Opinion: Column
Environmental claims neglect human liberty
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Jim Allard:
- Nussbaum unimpressive; humanities still don't get free pass (September 17, 2009)
- Hard liquor at gas stations? Jefferson would not object (September 10, 2009)
- Health care plan 'Orwellian' ruse (September 1, 2009)
- Environmental claims neglect human liberty (May 5, 2009)
- Tea parties missing ideological boat (April 15, 2009)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
Two weeks ago, the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies held an Earth Day conference on energy. Associating environmentalism with energy production is a tragedy, as environmentalism is profoundly anti-science and anti-energy.
The Sierra Club, who was represented at the Nelson conference, supports wind and solar power but opposes coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear energy. In other words, they oppose every viable source of energy. And even the use of wind and solar is opposed if they are shown to be visually unpleasant, harm birds or disrupt plants.
With such restrictions — and given the fact it takes tens of thousands of acres of wind or solar to match the output of one coal power plant — it is pure fantasy to believe these “renewable” sources will be a viable source of energy. Even after billions of dollars of government subsidies and decades of research, only 2 percent of the world’s power is supplied by “renewable” energies.
But producing energy is not the concern of environmentalists. Environmentalists oppose any technology that actually produces clean, abundant energy.
Nuclear power, for example, continues to be opposed by environmentalists despite its indisputable efficiency, safety and abundance. The Sierra Club claims “all current plant designs are complex, prone to accidents and have severe security vulnerabilities” and advocates shutting down current plants when their licenses expire. Such objections ignore the actual science and history of nuclear power.
For example, at a UW energy conference David Lochbaum, from the environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists, was asked what it would take for environmentalists to support nuclear power. He promptly answered, “I ask our climate scientists if hell freezing over — would that solve our global warming problem? Because that’s basically what it would take.”
So, despite posing as a “concerned scientist,” and offering a litany of alleged scientific arguments against nuclear power, in the end, science is irrelevant to his group’s position. By his own admission, there is no scientific standard that could ever be met — environmentalists are opposed to nuclear power on principle.
Other environmentalists, such as UW professor Jim Pawley, smear the entire nuclear industry as a group of killers, saying, “This is an industry that built two bombs that killed a lot of people, and since then they have been trying to make something good out of it.” He teaches a “scientific” course on how to respond to global warming.
Crusading under the banner of science while ignoring and distorting science is commonplace in the environmental movement. Science, they say, shows us that many will starve and succumb to disease as the earth warms and that the industrialized world is responsible.
Professors Jonathan Patz and Jonathan Foley from the Nelson Institute, for example, claim there is “growing evidence that climate-health relationships pose increasing health risks under future projections of climate change” and that warming has “already contributed to increased morbidity and mortality.” According to Patz, climate change is “a huge ethical problem” and “one could make the argument that our energy policy is indirectly exporting diseases to other parts of the world.”
To arrive at such claims, they present a long list of data showing that developing countries in Africa and elsewhere are vulnerable to changes in their environment, falling victim to famine and malaria. What about these countries’ lack of development and modernity? Such facts are simply dismissed as requiring more study. As Patz et al. state, “The data available at present does not allow robust control for non-climatic confounding factors such as socio-economic influences.”
Consider the enormity of what is being evaded here. The No. 1 factor determining health and disease prevention is a society’s industrialization, and yet this fact is not only dismissed as a “confounding factor,” it is regarded as an exporter of disease. The authors conclude, “Precautionary approaches to mitigating anthropogenic greenhouse gasses will be necessary.”
So, while industrialization has freed man from the ravages of the natural world, it is this very industrialization that gets blamed for Third World vulnerability to nature. Such studies and a myriad of others like them are not attempts at knowledge, but attempts to pass off environmental dogma as science.
Sacrificing low-cost abundant energy — the lifeblood of an industrialized society — in the name of the uncivilized and unindustrialized is as anti-man as one could imagine.
If one cares about clean, efficient sources of energy, one must reject the anti-industrial, anti-scientific ideology of environmentalism and adopt its opposite — man’s right to exploit nature for his benefit. Whatever the merits of a particular technology, it must be evaluated within a context that upholds energy production as paramount to human prosperity. This requires embracing scientific progress, industry and property rights. Above all, it requires scientific honesty.
Jim Allard (jallard@badgerherald.com) is a graduate student in the biological sciences.
24 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Brother Ali makes an ‘Exclusive’ stop
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
HOUSES FOR Fall 2010. All houses are on W Dayton or N Bassett. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 bedrooms. All have parking. madisoncampusrentals.com
521 W Dayton 4BR/2BA. Marble showers, dishwasher, completely updated! madisoncampusrentals.com
1, 2, or 3 bedroom apartment available for spring 2010. meltzer@wisc.edu if you are interested!
blech, come on. the idea now is to go for modes of energy that don’t have consequences for the future. what is to be done of spent fuel rods? bury them somewhere in hopes that their endless half-life won’t overlap with a future civilization? i understand the importance of adapting to what’s viable. as such, of course, wind and solar power are dim in comparison to nuclear. but therein lies the rub: we must adjust our grandiose manner of living to reflect one that makes sense with a growing population and a raped Earth. in america, we live like the kings used to live. we are used to a standard of living that should make us all feel like brats, especially in consideration of its consequences to the future and third-world countries. we ought not to live this way, and we ought not to use science as a means to propagate this way. we ought to use it to ameliorate the damages we’ve caused in the course of this way, while we revert to something more humble.
sustainability does not infer some beleaguering vulnerability to nature. it infers a sane standard of living, akin to our forebears.
Jim, are you for nuclear power because it’s cleaner than coal? Why do you care about “clean” if you contend pollution is not a problem? Are you arguing against yourself by admitting we do have a long term problem?
Instead, Jim, you should argue for innovation, efficiency and energy independence. These are essential to America’s future. Focusing on environmentalism is a poor choice, because you can never ration with fanatics. We’re America and we need to return to our creative brilliance.
To 1:13
If we ought not to live like kings, why are you posting on the internet? Do you not know how many natural resources were taken from our “raped” earth to build the computer and infrastructure in which you used to post? If you feel so strongly against our living in luxury, be the first to give up your TV, cell phone, computer, DVD player, Ipod, or whatever luxuries you own. Until then, I chalk this up to utter hypocrisy.
” endless half-life ” ??? - what a moron.
Sitting in the dark and shivering is no way to go through life.
If spent fuel rods are the worst thing we leave to the next generation, I think we can safely say we’ve done our job in looking out for the long term future.
Jim Allard is an idiot.
I really need to stop reading Jim Allard.
Wow.
I don’t know what else to say.
I had no idea people even thought like this anymore. Good job making yourself sound so ignorant and apathetic.
Humans don’t own the world. We need to protect it and prevent the downward spiral of pollution, or within the next few generations our species might be on a downfall as well. Humans can’t sustain this disturbing level of pollution that has resulted from industrialization. Clean energy will become more influential and more effective in coming years BECAUSE of science and human advancement. We do not have to sacrifice knowledge to preserve the environment—we can USE knowledge to preserve the environment and hopefully better the detrimental effects of the last 150 years of industrialization.
Once Barry HO pushes thru his carbon tax we can expect to see a full on Depression.
“Going green can cost too much green”
http://www.usatoday.com/money/ industries/energy/2009-05-03-greencities_N.htm
Energy is the chief requirement for economic growth.
And whatever we do in the West, China and India do not intend to “sacrifice” in order to control CO2 emissions. If we want to reduce CO2 we are going to have to work on ways to do that — plant forests, stimulate plankton blooms, something of the sort. It is not going to be accomplished by crippling the US coal industry and increasing the costs of electric power in the US.
We need nuclear power plants, and of course they add no CO2; the fact that they are not foremost in the CO2 reduction plans should tell us a lot about the real goals of those who attack the coal industry.
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/2009/Q2/mail569.html#Tuesday
Well thank God someone gets it. Just how much polution is generated creating one nuke plant vs 100,000 wind turbines constructed, transported and installed? That is the number required for a turbine farm to generate the amount of power output of one modern nuke plant. Use some common sense you college locked egg heads. Jim is right.
4:28, why not just keep using coal? We’ve got more coal than Jesus, and you suggest we switch to nuclear? What are you, one of those global warming pussies?
I don’t even know. Jim Allard must be the dumbest person I’ve heard of in awhile. Can you believe “smart” people who are grad students at this university would actually spout this claptrap? We need to rethink our admission policies.
The problem with nuclear power is not with the production, it’s atomic waste. Please, tell me you don’t think atomic waste is safe. If you think there is a safe way to store it, like under a mountain, I will point you towards the failed ‘Endlagerung’ in Germany. Here is the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepgeologicalrepository#Futureplansandremainingrisks
“Existing repositories in deep geological formations (e.g. Schacht Asse II and the repository for radioactive waste Morsleben in Germany) show that solutions to the problem of radioactive waste remain elusive and that safe and environmentally sound storage cannot be guaranteed, especially over long periods of time.”
Nuclear energy is not an ultimate answer. The answer is less consumption/production and, yes, renewable energy. Please use Germany as an example. They know what they are doing.
Renewable energy in Germany - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewableenergyin_Germany
Pile the nuclear waste up in the desert and set up a guard. A few square blocks should hold a hundred years worth. In a hundred years there will be another use for it.
Brilliant article, Jim. And I hold a graduate degree as well.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123690627522614525.html
Paragraphs 8-10 specifically
@4:28pm: “college locked egg heads”
So we’re students, pursuing an education, and that’s bad…why? If the argument you’re making is that a collegiate education is meritless, perhaps try making it in a message board that isn’t run by a college newspaper.
To address your “argument” in support of Jim’s position: one modern nuke plant still outputs nuclear waste. Mark Weimer correctly points out that proper disposal of nuclear waste is an unresolved issue. Nuclear waste seeps into groundwater wherever it is buried, no matter how securely it is sealed. I’m willing to recognize that wind energy isn’t the end-all be-all of smart energy production, but surely you don’t want mutated kids?
“Nuclear waste seeps into groundwater wherever it is buried, no matter how securely it is sealed”
Encased in glass, it will be while before there is any seeping.
Fusion FTW!
Question: How close are you to creating a fusion machine capable of actual energy generation?
Answer: We are hoping to have a net energy production product within six years. It could take longer, but this definitely won’t be a 50 year development project.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/05/interview-dr-richard-nebel-of.html
Lots of stuff in this article indicates Allard doesn’t have much real world experience. Go visit some ranchers near some unreclaimed uranium mines, and tell them nuclear power doesn’t pollute. If they haven’t taken their rifle out of the rack in the back of their truck to run you off, consider yourself lucky. They might be willing to really “educate” you. You might lose your ideological purity, and any support you have for nukes.
“unreclaimed uranium mines”
Solution = breeder reactors
2:40pm: Living in the real world requires taking ideas seriously, not cavalier statements about gun-toting ranchers.
The issue is not some alleged harm from uranium mines, nor whether nuclear “pollutes.” When, and if, individuals are harmed by pollution, regardless of the technology involved, the solution is to uphold property rights and enforce the law.
The issue is the choice between the anti-science, anti-reason approach of environmentalism which seeks to sacrifice man to nature and an ideology that respects man’s right to exploit nature for his benefit. This is a real-world choice with life-and-death implications.
@ 1:42:
“Encased in glass, it will be while before there is any seeping.”
I really hope you are kidding…
Jim: “The issue is the choice between the anti-science, anti-reason approach of environmentalism which seeks to sacrifice man to nature and an ideology that respects man’s right to exploit nature for his benefit. This is a real-world choice with life-and-death implications.”
While the specific people you cited fit your “sacrifice” paradigm, more pragmatic environmentalists seek a dovetailing of human need with ecological stability. For instance, if the Green Bay Watershed is successfully rehabilitated, we will be able to eat the fish we catch, and enjoy clear, beautiful waters. The idea of “sacrifice” implies that a success for the environment means some loss for humanity. Many conservationists do not see it this way.
And finally, the assumption that human prosperity is an ethically unassailable purpose is a dangerously narrow-minded one to make. Rand is wrong, and even if she isn’t, can’t you come up with your own thoughts instead of re-packaging hers in ill-fitting prose?