Alexander Conant:

The U.S. Senate last week rejected oil exploration in an airport-sized sliver of Alaska’s vast 19.5 million acre Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, demonstrating yet again the frightening narrow-mindedness of environmentalists. The issue of drilling in Alaska is a prime example of environmentalists abandoning any notion of reason and instead obeying their knee-jerk opposition to the American way of life. Arctic drilling would create tens of thousands of jobs, decrease Americans’ dependence on foreign oil and, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, not impact the local environment.

Yet such scientific and economic reason is absent in the modern environmental debate. Instead, the issue is reduced to an emotional appeal based on pure fiction. Sure, buying Iraqi oil instead of drilling it ourselves may let some tree huggers sleep better at night, but, on issues ranging from global warming to recycling, too many are willing to abandon logic in favor of feel-good economic sacrifices. Such naiveté costs jobs and, in many cases, is not environmentally wise.

Kristin Wieben:

Opposing drilling in ANWAR isn’t narrow-minded or naíve; it’s simply common sense.

Drilling would inevitably cause serious, irreparable harm to the environment, and without any sort of real long-term payoff.

Economists’ argument that arctic drilling will decrease our dependence on foreign oil is nothing but empty propaganda echoing the empty lies of greedy corporations. Not only does ANWAR contain barely enough oil to cover six months of domestic oil needs, but early estimates indicate it would take over 10 years for this oil to reach the market.

Over 95 percent of Alaska’s Northern Slope is already available for oil exploitation; destroying the last remaining coastal plains for a measly few barrels of oil would be both short-sighted and irrational.

When are people going to realize we can’t drill and dig our way out of our larger energy problems indefinitely? Quick fixes like artic drilling are unsustainable and ultimately leave you right where you started. The answer is changing our energy consumption habits and encouraging both individuals and businesses to live more environmentally-friendly lifestyles. Yes, such regulation will be costly, but if we don’t take care of the environment today, it will not be around for us to enjoy tomorrow.

AC:

Let us be clear: The environment isn’t going anywhere. If we allow limited drilling in Alaska, the caribou won’t notice. If we log responsibly, spotted owls will not notice. And if we continue to produce carbon-dioxide, there is no solid evidence the earth will notice.

We should encourage responsible growth rather than discourage business altogether. We should carefully weigh the pros and cons of environmental regulation and act to preserve both jobs and the environment — not blindly favor one over the other.

Unfortunately, on Earth Day, jobs get the backseat.

Such misplaced priorities are common amongst extreme environmentalists. On the issue of global warming — the crown jewel of the modern day environmentalist movement — scientific evidence is wildly ignored in favor of draconian regulations.

I won’t argue that the Earth’s temperature is stagnant: Data on temperature fluctuations throughout history vary widely. But most scientists agree the Earth’s average temperature increased only half a degree Celsius in the last century, and the Earth actually cooled in recent decades. There is absolutely no evidence — only faulted theories — that humans are causing widespread climate changes.

As with other issues, the environmentalists’ answer to global warming is based on neither science nor economics. Instead, they are pushing the Kyoto treaty, which targeted Americans’ way of life while leaving the rest of the world relatively free. If global warming is happening — and that’s a big if — unfairly targeting American jobs is not the solution.

KW:

If the Kyoto treaty targeted Americans’ way of life, it’s only because Americans’ extraordinarily wasteful lifestyles are rapidly destroying the planet. If we continue to take the environment for granted, it’s inevitable: We’re going to turn Earth into a completely unrecognizable and inhospitable planet. Luckily, our doom hasn’t been sealed yet, and if we take precautions — such as the Kyoto treaty to slow global warming and other measures to develop cleaner, more efficient energy sources — it’s not too late to reverse most of the damage.

Unfortunately, big corporations, and the politicians they’ve paid off, aren’t willing to spend a single penny of their profits to ensure the earth remains a habitable place after they’re gone.

To this end, they’re fronting a conspiracy — much like the one perpetrated by tobacco companies — to convince people that global warming doesn’t exist.

More than enough evidence exists to prove beyond a doubt that increases in greenhouse emissions are causing the earth’s temperature to rise unnaturally over the past century: sea levels rose 4 to 10 percent, more than 5,400 square miles on the Antarctic ice shelf have broken off and melted, and extreme temperature swings are becoming the norm around the globe.

All of these findings are backed by reputable scientists, including a 2,500 member UN-sponsored commission.

AC:

Ahh, the true anti-American sentiment shines through. Americans generate pollution because we have the world’s largest economy. We produce and consume, which creates pollution. Does this mean we should stop working while China builds more factories? Of course not.

The doom-and-gloom hysterics from environmentalists dangerously cloud the issue, allowing the debate to be co-opted by special-interest groups. Kristin’s conspiracy theories aside, most big-energy businesses in America actually advocated global warming theories. Enron strongly supported the Kyoto treaty because it would lock America into the status quo — at the time, a favorable position. To the extent pollution should be reduced, it should be done in a way that rewards innovation, rather than simply penalizing the biggest.

Nowhere is this truer than mandated recycling programs. Garbage recycling is the pinnacle of environmentalism run amok. Fueled by fantastic images of cities buried in garbage, environmentalists have championed recycling as an effortless step toward saving the Earth. In fact, recycling is not free; if it was, the government would not have to mandate and grossly subsidize it. Recycling is not even clean: Most recycling uses more energy than it saves. If you recycle this newspaper, more water will be polluted than if we made new paper. Landfill space is plentiful and cheap.

Recycling is an ideal example of what’s wrong with modern-day environmentalism. Embracing feel-good programs, many are easily duped into supporting costly, unneeded programs locally and nationally. The environment is worth preserving; policy-makers should employ rational, cost-effective methods grounded in science rather than pandering to uneducated emotions.

KW:

Not only does recycling protect natural resources and prevent landfills from filling up unnecessarily, but it also significantly cuts down on dangerous greenhouse emissions. Furthermore, while its detractors, eager to label it “anti-American,” hate to admit it, recycling programs actually create jobs.

It’s true recycling costs money up front, but it more than pays for itself by reducing expensive landfill fees and waste-removal costs. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, recycling programs saves each Madison household about $20 annually.

However, the money is beside the point; people should recycle regardless of its proven cost-effectiveness. Those who would place profits above the health of the environment are short-sighted and have seriously misplaced priorities. Contrary to what corporate America will tell you, money is not the most important thing in the world, and realizing this is a sign of maturity, not naiveté.

Alexander Conant ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in economics.

Kristin Wieben ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science and French.