The High Cost of Pseudo-Environmentalism
The results of following the policy prescriptions of pseudo-environmentalists like Rachel Carson and Paul Ehrlich is not a cleaner environment but inefficient use of scarce resources, according to a new video featuring Walter Williams, professor of economics at George Mason University, and Dr. Fred Singer from the Science and Environmental Policy Project.
I have not seen the video, but provide this information on behalf of a reader of this blog. The issue is certainly one often discussed here, but the language used by Williams and Singer is perhaps new?
Titled ‘The high cost of pseudo-environmentalism’ the converation between Williams and Singer apparently focuses on the issue of whether or not the United States is taking the right approach to the environment.
The promo for the CD/DVD which costs US$25 includes:
“The discussants agree that much of what passes for environmentalism today is based on parochial interests rather than creditable science and the common good.
Williams and Singer criticize Rachel Carson and Paul Ehrlich for their Malthusian predictions that have proven to be grossly inaccurate.
The opportunity cost of pseudo-environmentalism is the good that could have been done in other areas of public policy. Specific examples of imprudent policies, like the banning of DDT, are discussed. Dr. Singer questions the scientific validity of much environmentalism. He agrees with Walter Williams that environmentalism has been used to advocate government control of people’s lives much like the discredited ideologies of socialism and communism. Both discussants believe that providing the media with accurate information about the environment would help educate the public about the dangers of pseudo-environmentalism.”