Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist (6 page)

Dogma takes us into the world of frozen thought. For some reason many people stop learning at an early age. They believe they already know all that can be known, or at least all they want to know. Blind obedience, black and white interpretation, and zero tolerance of other people’s ideas, even other people’s honestly held opinions, even when those opinions are based on the best available information, these are the hallmarks of dogma. This is fertile ground for all manner of totalitarian regimes, despots and snake-oil salesmen. They often make a profit and gain power from the intolerance they embrace. And they would never admit they are dogmatic, which clearly means they are in denial.

Propaganda relies on loaded language and lies and perverts the truth. It serves dogma, racism, sexism, and ignorance of science. Hitler’s infamous campaign against the Jews was based on associating them with negative words like
dirty
. Mugabe’s dictatorship in Zimbabwe was fueled by the ridiculous assertion that England was trying to reassert its imperial power. Chinese authorities continue to deny the atrocity of Tiananmen Square and the autonomy of Tibet. One of the principal tools of the propagandist is the association of negative or positive words with the subject of the deception. Greenpeace calls chlorine “the devil’s element,” PVC “the poison plastic,” and nuclear energy “evil.” Genetically modified foods are “Frankenfoods,” “killer tomatoes,” and “terminator seeds.” Propaganda, along with the promotion of hate and violence, represents the dark sideof communications.

Science is neither religion nor politics. But both misuse it with great abandon, and sometimes to great effect. Science has been with us since the earliest people discovered fire, stone tools, agriculture, bronze and steel. They didn’t call it science then but it was the accumulation of knowledge that could be passed down through generations. Much of this knowledge took the form of advances in technology. The Chinese, the Egyptians, and the Mayans independently discovered truths about the universe. Then Copernicus discovered the earth was not the center of the universe and Galileo, to his peril, learned the sun did not revolve around the earth. Darwin completed the picture by proclaiming that humans were not the center of life and that they had descended from the apes. The horror of this revelation haunts creationists and fundamentalists to this day.

Science employs the empirical method to test hypotheses. A hypothesis is a statement that can be tested, such as “All dogs are brown.” A sample of dogs is taken and it turns out they are not all brown. The hypothesis is disproved. Another hypothesis is “If I drop a rock from a height, it will fall to the ground.” After thousands of replications the statement proves true in every case. The hypothesis is proved and soon becomes a theory, and ultimately a law, in this case a law of physics. A law is something that has never been disproved.

Science is not all powerful; it has its weaknesses. One of these is that you cannot prove a negative. For example, you can’t prove UFOs do not exist. You could prove they do exist if you documented them sufficiently to be beyond doubt, like bringing one to the town square and displaying it for all to see. But in the absence of proving they do exist you can’t prove they don’t. This leads to a serious problem in the discussion over the safety of various chemicals, foods, and practices. Activists will commonly challenge government agencies and industry manufacturers to prove a certain chemical or product is not harmful. To most people this seems like a reasonable request. But it is impossible to accomplish through the scientific method. It is possible to prove a certain chemical is harmful and it is possible to prove a certain chemical is beneficial, but it is not possible to prove it is not harmful. That’s because even if you do a million tests, and still see no evidence of harm, it is still possible you missed something or the test was not designed well enough.

Some problems in science are difficult to solve because there are too many variables and it is therefore not possible to determine a cause-effect relationship. Climate change is a classic example. So many variables affect the climate: the earth’s wobbles, the sun’s cycles, the many different greenhouse gases, human alteration of the environment, and other variables we may not even be aware of. This makes it nearly impossible to “prove” which of the variables has the largest impact. And then there is the fact that we have only one planet earth. It is impossible to do a statistical analysis with a sample of one.

The real strength of science is that it is based on two things: observable facts that can be repeated, and logic. There is no need for one-off miracles, mystics, or magic. And yet science is regularly abused by all manner of cunning politicians, zealous activists, proselytizers, and downright fakers. Our only defense against this abuse lies in our ability to think critically and to ask the right questions.

My main reason for the above discussion is to set the stage for a conversation about what
environment
and
environmentalist
really mean in today’s language. Clearly the word environment simply refers to all things in our surroundings, but does it include us? This is an important question because if our goal is to “save the environment” it is essential to know if we, the humans, are included in the saving. Activists too often portray the situation as if the task is to save the environment
from
us, as if we were its enemy. I believe this is a self-defeating proposition. If we are the enemy, we might as well commit mass suicide. Some support this approach, unfortunately they aren’t volunteering to go first. They tend to see themselves as the chosen ones, who are more enlightened than the teeming masses that are destroying the earth.

We are part of the environment and must therefore take responsibility for the task of harmonizing our existence with the other species on this planet. That doesn’t mean we have to take a back seat or feel badly about the fact we eat other living things. That is our nature as much as it is the nature of every animal on earth. It is in our own self-interest to care about the totality of the environment, to learn to be good stewards of the planet, nurturing at the same time as consuming. This is our great challenge as we enter an age of unprecedented population levels and technological ability. A certain amount of humility should temper our dominant position in the food chain as we strive for a sustainable existence.

The term
environmentalism
came into popular usage in the 1960s, inconjunction with the prospect of nuclear holocaust and the societal revolution against war. Before then, someone who cared about nature was called either a naturalist or a conservationist, the latter implying an agenda to protect nature.

It is important to note the word environmentalism ends with
ism
, just like communism, socialism, capitalism, fascism, and anarchism. These words describe belief systems based on an adherence to a set of basic principles. Some people become “true believers” in one or another of these
isms
. They tend to become rigid in their beliefs and often resent other people who question them. Some people remain open minded and recognize that some of these
isms
have both positive and negative elements, often depending upon particular circumstances.

We have all experienced the peril of talking about politics and religion around the dinner table. They are on the one hand the most interesting of subjects and on the other the most difficult to discuss without conflict. Politics and religion lie at the root of most wars and civil strife. Yet they both speak to the very essence of our philosophies and our codes of conduct in daily life.

Throughout history there has been a competition between religious (spiritual) leaders and nonreligious (secular) leaders. In much of the world this has resulted in a formal separation of church and state, while in other countries religious leaders are the political leaders and in still others the political leaders have effectively eliminated the religious leaders.

The environmental movement has unfortunately become a hybrid in this regard. It is partly a political movement that aims to influence public policy, but it is also partly a religious movement in that many of its policies are based on beliefs rather than scientific facts. In addition the environmental movement seeks to gain support from religious leaders and individuals by appealing to their spiritual values. Environmentalism is to a large extent a populist movement that challenges established authority and appeals to the disenchanted, social revolutionaries, and idealists. “Pop environmentalism,” like popular culture in general, tends to be shallow and sensational, moving from fad to fad. The pop environmentalists are generally self-assured, even smug in the belief they know the truth.

A classic example of pop environmentalism is the zero-tolerance position against the use of genetic modification to improve our food crops and medicines. There is absolutely no scientific basis for such a position yet it has taken root in many otherwise “sophisticated” countries with high standards of living and a well-educated public, such as Germany, Britain, Austria, France, and New Zealand. Every major academy of science has endorsed the use of genetic enhancement as a way to improve nutrition and yield and to reduce the negative environmental impacts of agriculture. Nothing has been identified in the makeup of these improved crops that has the potential for negative effects. For more than 10 years now, we have had the knowledge to eliminate malnutrition in the world, especially in the rice-eating cultures where nutrient deficiencies affect tens of millions of people. But groups like Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund have blocked these advances by promoting fear in the public and by supporting regulations that stifle research, development, and adoption of genetically modified crops. They are effectively condemning millions to suffering and death for the sake of a superstition. Surely this can’t seriously be called environmentalism.

In a landmark speech before the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco in 2003, the late Dr. Michael Crichton said the environmental movement had become a religious movement. He observed, “Increasingly it seems facts aren’t necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It’s about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them.”

Dr. Crichton concluded, “Environmentalism needs to be absolutely based in objective and verifiable science, it needs to be rational, and it needs to be flexible. And it needs to be apolitical.” In other words environmentalism should steer clear of both politics and religion. I agree with this analysis, but you have to dig deep in today’s environmental dialogue to find much evidence of this approach. It leads me to conclude that we need to redefine environmentalism as a movement based on science and logic rather than belief and superstition. That is the challenge facing us all as we try to chart a course into a sustainable future. That is the challenge of becoming a sensible environmentalist.

Greenspirit is dedicated to a definition of environmentalism based squarely on science and logic. This includes an objective appraisal of economics, such as recognizing that solar energy costs more than 10 times as much as conventional energy and that the sun doesn’t shine at night. We must recognize we depend absolutely on the resources of the earth for our survival. The tendency of pop environmentalists to oppose every single mining development anywhere provides a clear example of abandonment of science and logic. We can’t survive without mines because the minerals, metals, and fuels derived from them are absolutely essential. Have these people given up cell phones, laptops, and bicycles? Of course we must work to make our mines compatible with the sustainability of the environment. This means not poisoning the water and reclaiming the mined area when the mine is shut down. It means providing long-term benefits to local communities, such as education, training, and health care. These things are possible and indeed are being included in all modern mining developments. This is what Greenspirit and its supporters believe in.

In the final analysis, environmentalism should be about learning how to extract the food, energy, and materials we need to survive while at the same time reducing our negative environmental impacts as we do so. That is the aspiration, the central spirit of Greenspirit. Not to despise ourselves but to use our intelligence to find win-win solutions to the pressing challenges we face today. I believe we can meet these challenges, and I will be the last one to sink into a doomsday funk. This is a big planet with a four-plus billion-year history. Life has survived and flourished for more than three billion of those years, an unfathomable scale of time. The evolution of life has continued through cataclysms far greater than we can imagine. It is not about to vanish anytime soon.

The “Precautionary Principle”

What kind of man would live where there is no daring? I don’t believe in taking foolish chances, but nothing can be accomplished without taking any chance at all.
—Charles A. Lindbergh, American aviator