H. L. Mencken succinctly explained the (Green) objective […],
Which brings me to this:
“… the basic flaw of absolutism in environmentalism“
[…] Wildavsky set out to determine the truth about environmental threats by using the proper scientific method of posing a question and testing it with experiments. The question he posed was, “But is it true?” that later became the title of his posthumously published (1995) book. The experiment involved graduate students with no science degrees asking the question and seeking the origin and validity of the various environmental stories.
A 1995 article summarized some of the findings;
• “The ban on DDT, one of the first great triumphs of modern environmentalism (and a tribute to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring), did “more harm than good.”
• Despite the hysterical fears of parents, asbestos in schools poses no detectable danger to children.
• There is no evidence that acid rain poses significant danger to the environment except in a few isolated places (such as some high-altitude forests).
• Most hazardous waste sites (including such notorious ones as Love Canal in upstate New York and Times Beach in Missouri) posed no significant danger to residents. The government’s extraordinarily costly Superfund program for cleaning up such sites is, on the whole, a waste of money.
• There is no credible evidence to support fears of global warming.
• “there is no clear evidence of global ozone depletion,” that there is good reason to believe that what depletion there may have been has nothing to do with CFCs and that there are “strong indications that the harm from [ozone] depletion will vary from little to none.”
Today, 20+ years later, the validity of these findings is confirmed. They are all victims of what Wildavsky identified as the basic flaw of absolutism in environmentalism. He asked,
“What norm states that health is the only value or even the dominant value?” “Whatever happened to other values? How much is a marginal gain in health worth compared with losses in other values such as freedom, justice, and excellence?”
Dr Tim Ball asks the question, is Wildavsky still right?
Today, 20+ years later, the validity of these findings is confirmed. They are all victims of what Wildavsky identified as the basic flaw of absolutism in environmentalism.
The funds removed from real environmental rehabilitation practices is astonishing. The politics and science of global warming is a failure, science must now regroup, and return, unencumbered by ideology.