Once upon a time, the environment was important, but left mostly to the elites who understood it. Scientists and other well-read professionals concerned themselves with environmental problems and advised governments on the relevant issues. This was known as the era of conservationism. Once upon a time, environmentalism was about science, reason and the careful balancing of many factors.
Fast-forward to today. The environmentalism movement has been taken over by politics and the media. Science still plays a substantial role, but policies are often based upon popular opinion rather than the reasoned weighing of various scientific factors. Despite the honest commitment that modern-day environmentalists have to making the world a better place, implementing their ideas without first engaging in robust scientific discussions has had disastrous results.
Modern environmentalism arguably began with Rachel Carson, and the world has paid a heavy cost for the reckless implementation of policies based upon her ideas. In 1962, Carson published a popular book called "Silent Spring." As the title implies, the book predicted a future in which all birds had been silenced by their extinction.
Carson blamed the pesticide dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane, better known as DDT, for this catastrophic future. There was scientific evidence, and still is, that DDT causes the thinning of raptors' eggshells and may lead to lower birthrates among them. Carson also included speculative problems with DDT, such as the accusation that it may cause cancer. Despite years of research, no evidence for any detrimental effects to human being have been proven. However, the proof of eggshell thinning alongside speculation about health effects spurred civil society to action. The issue became largely politicized. The media became heavily involved.
The coupling of the media with environmentalists who agreed with Carson's prognosis effectively silenced any and all dissent. Scientists who tried to bring new light to the argument by supporting a comprehensive, scientific discussion that included the pros and cons of DDT policy were ignored. Civil society, having only been shown the detrimental effects of DDT by the media, assumed that the negative effects outweighed the positive attributes of the pesticide. Policy was implemented based upon this assumption, having bypassed any scientifically based debate.
As it turns out, scientific debate was necessary in this case. Carson, her supporters, the media and civil society were wrong. The dissenters, who had been silenced, had been correct. The positive attributes of DDT greatly outweighed its negative side effects.
DDT is an inexpensive, very effective mosquito repellent. Before the United States and the international community imposed restrictions and bans on DDT, malaria was being effectively controlled by the pesticide in many nations. In Sri Lanka, for example, there were only 29 documented cases of malaria in 1964. By 1969, after the DDT ban, the number had risen to over half a million.
No one argues that DDT isn't highly effective against malaria; however, the modern environmentalists do argue that other pesticides and methods of malaria prevention can be as effective. There has been no evidence to this effect. In fact, the World Health Organization has recently recommended increased usage and funding of DDT in Africa. The evidence is clear - household use of DDT saves lives and has a minimal effect on the environment. However, this realization is too late for the millions of people who have already died.
The new environmentalist is not confined to history. More recently, civil society has become obsessed with global warming. Don't get me wrong - I am not saying that global warming doesn't exist. I am saying that any semblance of scientific debate has been silenced by a media-environmentalist coalition. Civil society has, once again, been pulled out to sea by the riptide that is media.
Today, the term "global warming deniers," which has been pushed by environmentalists and the media, tries to link the scientific opinions of well-established and respected climatologists to the Holocaust deniers. Any attempt at debate, any attempt to discuss the pros and cons of policies having to do with climate change have been condemned by both politicians and the media. I hope that this time the masses are right. I hope that every sacrifice individuals are forced to make is worth it.
I wish I didn't have to hope. I wish we could intelligently debate the pros and cons of various policies before their implementation.
Erin Wildermuth is a senior in the School of International Service and a libertarian columnist for The Eagle.
