The results of following the policy prescriptions of pseudo-environmentalists like Rachel Carson and Paul Ehrlich is not a cleaner environment but inefficient use of scarce resources, according to a new video featuring Walter Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University, and Dr. Fred Singer from the Science and Environmental Policy Project.
I have not seen the video, but provide this information on behalf of a reader of this blog. The issue is certainly one often discussed here, but the language used by Williams and Singer is perhaps new?
Titled 'The high cost of pseudo-environmentalism' the converation between Williams and Singer apparently focuses on the issue of whether or not the United States is taking the right approach to the environment.
The promo for the CD/DVD which costs US$25 includes:
"The discussants agree that much of what passes for environmentalism today is based on parochial interests rather than creditable science and the common good.
Williams and Singer criticize Rachel Carson and Paul Ehrlich for their Malthusian predictions that have proven to be grossly inaccurate.
The opportunity cost of pseudo-environmentalism is the good that could have been done in other areas of public policy. Specific examples of imprudent policies, like the banning of DDT, are discussed. Dr. Singer questions the scientific validity of much environmentalism. He agrees with Walter Williams that environmentalism has been used to advocate government control of people's lives much like the discredited ideologies of socialism and communism. Both discussants believe that providing the media with accurate information about the environment would help educate the public about the dangers of pseudo-environmentalism."
Thinxy, You have asked some large questions and I can't do more than try to indicate where I stand on some of them. I agree with everything you say in your first five lines.
On climate change, I'm not sure that my preferred approach does require a global framework, but a good deal turns on what is meant by 'framework'. The point is that many of the responses that countries have available to them to respond to climate change yield a combination of benefits, only some of which are global. Others bring direct benefits to the countries concerned (energy efficiency, energy security and air quality, to name a few).
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Kyoto Protocol forces developing countries into the position of having to demonstrate that they wouldn't have taken a particular course of action unless support through this mechanism had been available. This is undesirable and I'm not at all sure that it wouldn't be better (including for climate change outcomes) if the resources were made available unconditionally to developing countries, so that they are free to make their own decisions in the light of their perceptions of their best interests.
I certainly don't think the current globalised system is 'infallible' in the sense of being 'beyond improvement,' It has however proved surprisingly resilient, e.g., in the speed of the recovery from the Asian crisis in the late-1990s. The speed of the transformation over the greater part of Asia would have been unimaginable as recently as 20 years ago.
On Collapse, the sub-title of which is 'How societies choose to fail or succeed', I've read a set of eight commentaries under the editorship of Prorfessor Julian Morris that were published in 'Energy and Environment', 2005, vol. 16, no. 3 & 4. I was shocked to read in the last of these pieces (by Jane Shaw, of Montana) of Diamond's contemptuous treatment of the powerful and well-documented works of the late Julian Simon.
I don't think that we can be certain that our society won't fail, but if failure arises from an inability to recognise the causes that may lead to failure, as Diamond argues, the best protection must surely be openness of discussion and tolerance of dissent. This leads me to be very wary of Diamond and the company he keeps.
I doubt if depression on the 1930s scale IS possible any more, because so much is now known about the perverse actions that produced it. But if this diagnosis is wrong, it's still difficult to know what could or should be done to remedy the situation.
I don't know enough about global food issues to answer your question - detribe certainly knows much more, I don't know whether or not he's following our exchange.
Ian if you're saying that a multi-disciplinary, experienced and expert (ie combining science as well on-the-ground and local real experience), cross-cutting approach is needed to address these problems then you'd get few arguments. Same applies if you're saying that a systems approach is needed, with relevant expertise, but not all problems need a global approach; or where they can be effective, more localised fixes shouldn't be delayed in favour of a global or regional solution that's difficult to bring about; and pre-determined, narrowly-defined or fixed solution is appropriate to few if any problems. On Climate change, a global-scale problem, I think that yr position supports a global framework, or at the minimum, a regionally/strategically co-ordinated approach. (I ask as others here have argued for nationally localised activities to mitigate GW without making any connection to a need to co-ordinate and monitor at a broader level - IMHO a narrow solution that also fits with yr outline above of poor policy prescriptions).
Various of the views, estimates and predictions dicussed above are quite old and arose from the particular trends, mindsets, sociopolitical landscape, available data, emerging understanding and limited data of the time. We could similarly produce wacky statements and predictions from the other side of the fence but it wouldn't lead to a progressive discussion (not denying that it's a useful exercise to learn from the past, but this applies to all sides). As to whether those same patterns of thinking have continued into today - everyone has biases, cultural and preferential, in their thinking. As to good climate change processes today and in the future, which is yr concern, well we loop back to para 1 above.
Interestingly, some evolutionary biologists have shared your view on the limited applicability of the law of thermodynamics, but for quite different reasons.
Ian, on the topic of identifying threats and loosely on the book Collapse (which I haven't read either, but understand the central theme to be that of civilisations past rising and then falling due to causes that they failed to recognise, so are we to assume that our civilsation won't fall?): pls don't dismiss this as doomsdaying, but are we due for another (great/greater?) depression? Is this inevitable or do we assume that the current globalised economic system is infallible? We have unpredecented patterns of dispersal and distribution of trade, debt and savings and concentration of wealth - does this make the global economy more or less resilient? We've spent years partying like it's 1999, can we expect a doozy of a hangover? Does this possibility go ignored? In addition to the obvious human cost, that would have severe environmental repercussions. (Similarly I've asked some questions here about overall security and redundancy in our global food production systems but there wasn't any indication that this gets consideration).
rog it's just as important to remember that famines aren't caused by a shortage of food.
Its important to remember Ms stinky (retired) that the projections of the past have failed to meet the facts of the present.
Rising population did not mean less food
end of story.
Anyway, nice to see the Gouldian Finch on the rebound.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200603/s1603220.htm
Endangered finch sightings leave ornithologists hopeful
Bird researchers in northern Australia are hoping the endangered gouldian finch could finally be on the path to recovery.
The finch, one of Australia's most endangered birds, is reappearing in places it has not been seen for up to 15 years.
For decades the numbers of the vivid finch have dwindled in the wild, the victim of bushfires, a parasitic mite and the loss of native grass seed.
Birdwatchers have reported the highest number of sightings in years in Kakadu, Arnhem Land and Cape York.
Professor Stephen Garnett from Charles Darwin University believes better fire management may have helped the bird's revival and he is optimistic it may even return to the towns.
"They used to be in Katherine and they used to be in towns ... through Queensland and just imagine having that, down south they have sparrows. Up here we have gouldian finches, fabulous."
Colleen O'Malley, from the Threatened Species Network, also says better fire management may explain the increase in numbers.
"We're talking birds in the vicinity of 200 to 400 in a flock, which is a really exciting thing that sort of harks back to the days when there were flocks of thousands of birds," she said.
"We're just quite excited that that might mean that there's a positive trend in the population. But we're not certain yet, we'll have to wait for a couple more seasons to see whether those numbers hold."
Thanks Thinxy. I haven't read Diamond's book or the discussion of it on this blog, so I probably shouldn
Copyright on 'The high cost of pseudo-environmentalism' is 1993. Thirteen years on, has it had any impact whatsoever?
(Copyright ©1999 Mike Merg Revised January 2005) provides another insight into the subject matter under the name of 'greenwashing'.
Ian, re: Maddox 'The Doomsday Syndrome' - we give excessive attention to minor threats - doesn't this support an argument that we're consistently poor at identifying the real threats? Not necessarily that the other 'real threats' will wipe us out completely, but they can wipe out numbers of us, from small pockets thru to most of us. ie, overlooking 'a' potentially significant threat - isn't this consistent with Diamond's Collapse book which gets reviled on this blog?
correction: ever made, not even made
Still nothing there to excuse a claim of "gross exaggeration". But enough to explain the basis of the opinion, thanks for clarifying.
Still nothing there that acknowledges the ground-breaking work and the muddier context of that Global 2000 report and earlier gloomy estimates.
Nothing that admits that my question was distorted into an entirely different question.
And still no indication of the ability (from rog) to read or comprehend. I asked for specifics in the first instance, I didn't deny that any predictions had not been met by the exact time date. Some still may be met as even Ian himself admits. None of this excuses people from (mis)quoting (generally from 2nd hand sources) by excluding the qualifying statements and expressions of uncertainty that accompanied the allegedly unqualified 'predictions'.
rog, refer original post, then recall the line of yr party member Louis: when has an economist even made an accurate prediction?