they push for less sprawl and more public transit but they are not telling people to stop driving their cars. In fact, the Sierra Club’s “evolve” campaign is trying to get young people interested in hybrid cars. And, this article may interest you: Ford brings another hybrid to market -
Auto manufacturer introduces Mercury SUV a year ahead of schedule; Sierra Club joins sales effort.

Well, that is in fact what groups like Sierra Club and Union of Concerned Scientists are doing.

I have a certain amount of agreement with you here. However, on the other side, what support for nuclear energy seems to entail in the U.S. (e.g., in the current energy bill that Bush pushed through Congress) is actually massive subsidy for nuclear energy…which is already a mature technology. And, while one can make the case for subsidy on the basis of the subsidies and effective subsidies through externalized costs associated with fossil fuels, I think a better way to go is to get rid of those subsidies and make fossil fuels pay their own way rather than artificially advantaging nuclear relative to other options like wind and solar (and also artificially subsidizing energy overall, making it artificially cheap and thus encouraging wasteful use of it). [Wind and solar are subsidized too, although I think the total amount they’ve received relative to nuclear is small…and they are not yet mature technologies so there is a stronger case for subsidization at this point.]

Also, not all the concerns about nuclear energy are “irrational”. There are real issues associated with the potential for accidents, terrorism, long-term storage of waste, and potential for proliferation of nuclear materials. I think that proponents of nuclear energy do themselves a disservice when they attempt to completely sweep these under the rug.