Comments on: Misguided Environmentalism

By: Allan Bradley

Allan Bradley — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 22:04:51 +0000

Yeah, Jeremy, I have definitely overstated my case in some ways. What I describe is an ideal situation, in which we have perfect control over the environmental consequences of our actions. Of course this is an impossible ideal; our human interaction with the environment is complex beyond complete understanding. As a stand-in for perfect environmental management, it is a useful rule of thumb to protect the ‘natural’ world. Call it the ‘chipmunk > asphalt’ principle.

I agree with the principle, but it can lead to counterproductive environmental advocacy, as I hope the MATC example shows.

By: Jeremy Patashnik

Jeremy Patashnik — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 03:18:00 +0000

I very much like this post, Allan. I think your point that we protect the environment for us–not for the environment–is exactly right, and one that is often overlooked.

Here’s another thought, though (I suppose it’s somewhat of a paradox): Sometimes is it in our best interest to protect the environment simply for the sake of protecting the environment?

Here’s what I mean: How every piece of an ecosystem interacts with each other is incredibly difficult to describe, and often we don’t know the full effects an action will have on the environment. So I agree, to the extent that we are environmentalists, it should be because we are acting in our own best interest. But in marginal cases, sometimes saving the whales for the sake of saving the whales might just be in our best interest because we don’t fully know what will happen if we don’t save the whales.

By: William Rafey

William Rafey — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:04:04 +0000

This argument is a good one — it was first made by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger in their article “The Death of Environmentalism.”

It can be found here, for those interested in further reading:
http://www.thebreakthrough.org/PDF/Death_of_Environmentalism.pdf