Outside of conservative circles, and even among some conservatives, the general impression is that environmentalist are well meaning people who have an interest in preserving nature. Even those who think that many environmentalists go too far tend to give them the benefit of the doubt and do not question their motives. The public in general is more than willing to accept environmentalists' self-description as those who are interested only in saving the "beauty of nature" or, maybe, in preserving nature in order to "prevent man form destroying himself".

That is a complete lie.

The environmental movement is hardly motivated by an altruistic dedication to protecting man, or even protecting nature for man's benefit, the movement is an expression of hatred for technology and capitalism, more interested in eliminating modern civilization than in preserving anything.  In fact, not only is it opposed to all things technological, and to capitalism which makes technology possible, but many of the leaders of the environmental movement are actually opposed to mankind in general. Of course, as I will explain later, such man hatred is really just the logical outcome of the theories of environmentalism, so it makes perfect sense that the most consistent and most extreme of the proponents would end up hating mankind.

Perhaps the rank and file truly believe that they are just fighting to keep nature pristine, or to save man from "fouling his own nest", though I think the anti-technology, anti-capitalism, anti-man philosophy has reached even many of the rank and file. While there is probably still a majority in the movement who buy into the pro-human position published for public consumption, I get the feeling that more and more rank and file environmentalists, especially among college students and other younger supporters, the anti-human position is gaining currency. It seems more common to meet even casual environmentalists who buy into the "too many people" argument* and other anti-human positions.

Regardless of the rank and file's position, I can clearly show that the driving forces of the environmental movement are not interested in their avowed goals.

First, let us take the current obsession of most environmentalists, reducing man's carbon emissions**. Obviously preventing all carbon dioxide emissions is neither possible nor desirable. Because CO₂ is emitted by every member of the animal kingdom, as well as produced by decomposing organic matter and by forest fires, volcanoes and other natural processes, we will never eliminate its production. And if we did, it would spell the end of life on earth, as green plants would then starve, and, with plants no longer producing oxygen, animal life would soon follow. Perhaps some anaerobic microbes would survive, but almost all life on earth would be finished if we eliminated CO₂ production.

So, the goal is to reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide to levels which will be balanced out by plant respiration, resulting in no increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we cannot easily reduce animal respiration, forest fires or volcanoes, barring mass extermination of humans, we are left with reducing the emissions caused by human activity. This means, primarily, reducing the emissions associated with transportation, industry, and electrical generation. There are secondary sources, such as emissions from heating, but handling the three principle causes will significantly reduce man's impact on atmospheric CO₂.

The current environmentalist movements is pushing the idea of either mandated reductions in CO₂ emissions, or some sort of CO₂ offsets or "cap and trade" plans. All of which are basically ways of forcing a reduction of industrial activity, differing only in whether these reductions will be spread evenly or whether richer nations will be able to buy offsets from less wealthy nations. As all of our current source of energy (save one) involve the emission of carbon dioxide, every one of these plans basically amounts to imposing a reduction in the standard of living in most nations. The cap and trade schemes do allow richer nations to suffer less in exchange for massive payments to poorer nations, but in the aggregate all plans require a reduction of mankind's affluence.

There is one way that these stringent requirements can be met, but it is one solution that the environmentalists have opposed. Were we to adopt a strong nuclear energy program, substituting nuclear energy for all our electrical generation, we would greatly reduce our carbon emissions. We could do even more by increasing our electrical generation capacity, so that all industrial and home heating functions could be performed by cheap electricity. As this electricity would be produced by nuclear power, which generates no carbon dioxide, we would also eliminate the industrial and private sources of carbon dioxide. Finally, if we produce enough electricity, it will make hydrogen production cheap enough that hydrogen powered vehicles may become cost effective, or at least the low cost of fuel will likely spur technology to the point where technical refinements will be very likely, making the technology more likely to become cost effective.

Now, I am not endorsing a government program to do this. I would much prefer that the government simply remove all the impediments to production of nuclear power. Admittedly, with coal being so cheap in this nation, it is far more likely coal would be the solution of choice, rather than nuclear, but I have no problem with that either. Of course, I do not buy into the whole theory of anthropogenic global warming, so maybe my opinion is not the best one by which to evaluate solutions.

My point is that were the environmentalists interested in both reducing carbon dioxide and helping mankind, they would make it easier to generate electricity using nuclear power, first by removing current impediments to new plants, and then by either subsidizing nuclear power or taxing coal plants to make nuclear generated electricity more profitable than coal. That would quickly reduce our carbon dioxide emissions while requiring little or no decrease in our standards of living.

But, as everyone knows, environmentalists have been in the forefront of opposing nuclear energy. Usually this is excused by some simple-minded slogan such as "Solutions need to be social not technological" or by reference to imaginary hazards of nuclear power. Buyt the truth is that many environmentalists are more interested in destroying technology than in saving the planet. Both the anti-man and the anti-technology factions agree that any solution which simply replaces one technology with an equally effective "green" variation is to be opposed. In their opposition to nuclear power they show that their real goal is a neo-Luddite one, not the preservation of the planet, but the elimination of modern technology, or, perhaps, man.

For those who think my argument that environmentalists hate mankind is too extreme, I could point you to many, many quotes from prominent environmentalists from Prince Phillip Mountbatten to Paul Ehrlich either lamenting the "surplus population" now living or  extolling the virtue of plagues in wiping out man. Prince Phillip actually spoke wistfully of his desire to reincarnate as a virus to wipe out excess population.

Then again, I don't need quotes to prove my point, I can show you behavior. Specifically the continuing opposition to DDT.

The original banning of DDT was a farce. At the time the EPA banned the pesticide the science that "showed" DDT's harm to the environment was already being disputed, and even the EPA director admitted that he banned DDT mainly as a show of power, to prove that the fledgling EPA had political clout. Since then malaria in many nations has risen from hundreds, or even a slow as tens, of cases per year to the pre-DDT levels of millions of cases. The science has grown even more conclusive, neither man nor bird populations were endangered by DDT, the evidence used to ban DDT was shoddy in the extreme.

And yet, the environmentalist groups continue to lobby to keep DDT banned. Even though DDT has been shown to be as harmless as it is possible for a pesticide to be, and far safer than most pesticides now permissible, the environmental movement cannot bring themselves to endorse DDT's reintroduction. Instead, they make a token effort at promoting mosquito netting, so as not to appear indifferent to the plight of millions, but, because they cannot  bring themselves to endorse a pesticide, they condemn millions to suffering and death.

What, other than a profound contempt for humankind, could explain this action? Even if I did not know of the misanthropic quotes of prominent environmentalists, this action alone would tell me that the environmental movement was more about hatre dof man than anything to do with saving the planet.

And, if you think it through, the logical outcome of environmentalism is hatred of man.

Oh, I am not speaking of those who claim to embrace environmentalism to keep man from poisoning himself. Thanks to the extremism of the environmental movement, that position will always be an untenable minority position. Either they will remain true to their cost-benefit approach, and, seeing things such as the deaths caused by banning DDT, will break with the mainstream environmentalist movement, or they will stay with the herd and give up any pretense at acting for the good of mankind. In other words, they either will drift into the mainstream environmental group or they will be marginalized. In any case, those hwo claim to protect man, and do so as anything more than a pretense, will never have much influence in the environmental movement.

And what does the mainstream environmental movement believe?

The basic tenet of environmentalism is that there is an inherent value in "nature". By definition, nature is everything on the planet excluding man and his works. By definition humans and their actions are "unnatural", and therefore lacking in value.

The first conclusion one usually reaches form this belief is that man must be circumscribed, kept from doing any more harm than needed. As man and his works are seen as necessary evils, those new to the movement start out by asking that man be prohibited from working or living in certain pristine areas, that certain areas essential to specified species be declared off limits, that no new mining or drilling take place, and so on. Basically, the public tenets of the modern environmental movement are the first logical outcome fo these beliefs.

But that is not where this stops. Stating from the same premises, one can go much farther. First, seeing how technology demands ever increasing resources, and how technology also makes easier an increase of human population, and allows man to inhabit previously inaccessible areas, the next logical conclusion is that technology itself must be limited, or even rolled back, so as to limit man's potential to harm nature.

From that Luddite conclusion, it is but a short step to the ultimate conclusion. If nature is all things good and man is the font of all evil, then as long as man exists, then nature is at risk. Perhaps a few enlightened souls can be permitted to live a primitive "natural" life, but, in general, it is  necessary that man be first reduced in numbers and then finally removed. The only possible outcome of the environmental premises is that man himself must be removed, for the good of nature.
 
Now I am sure some will take exception to my conclusions. After all, many environmental causes are nominally interested in helping man. For example, the AGW activists claim that they are trying to prevent global warming so as to save mankind. But it is my belief that such claims are simply a fig leaf offered up for the two fold reason of gathering mass public support and obscuring their true motives. Face it, a movement which stated its goal was to reduce your standard of living in order to eventually drive you to extinction would not get broad support, but tell people that the sky is falling (or heating up, or giving you cancer) and they will sign up in droves. And so instead of calls to reduce farming so as to limit human population size we get Alar scares and protests against GMOs. It sounds much more pro-human, but the end result is the same, a net reduction in our food supply and in the number of humans we can support.

But do not just take my word for it. Propose a technological solution to an environmentalist. Tell them that nuclear power produces no carbon dioxide, or explain why genetically modified organisms are no different than old fashioned cross breeding. Explain how organic produce is no better than industrial farming methods or that acid rain is largely a localized phenomenon and not responsible for those dead lakes in the north east***. Tell them that the world was warmer when the vikings colonized Greenland and human society still survived. Or that extinctions occur constantly, yet life as a whole has not vanished from the Earth. In short, give them as many reasons as you can to stop worrying, to see that many of their fears are unfounded, and that technology alone can solve many others.

And note how little interest they have in anything you say.
 
-------------------------------------------------------

* I will not be addressing the "too many people" argument directly in this essay. If you want to find a great refutation, find a copy of Julian Simon's The Ultimate Resource. I believe it is currently out of print, but it worth the effort of tracking down a used copy, as it is the most thorough refutation of the Zero Population Growth movement I have ever found. And, while the explicit ZPG movement vanished in the 1980's, their beliefs continue to be espoused by other environmentalists, so it is well worth the effort to come familiar with the counter-arguments.

** It is interesting to read that there have been a few theorists who argue for increasing carbon dioxide emissions. Seeing that the percentage of atmospheric carbon dioxide has declines after each ice age, they worry that the atmosphere may not be able to support plant life following another ice age. In order to prevent this they argue that we should intentionally increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Admittedly they are a small minority, and their theory has not been embraced by everyone, but the fact that such theories exist and have some academic support gives lie to Gore's consensus.

*** I do not have the space to go into this here, but there are numerous essays on this topic. (See Rational Readings on Environmental Concerns (Jay Lehr ed.)) The basic problem is that we put out forest fires. Without ash, the thin acidic top soil resting on a granite base tends to acidify rainwater, causing clear, acidic lakes in areas once subject to glaciation. Even in areas untouched by man, should there be insufficient alkali materials, naturally acidic rain [rain is usually naturally slightly acidic, though in very dusty regions alkali rain can occur], acidified by the material through which it leeches, can cause acid lakes. Such lakes have been reported in Scandinavia and the Catskills for many centuries, making it unlikely they are the result of industrialization. The other part of my statement, that acid rain does not migrate from Ohio to New York or Canada (or from England to Scandinavia) was shown using radioisotope tracers. Acid rain, to whatever degree it is harmful, is a localized phenomenon, and not a major contributor to dead lakes. (I am basing these statements on relatively old research, so should there be newer results, please let me know. But as far as I know these studies have not been debunked.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE 06/25/2008

A reader objected to my statement that without CO2 plants would "suffocate". While it is not central to my argument, and though I disagree with her statement that plants "do not need us", I do believe in being precise, so I have changed the statement to say that "green plants would starve" rather than "plants would suffocate". Technically, with insufficient CO2, green plants would find themselves unable to carry out photosynthesis. Fungi, anaerobic microbes and some others may survive with no external source of C02, but I disagree with my reader that green plants would.