I was reading in the Wisconsin State Journal the other day that UW Madison has, for the second year in a row, denied funding for the Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). This organization is a student run group here on campus that believes that “most consumer and environmental problems can best be met and overcome – not through excessive government regulation and bureaucracy – but rather, by better unleashing the power of the free-enterprise system and the ingenuity of science and technology.” In effect, CFACT is a pro-market environmentalist group.

When I first read this story I was irked. The Student Services Finance Committee, the student-run body that allocates funds to student groups like CFACT, says that CFACT did not get their requested $190,000 because they violated school rules, like misuse of furniture, keeping six-packs of beer near the organization’s garbage can, and not offering enough “direct services” to UW students. Come on! Are we to believe that there aren’t at least a few orgs that have had a little beer sitting near their trash can or that the UW Democrats didn’t stand on a bit of furniture last election night? I was inclined to believe CFACT that they were denied funds because they are a relatively conservative club on a liberal university. Different points of view should not be stifled, but celebrated and explored.

Notice my use of the past tense above. My sympathy for CFACT quickly ran out when I visited their webpage and read through their mission statement. I first noticed that this group of so-called environmentalists thinks that global warming is based on “shaky science” and the consequences of governmental intervention to slow the rate of atmospheric warming will ruin our economy. However, in the same breath, CFACT believes that scientific progress is our solution to saving the environment – yes, that’s right: the same science behind global warming can also solve the problems facing the environment. It does not end here, though. My favorite part of the CFACT mission statement is their proposal to protect endangered species: “To protect endangered species, policies that encourage landowner cooperation, respect private property rights, and utilize market-based incentives should be pursued wherever possible.” I’m sure that land developers, corporations, and investors can’t wait to get out into the wild and save some unknown, endangered bird species in the name of not only ecological sustainability, but mostly the love of cute and cuddly animals. I’m sure that developers will line up to halt their multi-million dollar projects in the name of saving obscure species like the Hine’s Emerald Dragonfly from extinction.

Needless to say, after getting a taste of CFACT’s ideas and logic, I too am unsure what this organization brings to the students besides providing a venue to drink and get angry with Al Gore.