Environmentalism- your view?

"Environmentalism is a broad philosophy and social movement centered on a concern for the conservation and improvement of the natural environment, both for its own sake as well as its importance to civilization. Environmentalists frequently speak of a planet or place faced with a plethora of grave and urgent threats; often associated with unbridled consumption, economic growth, materialism, insensitive development, and booming human numbers. Perhaps most problematic from an environmentalist perspective is the modern view that humanity's fate is divorced from that of the natural world, and that our responsibility to nature is - at best - limited to the satisfaction of shallow desires.

In various ways, environmentalists and environmental groups seek to give the natural world a stronger voice in human affairs and struggle to make governments, industry and other institutions see the importance of ecology and to treat nature with greater respect. Many environmentalists see common cause with indigenous communities and other marginalised groups struggling to protect their traditional way of life or freedom from blind commerce and other global incursions." 

                -from Wikipedia

So- how do you view environmentalism as a philosophy or political agenda- positive, negative, or mixed? I have become aware that there are a number of participants in Gather who view it as a religion, or a philosophy of economic puritanism, or just plain stupid and non-factual.  If you examine the history of environmentalism in the 20th century, it is one of incrementalism rather than radicalism. Teddy Roosevelt started the ball rolling with his intensive creation of National Parks. Richard Nixon created the EPA, which was undermined by Republican leaders from Reagan onward. Rachel Carson lit a fire with her book "Silent Spring", which popularized the cause of limiting pesticide use. Carson was vilified by chemical companies as a dangerous crazy in her day, no kidding. But her success resulted in the termination of DDT spraying in the USA- thereby saving the Bald Eagle and other predatory birds from extinction in the lower 48 (DDT acts to thin the shells of birds, resulting in crushed eggs). There have been other success stories- such as the elimination of lead from gasoline. Yes, we used to breathe in lead atoms from car exhaust before the ban, which resulted in the reduction of intellectual capacity in some americans who lived in areas of high levels of car exhaust. You could look this up if you like. Then of course there were the Americans who died from asthma attacks from coal smoke before the Clean Air Act. Then there was the realization in the 1980s that the use of CFCs (chloro- fluorocarbons) in refrigerants and aerosol propellants was resulting in a thinning of the ozone layer which would inevitably cause a rise in skin cancer and blindness in humans if not stopped. It was stopped by international agreement. How about radioactivity? Linus Paulling and other scientists argued against above-ground nuclear testing in the 1950s and eventually convinced the government to stop them. There are many humans alive today because of the choices made above. We forget this when we think of environmentalism as "accomplished"- no more frontiers left.  How likely is that, with 6 billion humans on the way to 9 billion? You argue that there is no financial comparison between the trivial costs of these earlier environmental successes and today's challenge of climate change. Maybe, but the industrialists of the day argued vehemently that the costs of those changes were financially unsustainable. Yet here we are, and we are not bankrupt. Well some of us are bankrupt from credit card or mortgage, but that's another story.

Our negative thinking on the environment is odd and twisted in some cases. Look at the word- all it means is "that which surrounds us"- in other words, the world we live in. Do we want that world to foster our health and survival, or do we wish to make a buck and hope that natural systems will somehow persist when our descendants need them?  In recent conversations,  I have also encountered people who think that the brand of environmentalism practiced by Rachel Carson was fine, but today's environmentalism of concern for climate change is simply insane. We forget that environmental activists have always been viewed as a plague by the powerful and wealthy of their day. Carson was despised and mocked then as much as Al Gore is now. Oh yeah, the radio and magazine bits on that know-nothing bleeding heart wacko woman. Her problem with pesticides was not seen as "fact based"- just as many now look upon global warming as alarmist claptrap. For every scientist who fought DDT in the 1950s and early 1960s, there are now hundreds of scientists who urge action to combat climate change. Why do some of us think that yesterday's scientists were geniuses, and today's scientists are imbecilic, money-grubbing, political hacks? That view seems to be illogical.

Whoops- had to take a break there and turn off all the lights in the house for Earthy Day hour. It is now 8:00 p.m. looking uo the street, well no more homes are dark. No big deal, after all the tv is still on and combine that with this computer I am using quite a bit more electricity than we save from the lights being off. I guess it has sentimental value- if we are going to do this climate change thing, we will have to be a team, not just a house per block. And turning off lights for an hour will not do the trick either.

So aren't I the long winded one tonight. But think about it people, what does this mean to you? I am not arguing here that cost-benefit analyses do not apply, that 10 million bucks should be spent to reduce my mercury exposure to zero. Hey, realistically my life is not worth 10 million bucks, so hell with that.  Just shoot me and save the 10 mill. But is the future of the human race worth a thousand bucks per year per american family if that is what it takes? Did you have to think about that one?

I await your calm and reasoned responses. Do not disappoint me.