Spring Break
It's time to improve environmentalism
Ian Bezek
Issue date: 2/24/09 Section: Opinion
I've been criticized recently as being "against the environment," but nothing could be further from the truth.
I'm environmentally conscious and personally have a very small footprint upon nature. Among other things, I don't even have a car -- a rare feat among modern Americans.
That said, as an economics major, instead of viewing the environment emotionally, I ask how much will proposed policies cost and what benefits we'll get in return.
Take pesticides for instance - discussing them causes strong reaction in people as they're perceived to be dangerous, but, according to Reason, a political magazine, they only cause 20 deaths a year -- they're virtually harmless. The cost of trying to reduce the total pesticide deaths from 20 to, say, 10 would be enormous to save very few lives.
On the other hand, almost no attention is paid to particulate air pollution, which kills over 100,000 people a year. Based purely on numbers, pesticides are irrelevant and should not be an issue to environmentalists, whereas air pollution should be among our highest priorities.
When one applies this sort of economic filter to the environmental agenda, a lot of proposals end up being impractical. Take a look at global warming for example -- it isn't even scientifically proven and the costs to fight this theoretical danger are enormous.
The implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would only slightly reduce carbon emissions, yet for the same amount of dollars as one would spend implementing Kyoto for just one year's time, we could provide the entire world with clean water and sanitation.
To me, that's an easy choice. Clean water will save millions of lives now, whereas possibly preventing the world from heating up at some point in the future doesn't guarantee the prevention of a single death.
According to environmental statistician Bjorn Lomborg, spending a mere $300 million dollars a year could save 250,000 lives in the developing world. This could be achieved by giving people simple medicines such as aspirin to prevent heart disease. Thus, for every $25 spent, one life could be saved.
I'm environmentally conscious and personally have a very small footprint upon nature. Among other things, I don't even have a car -- a rare feat among modern Americans.
That said, as an economics major, instead of viewing the environment emotionally, I ask how much will proposed policies cost and what benefits we'll get in return.
Take pesticides for instance - discussing them causes strong reaction in people as they're perceived to be dangerous, but, according to Reason, a political magazine, they only cause 20 deaths a year -- they're virtually harmless. The cost of trying to reduce the total pesticide deaths from 20 to, say, 10 would be enormous to save very few lives.
On the other hand, almost no attention is paid to particulate air pollution, which kills over 100,000 people a year. Based purely on numbers, pesticides are irrelevant and should not be an issue to environmentalists, whereas air pollution should be among our highest priorities.
When one applies this sort of economic filter to the environmental agenda, a lot of proposals end up being impractical. Take a look at global warming for example -- it isn't even scientifically proven and the costs to fight this theoretical danger are enormous.
The implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would only slightly reduce carbon emissions, yet for the same amount of dollars as one would spend implementing Kyoto for just one year's time, we could provide the entire world with clean water and sanitation.
To me, that's an easy choice. Clean water will save millions of lives now, whereas possibly preventing the world from heating up at some point in the future doesn't guarantee the prevention of a single death.
According to environmental statistician Bjorn Lomborg, spending a mere $300 million dollars a year could save 250,000 lives in the developing world. This could be achieved by giving people simple medicines such as aspirin to prevent heart disease. Thus, for every $25 spent, one life could be saved.
Viewing Comments 1 - 8 of 10
Jordan
posted 2/24/09 @ 1:00 AM MST
Bravo!
A well written article with reason used as the only weapon against emotional environmentalism (which wishes only for the destruction of man). (Continued…)
Henry
posted 2/24/09 @ 10:15 AM MST
While I appreciate your attempt to talk about some real issues here, something doesn't smell right. You talk about climate change as if it were merely armchair theory, but then you slam wind power because it is responsible for slaughtering birds. (Continued…)
Nelly
posted 2/25/09 @ 10:29 AM MST
This article made me laugh... really hard. Climate change not theoretically proven, the hole in the ozone layer an illusion, organic farming not healthy? Make the reader believe that you're making valid connections. (Continued…)
Arvensis
posted 2/25/09 @ 12:07 PM MST
What I think he meant to say is that "man-caused" global warming is not proven. Every planet in our solar system is experiencing warming right now... (Continued…)
Arvensis
posted 2/25/09 @ 7:21 PM MST
I know this subject gets a lot of feathers ruffled, but shouldn't we look at science from a non-biased approach instead of just accepting the proposed hypothesis? I am not dismissing that our practices are not contributed to the warming, but the major contributing factor is out of our control. (Continued…)
Nelly
posted 2/26/09 @ 8:51 AM MST
Having skeptics of the status quo is necessary to any important debate. However the climate change opposition is less than 10% of the debate and it has been proven that the majority of their claims resemble very closely those tactics taken on by the tobacco industries. (Continued…)
Erica
posted 2/26/09 @ 9:35 AM MST
"Man-caused" global warming has most certainly been demonstrated.
This link shows the convincing-looking relationship between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperature (data from NOAA). (Continued…)
Arvensis
posted 2/27/09 @ 10:00 AM MST
Erica -
It has not be demonstrated, it has been hypothesized. Obviously I have seen the data and graphs you present...they have been the crux of Al's argument. (Continued…)
Post a Comment