The Nature of Environmentalism

February 21, 2008 10:45 PM by George Reisman | Other posts by George Reisman | Comments (75)

In my previous post, "A Word to Environmentalists," I wrote "[t]he first step you need to take is to stop using the same word `environmentalist' to describe both them [advocates of mass destruction and death] and you. So long as you do use the same word, people cannot help but think of you all in the same terms."

In reply, a respected colleague of mine at the Mises Summer University, wrote the following:

I'm not sure I buy that argument. It seems to assume something like the following premise: "If many of the most prominent people who embrace the label `X-ist' have advocated bad stuff, then one shouldn't call oneself an `X-ist.'" But that premise seems to have some odd consequences, as follows:

Many of the most prominent people who embrace the label "atheist" (e.g. Stalin, Pol Pot) have perpetrated great evil, so Ayn Rand shouldn't have called herself an atheist.

Many of the most prominent people who embrace the label "liberal" (e.g. Woodrow Wilson, FDR) have perpetrated great evil, so Ludwig von Mises shouldn't have called himself a liberal.

Many of the most prominent people who embrace the label "capitalist" or '"free-marketer" (e.g. the GOP) have perpetrated great evil, so George Reisman shouldn't call himself a capitalist or a free-marketer.

Many of the most prominent people who embrace the label "egoist" (e.g. Max Stirner, Nikolai Chernyshevsky), while not exactly perpetrators of evil, have at any rate advocated some pretty dubious stuff, so Ayn Rand shouldn't have called herself an egoist.

And so on.

I mean, why let the bad guys set the meanings of all these terms?

I have quoted my colleague not so much in order to answer him in particular, but because his response provides a good starting point for providing a further explanation of the profound and inherent evil of environmentalism and why a reasonable person should no more call himself an environmentalist than he would call himself a Communist or Nazi.

It should be realized first of all that "environmentalism" is in a very different category than the examples of the advocacy of atheism, liberalism, et al. by authors who also propound clearly destructive ideas. This is because atheism, liberalism et al. in themselves do not represent a philosophy or program that is evil on its face or that necessarily implies evil. (In this connection, it should be recalled that Stalin and Pol Pot committed their atrocities not in the name of atheism, but in the name of Communism.) In addition, in all of the examples cited there are also prominent supporters of the doctrines who go out of their way to present theories and programs that demonstrably promote human life and well being. Thus both Ayn Rand and Mises were atheists, liberals, pro-capitalist and pro-free market, and were egoists. Their writings serve as far more than a counterweight to the wrong or dubious ideas of other supporters of these doctrines and, indeed, make a compelling case for why these doctrines themselves in fact serve to promote human life and well being.

However, there are no counterparts to Rand and Mises in the advocacy of environmentalism. (Nor could there be.) No one in environmentalism rises to challenge the evils that its leaders and spokesmen advocate or to show that environmentalism is the opposite of what they claim.

By way of contrast, consider the following case. Imagine that someone known as a prominent supporter of Austrian economics wrote an article or gave a speech in which he advocated the enactment of wage and price controls or the nationalization of industry. I think that everyone affiliated with the Mises Institute, certainly myself included, would be all over this person and make it as clear to the world as possible that his views not only did not represent those of Austrian economics but were in complete and total opposition to everything Austrian economics stands for.

Now imagine that a prominent environmentalist writes an article or gives a speech in which he expresses the wish for a virus to come along and wipe out a billion people. What will be the reaction of the environmental movement? Will that individual be denounced for misrepresenting the movement? Will the rest of the movement's leaders rush to assure the world that that individual was so far from representing environmentalism that he actually represented the diametric opposite of its principles?

Not at all. There will be no negative reaction of any kind from within the movement, not even a raising of eyebrows. I can say this with the utmost confidence, because such statements have already been made, and made repeatedly. And there has been no outrage, no negative response of any kind from within the environmental movement.

Here's David M. Graber, in his prominently featured Los Angeles Times book review of Bill McKibben's The End of Nature: "McKibben is a biocentrist, and so am I. We are not interested in the utility of a particular species or free-flowing river, or ecosystem, to mankind. They have intrinsic value, more value--to me--than another human body, or a billion of them.... It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."

And here's Prince Philip of England (who for sixteen years was president of the World Wildlife Fund): "In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation." (A lengthy compilation of such statements, and worse, by prominent environmentalists can be found at Frightening Quotes from Environmentalists.)

There is no negative reaction from the environmental movement because what such statements express is nothing other than the actual philosophy of the movement. This is what the movement believes in. It's what it agrees with. It's what it desires. Environmentalists are no more prepared to attack the advocacy of mass destruction and death than Austrian economists are prepared to attack the advocacy of laissez-faire capitalism and economic progress. Mass destruction and death is the goal of environmentalists, just as laissez-faire capitalism and economic progress is the goal of Austrian economists.

And this is why I call environmentalism evil. It's evil to the core. In the environmental movement, contemplating the mass death of people in general is no more shocking than it was in the Communist and Nazi movements to contemplate the mass death of capitalists or Jews in particular. All three are philosophies of death. The only difference is that environmentalism aims at death on a much larger scale.

Despite still being far from possessing full power in any country, the environmentalists are already responsible for approximately 96 million deaths from malaria across the world. These deaths are the result of the environmentalist-led ban on the use of DDT, which could easily have prevented them and, before its ban, was on the verge of wiping out malaria. The environmentalists brought about the ban because they deemed the survival of a species of vultures, to whom DDT was apparently poisonous, more important than the lives of millions of human beings.

The deaths that have already been caused by environmentalism approximate the combined number of deaths caused by the Nazis and Communists.

If and when the environmentalists take full power, and begin imposing and then progressively increasing the severity of such things as carbon taxes and carbon caps, in order to reach their goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 90 percent, the number of deaths that will result will rise into the billions, which is in accord with the movement's openly professed agenda of large-scale depopulation. (The policy will have little or no effect on global mean temperatures, the reduction of which is the rationalization for its adoption, but it will have a great effect on the size of human population.)

It is not at all accidental that environmentalism is evil and that its leading spokesmen hold or sanction ideas that are indistinguishable from those of sociopaths. Its evil springs from a fundamental philosophical doctrine that lies at the very core and deepest foundations of the movement, a doctrine that directly implies the movement's destructiveness and hatred of the human race. This is the doctrine of the alleged intrinsic value of nature, i.e., that nature is valuable in and of itself, apart from all connection to human life and well being. This doctrine is accepted by the movement without any internal challenge, and, indeed, is the very basis of environmentalism's existence.

As I wrote in Capitalism, "The idea of nature's intrinsic value inexorably implies a desire to destroy man and his works because it implies a perception of man as the systematic destroyer of the good, and thus as the systematic doer of evil. Just as man perceives coyotes, wolves, and rattlesnakes as evil because they regularly destroy the cattle and sheep he values as sources of food and clothing, so on the premise of nature's intrinsic value, the environmentalists view man as evil, because, in the pursuit of his well-being, man systematically destroys the wildlife, jungles, and rock formations that the environmentalists hold to be intrinsically valuable. Indeed, from the perspective of such alleged intrinsic values of nature, the degree of man's alleged destructiveness and evil is directly in proportion to his loyalty to his essential nature. Man is the rational being. It is his application of his reason in the form of science, technology, and an industrial civilization that enables him to act on nature on the enormous scale on which he now does. Thus, it is his possession and use of reason--manifested in his technology and industry--for which he is hated."

Thus these are the reasons that I think it is necessary for people never to describe themselves as environmentalists, that to do is comparable to describing oneself as a Communist or Nazi. Doing so marks one as a hater and enemy of the human race.

Whoever believes that it is possible to be a "free-market environmentalist" is guilty of a contradiction in terms. The free market rests on a foundation of human life and well-being as the standard of value. Environmentalism rests on a foundation of the non-human as the standard of value. The two cannot be reconciled. It's either-or.

I know that these conclusions are upsetting to many people. It's got to be upsetting to realize that one is advocating destruction and death. But fortunately, there's a simple and ultimately happy solution: just stop doing it. Stop being an environmentalist!

Copyright © 2008, by George Reisman. George Reisman, Ph.D. is the author of Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics (Ottawa, Illinois: Jameson Books, 1996) and is Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics. His web site is www.capitalism.net and his blog is www.georgereisman.com/blog/.

Comments (75)

Eliza
You've persuaded me. Thank you.
Published: February 21, 2008 11:51 PM
Mark B.
Frankly, Professor Reisman is correct. In dispationate review, I really can find nothing at all to undermine his arguments. Other than maybe a little absence of tact in an earlier blog post, but that is neither here or there as far as rote theory..

For me it changes nothing practical in my life, I have never pushed enviromental causes and am a long time foe of climate change propaganda. I have pushed for less government and will continue to do so.
Published: February 22, 2008 12:03 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
While you go some distance in addressing your esteemed colleague's objection, I don't think your response to him addresses my main point at all, which is a strategic one.

The concept to which you want to affix the label 'environmentalist' has a real referent, to be sure. There is a core group of extremists who fit the description - some perfectly, some more or less. But there are many more who think of themselves as environmentalists who fit the description much less and even not a few who fit it not at all (such as the free-market environmentalists you noted).

This presents a problem then. You are seeking to narrow the pre-existing meaning of the word 'environmentalist' to fit the concept you've defined above. You're welcome to do this, of course, at the risk of confusing your readers, but there's no guarantee you'll be successful in convincing everyone to use the word only as you want them to.

But why narrow the meaning of the word? There already exist words for this despicable group. Watermelons. Socialist environmentalists. Statist environmentalists. Etc.

I believe your strategy is unconstructive and counter-productive. The extremist environmentalists will have little trouble in today's political climate and state of public ignorance in painting those who adopt your strategy as right-wing, anti-science, anti-human, anti-environment, greedy capitalists (meaning their definition of statist-corporatist capitalism). Meanwhile, you cede to them the appearance of the moral high ground and an etymologically appropriate label to go along with it.

How many times have the enemies of liberty managed to achieve the appearance of winning the moral high ground, in part by either stealing a label or concept from us and twisting it to their use or corrupting the meaning of a label or concept we use to demonize us with it?

Why not learn from the strategy that has netted them so much success and use it against them? It's true, after all, that the policies of these extremist environmentalists, the statist-socialists and anti-humanists, will not help the environment and, indeed, will generally harm it and more importantly human beings. It seems far more productive and constructive, then, to engage meaningfully in the environmentalist debate and show the world who the true humanists and environmentalists are. And to show that they aren't.

A few other remarks about specific claims you make in this latest post:

"However, there are no counterparts to Rand and Mises in the advocacy of environmentalism. (Nor could there be.) No one in environmentalism rises to challenge the evils that its leaders and spokesmen advocate or to show that environmentalism is the opposite of what they claim."

Well, of course there couldn't be, not as you've re-defined the word. Adopting a different strategy, however...

By counterparts to Rand and Mises, do you mean someone of their intellectual stature? Or just prominent defenders of a rational environmentalism?

I also wonder about the claim that no one in environmentalism rises to challenge the evils of the extremists.

You make the same sort of claim further down the post too:

"There is no negative reaction from the environmental movement because what such statements express is nothing other than the actual philosophy of the movement. This is what the movement believes in. It's what it agrees with. It's what it desires. Environmentalists are no more prepared to attack the advocacy of mass destruction and death...."

Is that "no one in environmentalism" using your narrower conception of it? Or using the common and broader conception that includes the free-market environmentalists?

If the former, well then of course not; you've defined them out of the environmentalist movement and included only evil people within it.

If the latter, well then I wonder if you've been keeping up with the free-market environmentalists? Patrick Michaels, for instance, is one who I don't think you could legitimately say hasn't called the extremists on their falsehoods and evil policy prescriptions. Check out his World Climate Report blog and his article on the Cato Institute website. Other examples can surely be found with a little searching.

And, I myself, while I do not claim the stature of Rand or Mises have just in your previous blog risen up and argued that the extremists are the opposite of what they claim to be, namely environmentalists.

I agree with you that the statist-socialists and anti-humanists among the environmentalist movement are evil and to be challenged. Respectfully, I don't agree with your chosen strategy to combat them, however.
Published: February 22, 2008 12:38 AM
Brent
Why don't people just say that they, too, care about the environment and that's why they want strict designation and enforcement of property rights (i.e., a true free market)?
Published: February 22, 2008 1:05 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Brent,

Because labels matter and can be important strategically.
Published: February 22, 2008 1:13 AM
Brent
"Because labels matter and can be important strategically."

Then I think Dr. Reisman wins the argument. The environmentalist label is virtually always used by people advocating the restriction or elimination of property rights.

Here are some pretty standard examples of this in the media:

"'Citizens should be required to clean, sort, and recycle their bottles', a local environmental group argues."

"Environmentists advocate gas tax increase."

"Prominent environmentalist groups lobbying hard for (the government's) plan to add additional CRP into the farm bill."

I fail to see the strategic advantage of labeling yourself an environmentalist if you are an advocate for property rights.
Published: February 22, 2008 1:36 AM
Robert
Can anybody tell me Robert Murphy's email (suitably coded so it cannot be automatically harvested for spammers)? Thanks.
Published: February 22, 2008 1:43 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Brent: "Then I think Dr. Reisman wins the argument."

No, and I argued why above.

"The environmentalist label is virtually always used by people advocating the restriction or elimination of property rights."

Most of whom are just economically ignorant, and not the core consciously socialist and virulently anti-humanist group. Reisman's strategy is practically tailor-made to push those who are concerned about the environment and self-identify with the environmentalist movement (but aren't part of that core statist-socialist/anti-humanist cadre) right into the extremist camp to be mislead by them.

"I fail to see the strategic advantage of labeling yourself an environmentalist if you are an advocate for property rights."

There is already a group of free-market environmentalists who existed as such before Reisman began his blogposts here and on his own blog. The advantage is, as I've argued previously, that they are clearly marked as environmentalists advocating a truly effective alternative to the counterproductive and evil policies of the extremists and those duped by them out of ignorance. In contrast, people taking Reisman's strategy are all too easy to dismiss as right-wing, anti-environment, anti-human, anti-science, greedy capitalists. He plays right into their hands.
Published: February 22, 2008 1:52 AM
Gyan
Nature has intrinsic value for religious since it has been created by God and it is good.
However, assigning an intrinsic value to Nature does not give anybody a license to kill men. That does not imply

"The idea of nature's intrinsic value inexorably implies a desire to destroy man and his works because it implies a perception of man as the systematic destroyer of the good, and thus as the systematic doer of evil."
Published: February 22, 2008 2:10 AM
Vijay
Should we then:
1. Abolish EPA?
2. Allow CFCs to burn a hole in Ozone?
3. Remove all restrictions on emissions and bring back acid rain?

Like all "isms", Environmentalism has its share of excesses. However, it seems silly to make a grandstanding ideological argument against something that makes so much common sense. Dont litter your home. Its simple enough.
Published: February 22, 2008 3:45 AM
Vijay
>> The environmentalists brought about the ban because they deemed the survival of a species of vultures, to whom DDT was apparently poisonous, more important than the lives of millions of human beings.

Actually the problem with DDT was not so much dead vultures as deformed babies.

>> Thus, it is his possession and use of reason--manifested in his technology and industry--for which he is hated

Exactly! And such reason in informed by many of the "isms" in our society including Environmentalism. 40 years ago, human reason informed us that widespread use of anti-biotics would drastically reduce diseases (and it did). Now we are finding out that killing all bacteria, good as well as bad, eliminates competition for the drug resistant superbacteria that is now emerging as a serious threat to our survival. It looks more and more like we are some ways away from being able to dominate nature on our own terms. Until our technology develops to do that, we are well adviced to be careful about what we mess with. The evolution of superbugs is a good example. We need some kind of accomodation with nature at least until we need it. Environmentalism can provide a framework for doing this. To suggest that it is some kind of ideology akin to Nazism is misguided at best and downright silly at worst.
Published: February 22, 2008 4:00 AM
Graeme Bird
But look Geoffrey. Does your crowd condemn these nazis that also call themselves "environmentalists"?

Thats the point the professor made just there. When did your crowd of allegedly free enterprise environmentalists go to war against these pretenders?

I don't see you've made your point at all. I think the Professor is right to condemn this theory of INTRINSIC value since it crowds out and destroys all other values.

But there would be, I think, a scintilla of legitimacy, for a voluntarist environmentalist movement on the basis of some sort of ethic to do with not destroying the museum, as it were. And there also could be some idea of having respect for big-brained animals.

I actually think that homesteading unowned land ought to have required buffer zones. And I actually think that the fact that it didn't require such buffer zones is the only real conflict between man and these sort of values to do with not destroying the oldest museum.

So I can see how a voluntarist movement could be valid on that basis of reversing some of the consequences of (but not the actuality of) the wall-to-wall fencing off of territory, that I would consider to be not subjected to the better homesteading rules.

But I haven't seen one wing of the environmentalist movement condemning any other wing. I didn't realise the powerful significance of this until our greatest living economist pointed it out.

And until I do see this condemnation, and passionate condemnation at that, I feel within my rights to just condemn the lot of you as a bunch of facists. I DO condemn you as a facist. I WILL condemn you as a facist.

And I won't even feel bad about it, until you do what you surely must know you have to do, and come down like a ton of bricks on your fellow nature-nazis.

YOU MUST LIFT YOUR GAME.

And the best way for you to lift your game in the short run, is to come out staunchly against this "global warming" racket.

Surely the stupidest movement yet seen in the last two millenium. Idiotic in every constituent part of its alleged case.
Published: February 22, 2008 8:32 AM
Ron
Vijay asks

"Should we then:"
1. Abolish EPA?

Yes, with all haste. The EPA doesn't protect the environment so much as choose winners and losers by allowing some to pollute at will while stifling others with crushing regulation. There's plenty of other info on the site as to the reasons to get rid of the EPA (and pretty much any other government agency).

2. Allow CFCs to burn a hole in Ozone?

There is no evidence to show that CFCs created or contributed to a hole in the ozone layer. Research shows that the hole has always been there, that it changes size based on a number of environmental and astronomical conditions, and that it's actually beneficial as it helps stabilize climate change.

3. Remove all restrictions on emissions and bring back acid rain?

Again, there is no evidence that acid rain caused or contributed to any of the problems that were so touted in the 1980's. The U.S. government's own studies found that it had little or no impact on surface groundwater or vegetation.
Published: February 22, 2008 8:48 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Graeme Bird,

We know Professor Reisman could never be wrong in your eyes.

"Thats the point the professor made just there. When did your crowd of allegedly free enterprise environmentalists go to war against these pretenders?"

Allegedly free market? You apparently know nothing about them.

"I don't see you've made your point at all. I think the Professor is right to condemn this theory of INTRINSIC value since it crowds out and destroys all other values."

I don't accept the intrinsic theory of value and it is not something inherent in environmentalism, except in Professor Reisman's arbitrarily narrowed conception of it. Again, you apparently know nothing about free-market environmentalism.

"And until I do see this condemnation, and passionate condemnation at that, I feel within my rights to just condemn the lot of you as a bunch of facists. I DO condemn you as a facist. I WILL condemn you as a facist."

"And I won't even feel bad about it, until you do what you surely must know you have to do, and come down like a ton of bricks on your fellow nature-nazis."

MY fellow nature-nazis? Until I condemn the nature-nazis? Truly you are blinded by your love and adoration of Professor Reisman for it has prevented you from even understanding what I've written numerous times in comments on this blog post and the previous one.
Published: February 22, 2008 9:26 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Graeme Bird,

Check out the global warming and environmentalism section of my blog if you are actually interested in learning anything about someone before you condemn them.
Published: February 22, 2008 9:40 AM
Per-Olof Samuelsson
I think there is something more important than whether George Reisman "wins the argument" or not, and that is what the environmentalist agenda will do to us in the future.

George Reisman once compared the environmentalist movement to a boa constrictor who slowly squeezes the life out of its victim. One does not have to look far to see how appropriate this comparison is.

Certainly, we won't have 90% "caps" on energy production tomorrow, or even within the next decade. But all the small steps that are actually taken are toward that goal.

By the way, there is a quotation that flutters before my eyes in many different languages every time I visit this site. Something about "not giving way to evil, but resisting it with all one's might". Good advice!
Published: February 22, 2008 9:51 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
By all means, Per-Olof Samuelsson, let's not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it (but with a strategy that will actually be constructive toward our goal).
Published: February 22, 2008 10:07 AM
Jesse
Mr. Plauche,

You've written a few posts here claiming that the Professor and those who agree with him fail to understand the theory of these so-called "Free Market Enviromentalists." Perhaps instead of repeatedly lamenting this apparent fact, you should post a few examples here which show how the followers of your movement actually do balance free market ideals with the harsh statism and anti-humanism commonly associated with the Environmental Movement.

Though I may be skeptical, I wouldn't mind hearing at least one example.
Published: February 22, 2008 10:12 AM
Alex Peak
Dr. Reisman writes,
Don't think you can solve the problem by calling yourself a "free-market environmentalist." That's like calling yourself a "free-market Communist" or a "free-market Nazi." They're contradictions in terms.
"Free market environmentalism" is not a contradiction in terms. Environmentalism can (and I would argue only can) be achieved through the free market.

Why should we give up the term "environmentalist"? Shouldn't we force them to give it up?

This has been our mistake for too long. We run away from words. We ran away from "liberal," when we should have fought to keep it.

Dr. Reisman writes,
But if you call yourself an "environmentalist," you mark yourself as sharing the goals of mass destruction and death.
No, I don't. Why shouldn't we call those who want mass destruction and death anti-humanists, as they are?

Dr. Reisman writes,
It should be realized first of all that "environmentalism" is in a very different category than the examples of the advocacy of atheism, liberalism, et al. by authors who also propound clearly destructive ideas. This is because atheism, liberalism et al. in themselves do not represent a philosophy or program that is evil on its face or that necessarily implies evil.
And neither does environmentalism.

Dr. Reisman writes,
(In this connection, it should be recalled that Stalin and Pol Pot committed their atrocities not in the name of atheism, but in the name of Communism.)
Yes, and people tax me in the name of liberalism. That doesn't make liberalism inherently pro-tax. People also kill each other in the name of Christ, but that doesn't make Christianity inherently pro-murder.

Dr. Reisman writes,
In addition, in all of the examples cited there are also prominent supporters of the doctrines who go out of their way to present theories and programs that demonstrably promote human life and well being.
The same is true of environmentalism. Does PERC not put forward ideas that promote human life and well-being?

Dr. Reisman writes,
Their writings serve as far more than a counterweight to the wrong or dubious ideas of other supporters of these doctrines and, indeed, make a compelling case for why these doctrines themselves in fact serve to promote human life and well being.
And people have written books on and in promotion of free market environmentalism.

Dr. Reisman writes,
However, there are no counterparts to Rand and Mises in the advocacy of environmentalism.
Dr. Reisman, read this. There are books, there are chapters within books of a broader subject, there are organisations and websites, there are articles and brocures--all advocating free market, libertarian, individualist environmentalism--many of them openly using the term "environmentalism."

Dr. Reisman writes,
(Nor could there be.)
Sir! There can and are.

Dr. Reisman writes,
This [widespead human death] is what the movement believes in.
It's certainly not what us free market environmentalists believe in.

There are some in the feminist movement who want to see men become subserviant to women, but that's certainly not what us libertarian feminists advocate.

There are some in the anarchist movement who want to see property abolished, but that's certainly not what us market anarchists believe in. (Of course, I would argue that the Spanish "anarchists" who murdered the users of money were actually establishing a state, and were hence not really anarchists. But one could be a voluntaryist communist, one who goes voluntarily to live in an anarcho-communist commune, and although we market anarchists would not advocate doing so, we can agree that it is still a form of anarchy so long as no one is forced to join.)

Dr. Reisman writes,
This [the environmentalist doctrine] is the doctrine of the alleged intrinsic value of nature, i.e., that nature is valuable in and of itself, apart from all connection to human life and well being.
I do not believe in an intrinsic value of nature. According to Dr. Reisman, then, I guess I'm not an environmentalist. I still maintain that I am.

Dr. Reisman doesn't believe that what we call free market environmentalists should call themselves such. But, he doesn't present an alternative. I submit that free market environmentalism is the only term to describe people who wish to promote the health of the environment through non-aggressive means. What we should do is not run away from the word, but explain to people why our approach is the best solution to our environmental woes, in other words to convert environmentalists of other stripes to support the libertarian, voluntaryist, market-based solutions.

I find myself in agreement with Geoffrey Allan Plauche.

Sincerely,
Alex Peak
Published: February 22, 2008 10:33 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Jesse,

"you should post a few examples here which show how the followers of your movement actually do balance free market ideals with the harsh statism and anti-humanism commonly associated with the Environmental Movement."

There's no balancing. Free-market environmentalism is not half free market and half statism and anti-humanism. I've criticized some supposed libertarians for turning statist when they turned Green (like Ron Bailey of Reason; see my blog).

I've posted these before months ago but here goes again:

About Free Market Environmentalism

Free Market Environmentalism Reading List

Books and Articles:

Jonathan H. Adler, "Faux Market Environmentalism," Regulation Vol. 23, No. 1.

Roy E. Cordato, "An Austrian Theory of Environmental Economics." (Originally published in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 7 (1), 2004, pp. 3-26; pdf version.)

Roy E. Cordato, "Market Based Environmentalism vs. the Free Market," Independent Institute (June 4, 1997). Appears to be a shorter op-ed version of the essay below.

Roy E. Cordato, "Market-Based Environmentalism and the Free Market: They're Not the Same," Independent Review Vol. 1, No. 3 (Winter 1997): 371-386.

Murray N. Rothbard, "Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution." (Originally published in the Cato Journal Vol. 2, No. 1 (Spring 1982): pp. 55-99; pdf version.).

David Gordon, "Do Future Generations Have Rights?" Mises Review Vol. 9, No. 3 (Fall 2003).

Terry L. Anderson and Donald R. Leal, Free Market Environmentalism, (New York: Palgrave (St. Martin's Press), 2001).

Jonathon H. Adler, Ecology, Liberty & Property: A Free Market Environmental Reader, (Competitive Enterprise Institute, 2000).

Bruce Yandle, "The Commons: Tragedy or Triumph?" The Freeman Vol. 49, No. 4 (April 1999).

Manuel Lora, "If You Love Nature, De-Socialize it." Mises.org Daily Article (May 10, 2007).

Jonathan H. Adler, "The Fable of Federal Environmental Regulation: Reconsidering the Federal Role in Environmental Protection," Case Western Reserve Law Review Vol. 55, No. 1.

Jonathan H. Adler, "Rent Seeking Behind the Green Curtain," Regulation Vol. 19, No. 4.

See also, Roy Cordato's blog EnvironmentNC.

And the organization PERC: Property and Environment Research - Improving Environmental Quality Through Markets
Published: February 22, 2008 10:41 AM
Jimmy Jam
Look I'm afraid you people just have to distance yourself from the environmentalists. Since given the chance you seem to be ready instead to distance yourselves from the liberty crowd.

Have we any evidence of you over at Gristmill or realclimate, giving those guys a hard time?

No. It really looks like you guys are "Good Germans."
Published: February 22, 2008 10:44 AM
TokyoTom
Dr. Reisman, you and others have apparently been spared a longer post that I submitted but that has not appeared.

You're offering us nothing more but higher volumes on the same screeds you've been making for the past two years. Ironically, you are quite the mirror of some of the enviros you so love to inveigh against. Ironic because you, having some knowledge of Austrian principles, ought to be able to recognize that what lies behind all the hot air all around is the lack of effective market mechanisms by which both YOU (and others who hate enviros) and enviros - and everyone else who has a concern - can express their preferences about the ineffectively owned and protected and open-access resources that the enviros and you are both ranting about.

It should be as clear as day that the hot air is due to lack of markets. Why are you not prepared to recognize that, or to explain it to anyine, but have to insist that its YOUR preferences that have to be respected, while all others are evil?

Curious Tom
Published: February 22, 2008 10:45 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Sorry, Jimmy, but we don't want to see the new "Bad Germans" win again.

Do you go over to Gristmill and RealClimate to correct their errors and denounce their evil policy prescriptions?
Published: February 22, 2008 10:52 AM
Jimmy Jam
Tom Tom Tom Tom Tom (said five ways).

Is it not you that has been obsessively offering us nothing for the last 2 (or is it 3?) years?

Is it not you that has been spamming, yes blatantly spamming, on these matters month after month, world without end?

Why don't you just come up with some evidence. Evidence Tom evidence. Evidence yes evidence.

We have heard quite enough about scientific consensus Tom. Now lets have your scientific evidence and do not keep us waiting because 2 years is long enough.
Published: February 22, 2008 10:58 AM
Jimmy Jam
"Do you go over to Gristmill and RealClimate to correct their errors and denounce their evil policy prescriptions?"

Only when I can Geoffrey.
Only when I can.

Well thats me off the hook (phew). But whats your alibi Good-Geoffrey? Good-Geoffrey the Good-German?

Plauche has the smell of colloborator to it. What have you done for us lately?
Published: February 22, 2008 11:03 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
I should have replied to this in one of my previous comments:

Jimmy wrote: "Since given the chance you seem to be ready instead to distance yourselves from the liberty crowd."

This is a bizarre comment. On what basis do you claim I/we distance myself/ourselves from the liberty crowd? I'm a hard-core libertarian anarchist of the natural rights persuasion. Perhaps you should make an effort to learn a little more about a person before making bizarre claims about them.
Published: February 22, 2008 11:04 AM
Alex Peak
Mr. Jam:

I don't know what Gristmill or realclimate are. I'm here because this is one of the best websites on the Internet. I'm not distancing myself from Liberty in any way; the point I'm trying to make is that Liberty is not mutually exclusive from environmentalism, which I would simply describe as the desire for a healthy environment. If anything, I'd say central planning and the ideologies that advocate it are mutually exclusive from environmentalism as I've defined it.

If one truly wants to promote the environment, one should advocate the repeal of the government's sovereign immunity, which prevents us from suing the government (which is the biggest polluter around) when it pollutes. We should also do away with subsidies to farmers and to big business. (Not even the Green Party wants to get rid of farm subsidies, despite the fact that said subsidies end up promoting run-off and environmental damage.) Finally, let's privatise all land and all bodies of water--after all, owners of land and bodies of water wish to protect the value of their property, and can sue polluters.

Adopt these reforms, and we'll see a far, far healthier environment than we could ever achieve through central planning.

I still don't know what Gristmill or realclimate are, but I can tell you that I have attended a few meetings on campus of some of the environmental groups and used the opportunity to promote these free market solutions to those in attendance. I even got someone there who is openly socialist to admit that free-market reforms can have a positive effect.

Sincerely yours,
Alex Peak
Published: February 22, 2008 11:05 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Jimmy wrote: "Plauche has the smell of colloborator to it. What have you done for us lately?"

Probably more than you have. Will you be presenting a paper at the upcoming Austrian Scholars Conference? Perhaps we can compare scores over a round of drinks after dinner.
Published: February 22, 2008 11:08 AM
Jimmy Jam
So where is the civil war within the environmentalist movement good Germans?

I have not seen a ripple of contention internally.

And where, for the love of the small children in Africa, is the utter loathing and condemnation of this idea of restricting CO2 from commerce?

I think you are going to have to come to terms with coming to terms with ,the idea that Mr Reisman is spot on.

But what do you think? And why are we even talking about this esoteric stuff when what we really were after was evidence?
Published: February 22, 2008 11:12 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
"And where, for the love of the small children in Africa, is the utter loathing and condemnation of this idea of restricting CO2 from commerce?"

"But what do you think? And why are we even talking about this esoteric stuff when what we really were after was evidence?"

You're seriously asking these questions still? But no, wait, I shouldn't feed the troll.
Published: February 22, 2008 11:15 AM
Jimmy Jam
"Probably more than you have. Will you be presenting a paper at the upcoming Austrian Scholars Conference?"

Only if I can Geoffrey. Only if I can.

Seriously. Find yourself a new name. Start condemning the bretheren as apostate. Call yourself "biodiversity antiquarian voluntarists" or something of that sort. Most of all bring the hammer down on this trace gas hysteria because thats the worst of all put upons.

And remember that you will be judged by the company you keep. And a just God would not want it any other way.
Published: February 22, 2008 11:18 AM
Jimmy Jam
Yes I'm asking these questions. So you can answer them right now. And lets not bring this marxist terminology into this haven of good vibes. Since a "troll" is merely a surviving Neanderthal who waits under the bridge for the billy-goats.

Lets have that evidence right now Geoffrey.

Or may you be condemned as a prancing-nazi for all time.

We would have that evidence......

SIR!!!
Published: February 22, 2008 11:24 AM
Jimmy Jam
Let the record be shown that the evidence was not forthcoming. Let it also be recognised that the evidence is never forthcoming.
Published: February 22, 2008 11:31 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
What are you talking about Jimmy? The evidence is in the comments section of this blogpost and Professor Reisman's previous blogpost and several more before that. The evidence is on the Mises.com forums. It is on my blog. And on my website. Are you done embarrassing yourself now?
Published: February 22, 2008 11:39 AM
Jimmy Jam
You may think that what we were after was the pretence that the evidence has already been tendered.

But I assure you this is not the case.

We were after actual evidence. And you have not come up with any. Nor do you Nazis ever come up with evidence.

Still waiting.........

And don't try and fake it again.

I don't think thats too much to ask.
Published: February 22, 2008 11:49 AM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Clearly you don't know what you're talking about. Ignorant, and lazy to boot. The actual evidence speaks for itself. Others will see that even if you won't bother to look.
Published: February 22, 2008 11:57 AM
Brent
Brent: "Then I think Dr. Reisman wins the argument."

Geoff: "No, and I argued why above."

Geoff, you are arguing for things like PERC and I wouldn't call PERC an environmentalist group -- for the obvious (not to you) reasons.

You are trying to "save the name", but less than 1% of active / professional "environmentalists" are free-marketers. So, strategically, you want to spend 99% of your time explaining to people how everyone else who calls themselves an environmentalist is really a "fake"?

Dr. Reisman is right that the core ideology of environmentalism is that "nature" has an "objective value" that is much greater than the "objective value" of humanity. Hence, less humans and more "nature" is preferrable.

This line of reasoning is entirely convoluted. First of all, humans are part of "nature". Humans are "natural". Secondly, value is subjective. Environmentalists love of "nature" is just that -- THEIR (subjective) loving of nature. They have every right to hate humans and all human activities -- though this obviously presents problems because they themselves are humans and yet they alledgedly love and want to "help" "nature" and also because these folks are hypocrites in the sense that they don't first end their own existence. The bottom line is that their subjective preferences give them no right to injure, retard, maim, or kill other human beings in pursuit of their preferences.
Published: February 22, 2008 11:59 AM
Jimmy Jam
So in fact you admit that you don't have any evidence?

All I'm after GOOD GERMAN is some evidence.

Now I'll thank you not to insult me so greviously again.

Lets have that evidence. Lets have it now.

Or I sez you be merely an infiltrator. A pretender. No friend of liberty you. And Mr Reismans case would seem to be near-proved right there.

Lets have that evidence Geoffrey.

The time for stalling and pretences has passed you by good German.
Published: February 22, 2008 12:06 PM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Brent: "You are trying to "save the name", but less than 1% of active / professional "environmentalists" are free-marketers. So, strategically, you want to spend 99% of your time explaining to people how everyone else who calls themselves an environmentalist is really a "fake"?"

Those percentages sound made up for one thing. And a lot of it depends on how you classify various types of environmentalists.

The far larger group of non-professional ones are the more important ones to convince. It's pointless to try to convince the guys running RealClimate.

And I don't see how you get the mathematical result that I'll be spending 99% of my time explaining to people how everyone who calls themselves an environmentalist is really a fake.
Published: February 22, 2008 12:09 PM
Jimmy Jam
You might have thought we wanted you to attempt these stalling tactics Geoffrey. Or yet even mindless tactics to make you appear free-enterprise and patriotic.

I assure you I was not interested in these things and instead was interested in evidence.
Published: February 22, 2008 12:14 PM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Jimmy,

I insulted you grievously? No, I think you're the one who initiated the insulting. What are your Austrian and libertarian credentials? My record is online and available for everyone to see. You're hiding behind anonymity. You hide behind a name that looks fake and that doesn't link back to any online profile, blog or website. I, on the other hand, use my real name and link back to my blog which links to my website. I've been to a number of Mises Institute summer seminars, was a summer research fellow here, and counting this year will have presented papers at ASC three years in a row. My website, my blog, and my academic papers all attest to my Austrianism and libertarianism. Your accusations are groundless and display monumental rudeness, ignorance, and laziness.
Published: February 22, 2008 12:16 PM
Jim B.
I've read these posts - understanding most of what all have said, but still, answer me this; why can these things not be balanced?
Just as in nature there exists fluctuations and balance (and also imbalance)- are we not nature's creations as well? Humans are naturally balanced beings, we develop this 'imbalance' through our creations in the modern world.

Take a moment to read this premise:

1. First define nature (for your purposes)

2. Do you love nature?

3. Do you want to see it continue/preserved?

4. At what cost? (this is a key question)

If yes - you are willing at all costs - then label yourself an -ism/ist (extremism/environmentalist)

if no - (in the words of another -ism -oops) then why can't you simply "be"?

I believe in the principles of Austrian ECONOMICS (I am only beginning to know them); but I also see value in NATURE(I have always known her). But I am not an extremist. There must be balance in this quest.

How about 'nature lover' ??

JimB.
Published: February 22, 2008 12:19 PM
Jimmy Jam
Let the record show that the triangulating Nazi was exposed. That he attempted to stall on evidence, that he claimed that the evidence had already been tendered.

But let the record show that the nature nazi had no evidence. No evidence whatsoever.
Published: February 22, 2008 12:26 PM
Inquisitor
Jimmy, are you here to offer some positive insights or just to waste our time? Geoffrey has done far more than you have so far to substantiate his case, and as he has himself said, has a substantial record of contributions to Austrian theory. So why the disdain?
Published: February 22, 2008 12:39 PM
Alex Peak
Mr. Jam:

I will attempt to paraphrase you. If you believe that this paraphrasing is an inaccurate reflection of what you are saying, feel free to correct it.

What it appears you are saying is as follows:

"Even if you are a complete voluntaryist who wants to abolish all coercion, all government; even if you want to privatise all land and all bodies of water, and allow unowned land and bodies of water to be homesteaded; even if the company you keep are the likes of Harry Browne, Murray Rothbard, Mary Ruwart, and Lysander Spooner; so long as you call yourself an 'environmentalist,' you therefore advocate, or refuse, to denounce the anti-humanists who also call themselves environmentalists. Claiming that the interventionists will not achieve actual environmentalism does not count as a denunciation, nor does defining environmentalism as the strive for a healthier environment. In fact, nothing may count as a denunciation so long as you call yourself an 'environmentalist,' no matter how hard you may try to denounce the anti-humanism and interventionism associated by some with the term 'environmentalism.' No, nothing short of calling yourself an 'anti-environmentalist' will suffice as a denunciation of anti-humanism. And since no other denunciation counts, ergo anyone who calls one's self an environmentalist is thus keeping 'company' with the anti-humanists and interventionists, and thus will go to Hell. He/she will go to Hell because God does not believe in judging people by the content of their character, by their actions and by what they advocate, but rather God judges people by the names they call themselves, or by the actions of others who just happen to claim the same labels they claim."

Is that a correct paraphrasing of your position?

Mr Brent brings up a good question. He asks,
You [Mr. Plauche] are trying to "save the name", but less than 1% of active / professional "environmentalists" are free-marketers. So, strategically, you want to spend 99% of your time explaining to people how everyone else who calls themselves an environmentalist is really a "fake"?
A) The term "environmentalism" is associated with goodness and the term "anti-environmentalism" with badness. It is far easier to convert people who care about the environment (e.g. college students) to adopt free-market solutions than it is to convince the populas that "environmentalism" (the term) should be associated with badness and "anti-environmentalism" with goodness.

B) Insinuating that "environmentalism" is as bad as Nazism (instead of pointing out that anti-humanism is as bad as Nazism) makes us appear reactionary, right-wing, and anti-liberal-for-the-sake-of-being-anti-liberal. It certainly does not make anyone think we actually care about the environment (and I submit that libertarians care about the environment no more and no less than liberals or conservatives). Thus, those who are deeply concerned with the environment will never look to us for solutions if we maintain this Reismanian rhetoric. Inadvertantly, Reisman's rhetoric will drive those who legitimately care about the environment to support more central planning, rather than less.

C) Dr. Reisman should be spending his time arguing against the ideology of anti-humanism, rather than the term "environmentalism." He could so easily say, "I'm an environmentalist. However, I am not one of these anti-humanist types who want to destroy the human race. I denounce these scum-bags, just as I denounce Nazism and Stalinism. I cal upon my fellow environmentalists to do the same."

D) "Environmentalism" is the only term we logically can use. It's a simple word, and as someone above pointed out, is entymologically accurate? Let's start with a set of words, a definition, and see if we can find a word that fits it. The set of words is this: "the advocacy or support for a healthier environment." Now, really, other than "environmentalism," what other words can we create or use to fit that definition?

The comparison to fascism and communism is inappropriate because, in those cases, we had other words available, such as "liberal" and "libertarian." What words are available as opposed to "environmentalism"? Seems that only "free market environmentalism" or "anti-authoritarian environmentalism" capture our gist.

(I want to add that I do not think of myself as a "free market environmentalist" first, but rather as a libertarian first. I only bring up the term "free market environmentalism" when I'm discussing the environment, just as I only bring up the term "individualist feminist" when I'm discussing gender. If this thread were about feminism instead, if it were here to attack "feminism," I would be giving the same defence I'm giving now of libertarians using the term. One might, in such a thread, get the impression that I consider myself an individualist feminist first, or that I'm pre-occupied with gender issues. I'm not, but I do not shy away from the term. Likewise, I am not pre-occupied with the environment; I just don't shy away from the term. (I think the issue I'm most deeply concerned about right now is healthcare, but even there, I would not say I'm pre-occupied with the subject. (By the way, instead of us saying we're against Universal Healthcare, I suspect it would be better to say that Clinton (&c.) are against free-market healthcare.)))

Mr. Brent writes,
Dr. Reisman is right that the core ideology of environmentalism is that "nature" has an "objective value" that is much greater than the "objective value" of humanity. Hence, less humans and more "nature" is preferrable.
Someone can tell me that the core ideology of feminism is that females have an "objective value" that is much greater than the "objective value" of men, but merely claiming such would leave me unconvinced.

Someone can tell me that the core ideology of anarchism is that the ability to take the possessions of others without their consent has an "objective value" that is much greater than the "objective value" of private ownership, but again, merely claiming such would leave me unconvinced.

Of course, there are some who call themselves feminists and anarchists respectively who believe such, but that fact alone does not prevent me from being a feminist or an anarchist.

(For clarity, I also wish to point out that, in addition to being a feminist, I am also a masculist.)

Sincerely yours,
Alex Peak
Published: February 22, 2008 1:18 PM
Alex Peak
Skimming my post, I see no less than two punctuation errors in my above post. My apologies.
Published: February 22, 2008 1:37 PM
Jake
Wow!

I think I've figured what the "mental" in enviromental stands for.

This blog goes "mental" at the mention of that word.

I'm not much of an in-tel-lec-tu-al, so therefore I can not join the fight going on in here.

When everyone has finished massaging their egos and strutting their high command of the English language, I hope to read something decent here.

I don't have much of a position on this topic, except that if it poses a threat or wants to hurt me, I'm against it.

Just another thought, not that it might change anything, but when plebs like me read the comments section, like the one above, the tendency is to move on and find something else more interesting.

I enjoy learning too.
Published: February 22, 2008 2:22 PM
Jimmy Jam
Inquisitor. Geoffrey has shown conclusively that he has no case.

Can you stand in for him? Can you walk into this evidence free zone and come up with the evidence which Geoffrey manifestly lacks? Lets see if you can......... Go!!!!
Published: February 22, 2008 4:10 PM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
What evidence do I lack exactly, JJ?
Published: February 22, 2008 4:25 PM
Jimmy Jam
We won't know what you are lacking until you come up with something. Perhaps you have been lead astray by your philosophy lecturers at Lousianna State. Or perhaps your ego went to your head once you were accepted on the PHD program. Because you see, you cannot make a case out of no evidence. You cannot make a case out of attempts at faux-falisfication of the other fellows case.

We find out things through convergent verification. Not via any sort of pantomime of falsification at all. So I'd be happy if you started with some sort of evidence. Any sort of evidence. It can even be wrong and pathetic evidence and no doubt it will be. But you would want to start with something.

Let the record show that you continue to refuse to come up with any evidence and are stalling for time.
Published: February 22, 2008 5:02 PM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
"We won't know what you are lacking until you come up with something."

In other words, you have no evidence against me but nevertheless you want me to prove myself (regarding what you won't tell me). I've already proven myself.

Meanwhile, you have offered us no evidence that you are a credible Austrian or libertarian.

And yet, the evidence that I am is online for all to see. What's more, if you like, you can contact Jeffrey Tucker or Roderick Long or Walter Block or Stephan Kinsella or Joseph Salerno and they will verify my credentials. What are yours?
Published: February 22, 2008 5:14 PM
Jimmy Jam
Prove yourself and find some evidence for this global warming racket. Credentials mean nothing.
We would want some evidence that extra CO2 is bad for the environment. And when you sort it out that extra CO2 is good for the environment than you ought to be as outraged by the environmentalists as any of the rest of us.
Published: February 22, 2008 5:39 PM
Bruce Koerber
My questions for the environmentalists are:

Where does the idea of human rights enter into the mix?

How can you logically make a separation between human rights and property rights?

Why not redirect your energies towards refining property rights so that human rights are protected?
Published: February 22, 2008 5:59 PM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Jimmy,

If you bothered to learn anything about me then you would have known that I am skeptical of anthropogenic global warming and I don't believe in the alarmists claims that catastrophe is looming over the horizon. Moreover, there are other issues important to environmentalists than just global warming, you know.

Bruce,

I don't make a separation between human rights and property rights. I don't know why you would think I or Alex Peak would. (I can't speak for TokyoTom; we disagree on important issues.) I'm an Aristotelian libertarian influenced by Roderick Long and Murray Rothbard.
Published: February 22, 2008 6:08 PM
Brent
Geoff: "Those percentages sound made up for one thing. And a lot of it depends on how you classify various types of environmentalists."

You admit that there are so VERY FEW free-marketers that also label themselves environmentalists! This is so silly -- ask the man on the street if he's heard of an environmentalist. I'll save you time here: he has heard of environmentalist and he believes environmentalists want to use the government to plan a "better environment" and/or he believes environmentalists are whack-jobs. The common perception of environmentalists is not a good one for pro-marketers who despise the needless destruction of resources to give to themselves by labeling themselves environmentalists.

Geoff: "And I don't see how you get the mathematical result that I'll be spending 99% of my time explaining to people how everyone who calls themselves an environmentalist is really a fake."

Just in this forum, which is full of people who know where you are coming from, you are spending tons of time trying to suggest that the environmentalist label is different from what you want it to be.

Dr. Reisman is right. Many Germans called themselves Nazis and many Russians called themselves Communists to escape the harsh consequences of failing to do so. But once the Nazi / Communist Party fell, the "good" people quit calling themselves those names. In most parts of the country, you are not yet shamed for rejecting environmentalist propaganda... so most people have no excuse for calling themselves environmentalists.
Published: February 22, 2008 8:10 PM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Brent,

"Just in this forum, which is full of people who know where you are coming from, you are spending tons of time trying to suggest that the environmentalist label is different from what you want it to be."

I chalk that up mostly to reactionary conservative knee-jerking at anything that smacks of leftism. I'm not worried about this type of anti-intellectual. Also, much of my time was been spent dealing with an ignorant and lazy troll.

One thing that you and Professor Reisman neglect to take into account is that among the general populace Nazism and communism are considered to be bad. Environmentalism on the other hand is not considered to be bad by the general populace. Part of the population thinks it is but can be persuaded by a free market version of it (because some conservatives ARE concerned about the environment), but at least as large if not larger a portion thinks it is good while anti-environmentalism (which is what they'll say Professor Reisman is espousing) is bad.

You really have yet to address my main arguments in favor of not running away from the environmentalist label.
Published: February 22, 2008 8:33 PM
Bruce Koerber
Dear Geoffrey,

Since you responded to me I assume you consider yourself to be an environmentalist. So you are perfectly qualified to answer my third question: Why not redirect your energies towards refining property rights so that human rights are protected?

In this context of property rights and human rights the concern for the environment is straightforward and non-coercive. Non-coercive, that is, if it is executed at the pace equivalent to the refinement of property rights.

If you want a more environmentally friendly world then it is up to you to work hard to refine property rights.

Out of ignorance of this essential step or out of laziness to do the hard work of refining property rights the 'so-called' environmentalists are acting oppressively, very similar to the ego-driven interventionists.

with regards,
Bruce
Published: February 22, 2008 10:11 PM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
Bruce,

I believe I already answered all that in my previous comment. I suppose I can only add that the free-market environmentalists are largely doing just that, providing arguments for how a fully voluntary, free market, property-based justice system can better protect the environment and promote prosperity. Many free-market environmentalist arguments involve either showing the harm that statist policies will cause to the environment and to human beings, or showing how much of the pollution, environmental damage, etc., environmentalists are concerned about are primarily the result of a lack of well-defined or properly enforced private property rights. I recommend checking out some of the articles and books I referenced somewhere up there among the earlier comments.
Published: February 22, 2008 10:20 PM
Jimmy Jam
"One thing that you and Professor Reisman neglect to take into account is that among the general populace Nazism and communism are considered to be bad."

Thats not really true is it. I mean the Nazis did tend to alienate foreigners. But communism had a lot of cache. And certainly facist Italy was popular around the world. I don't see that there's a real big difference here.

Perhaps its the indirect nature of environmentalist mass-murder which gives some truth to what you are saying. So they bureaucratise DDT and kill tens of millions of people indirectly. Or they just inhibit economic development and property rights. And particularly they inihibit energy production, which will kill millions down the track... But since the killing is indirect they may not have soured their reputation like the German facists tended to, pretty early on in the piece.

So I'm just labouring some, to get your point of view and your strategy. If you want the environmentalist lable you've got to wrench it off the others and give them another name. And if you don't want to do that you better get another name for yourself, one that denigrates the current environmentalist movement just as much as it pushes your own.alternate wannabe movement.

"If you bothered to learn anything about me then you would have known that I am skeptical of anthropogenic global warming and I don't believe in the alarmists claims that catastrophe is looming over the horizon."

SKEPTICAL??????

Isn't that a bit of a tepid word to be using at this late stage of the game? This is the problem here. Either you are going to muster some stridency against what these ritualised mass-liars are up to, or you will merely be adding legitimacy as to what they are about.

It wouldn't be so bad if your first salvo as a voluntarist-biodiversity-fetishist ,was to immediately pick a fight with the mainstream criminals by being in favour of extra atmospheric CO2. And if you are authentically into this biodiversity caper you cannot but be in favour of higher CO2 levels. Since it is higher CO2 levels that stimulate net primary production.

Taking this approach would immediately put you at odds with the mainstream, and you might stand the chance of acheiving some good work. In taking this position you could also be in favour of the homesteading of so-called government land, and of the oceans. But with nature corridors for the feral animals. Since it is surely nature corridors that in the long run which would assist in the stimulation in the variety and diversity of the feral plants and animals.

That would be the strategy surely. To steal their name and give the facists another name, or find a new name for yourselves, and to promote those things that are immediately going to start a fight with these energy deprivers and anti-capitalist goons.
Published: February 22, 2008 11:01 PM
TokyoTom
Geoffrey, Jimmy Jam is a rude, crude and unsophisticated "empath" spun off by Dr. Reisman`s mighty emanations. I don`t know what he did with Graeme Bird on this thread, but he is, in fact, his sock puppet.

Graeme himself is real, though nearly two-dimensional, and his hotheadedness, ad homs and potty mouth - which are legend (there are pages on him at Wiki, and he posts regularly at http://catallaxyfiles.com/) have had him escorted off this board a number of times.

Graeme and his pal Sione, who like my new friend Mr. Chodorov thought that the best way to win arguments was to tell everyone that the person you disagree with is a liar, were two of the most prominent "friendly faces" and Reisman-worshippers I met when I first visited this blog two years ago.

Like Dr. Reisman, they have surrendered their reason and ability to address anything but strawmen, and fallen into the more emotionally satisfying and reflexive partisan hostility trap that I mention here: http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2008/02/19/cool-rationalists-or-conservatives-and-neocons-on-the-environment.aspx
How sad that so many self-stlyed "libertarians" prove themselves to be precisely the arrogant and status quo defending conservatives that Hayek dislkied so much.

I do harbor some small hope for engagement from Graeme, so I`m afraid I have to take responsibility (as he has once again proven incapable of such responsibility himself) for his presence on this thread. Mea magna culpa, and apologies.

Allow me to strongly disagree with you on your engagement with Dr.　Ｒｅｉｓｍａn. His approach is not simply "strategically" wrong as you argue, but fundamentally wrong. It does not reflect or flow from Austrian or libertarian principles, but rather is a refusal both (i) to engage in good faith with those you disagree with and (ii) to explore Austrian understandings of the frustration of catallaxy in the absence of markets and in the presence of the state and public choice understandings of rent-seeking. Dr. Reisman would have us rushing off to locate and eliminate our "mortal enemies", without bothering himself to identify or asking us to inquire as to WHO exactly IS the enemy, much less even ponder whether, once successful in dispatching them, we will thereby have resolved the problems that purported trouble those man-haters.

You are of course right that Reisman`s approach is strategically wrong, but let`s not gloss over its moral emptiness and side-stepping of principle. But besides that, his approach informs those whom we wish to influence that we have no wish to engage with them. That is hardly the best we have to offer, and of course is a virtual guarantee that our influence will be, on the contrary diminished and the likelihood of policy mistakes greater.

But like the narcissistic arrogance and paranoia that lies at the heart of neoconservatism and their morally bankrupt approaches to foreign and domestic affairs, I fear that failure would simply reinforce their tribal conviction that they alone are right, and all others evil.

Dr. Reisman loves to talk about evil, without understanding what it is or how mundane it is.

I hope that he and others will consider the immortal words of Walt Kelly`s Pogo, "I have seen the enemy, and he is us". (Or are those simply the self-loathing words of an evil enviro? Dang, this stuff is so hard!)

Regards,

Tom
Published: February 22, 2008 11:12 PM
Geoffrey Allan Plauche
What is your problem Jimmy Jam?

"Isn't that a bit of a tepid word to be using at this late stage of the game? This is the problem here. Either you are going to muster some stridency against what these ritualised mass-liars are up to, or you will merely be adding legitimacy as to what they are about."

Don't you understand the difference between climate science (and any scientific evidence or lack thereof there is for AGW), on the one hand, and ethical and politico-economic criticisms of public policies for dealing with it, on the other? My focus is on the latter, on challenging the statists on their public policy proposals. I let the climate scientists like Patrick Michaels and others challenge them directly on the climate science side of it.

If you think about it, and I know that's tough for you but do try, you'll see that whatever the answers are on the climate science side of the issue they don't necessarily entail any particular policies. So even if AGW is true, statist policies for dealing with it would still be wrong. Simple enough for you?
Published: February 22, 2008 11:16 PM
Jimmy Jam
You see that. You are not even requiring the movement to show up with any evidence. Them not having any evidence, nor feeling they need to have any evidence, is just fine and AOK with you.

With this weak me-tooism against this facist movement (not even against it) you are really lending weight to it.

I mean this is really and truly a repulsive movement. So if you want to push voluntary biodiversity preservation, or whatever it is you are trying to push, you have to roll out your own program with a total campaign of condemnation and exposure against the environmentalist movement proper. Or you cannot but help to add to their momentum.

Its got to be a two-pronged approach. You are young and naieve and have no idea how the bullshit-momentum rolls out. You do not understand the potential harm that you do.

The minor principle of the preservation of natures museum, as someone else proposed, might lend some value to some of your activities. But the idea of the intrinsic value of nature, independent of such minor considerations, must be opposed. And a more realistic view of nature out to be taken into account:

See one animal ripping apart another. See the female praying mantis feeding off the brain of the male praying mantis even as they are mating. This is the appalling violence of nature. And we don't want to rap too much sentimentality towards nature, around the evil principle of intrinsic value, if we wish to take an objective approach to these matters.
Published: February 23, 2008 12:49 AM
Per-Olof Samuelsson
Geoffrey Allan Plauche; "By all means, Per-Olof Samuelsson, let's not give in to evil but proceed ever more boldly against it (but with a strategy that will actually be constructive toward our goal)."

OK, but I do not think it is a good strategy to pretend that environmentalism is less than evil.

As I wrote before, I think there are people who accept environmentalism "in good faith". They are not aware of such things as David Graber's or Prince Philip's viruses. They need to be told.
Published: February 23, 2008 3:06 AM
scott t
here are some examples of how my local newspaper uses the word 'environmentalist'

"Alaska political leaders have ardently supported the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, despite strong opposition from environmentalists and politicians in the Lower 48. The issue is still before Congress.

Andrew Wetzler of Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the groups that sued to protect polar bears, said the state's position, scientifically speaking, is "mostly gibberish" and "motivated by economic concerns and political concerns."

He said that there is considerable evidence of a decline in polar bears in Canada and Alaska - with some of the animals starving, turning to cannibalism..."
http://www.newsobserver.com/2188/story/959915.html
--
"Joe Coley knows what it’s like to tell a good worker he doesn’t need him anymore.

And he’s afraid he’ll have to do it again.

Coley is a landscaper and an environmentalist who is helping others cope with Stage 2 water restrictions that went into effect Friday because of the drought that’s lingered for about seven months....""more organic practices in landscaping as well,” he said. We’re trying to be good for the environment.”

Coley said he’s been conserving for years, and is fed up with last-minute decisions to conserve water by public officials that he considers ineffective and draconian.

“I haven’t heard how they’re going to solve this problem. "
http://www.easternwakenews.com/front/story/2086.html
--
"Outside this year's Emerging Issues Forum, more than a dozen protesters from environmental groups rallied against Duke Energy's recently approved Cliffside coal plant, about 50 miles west of Charlotte. Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers is among other speakers scheduled for the forum today.

The environmentalists say Rogers is hypocrite because he promotes energy efficiency while building new power plants that pollute the environment. The group plans to try to disrupt Rogers' speech today, said organizer Jim Warren, with the N.C. Waste Awareness & Reduction Network."
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/937080.html
--
"For an electric power company located so close to Appalachian coal, "carbon neutrality" would be a major shift, even if it's not the coal-plant cancellation that environmentalists still seek, and even if it requires a 10-year time frame. Holding CO2 output level will encourage energy efficiency and create openings for solar power -- another benefit? It may also lead to increased use of nuclear energy as an unavoidable trade-off, and to higher prices for electricity in what's now a relatively low-cost state -- a further incentive to conserve."
http://www.newsobserver.com/print/saturday/opinion/story/918825.html
etc...

'most' of the media usage (that i have looked at) of 'environmentalist' seems seems to mean some person or group that desires other people to do with less - because of an alleged harm to the earth and themselves.

heres another..."We must either take our own bag to the store or use paper bags, which environmentalists argue aren't much better than the plastic ones; after all, we need those trees to soak up the carbon dioxide spewed by our SUVs."
http://www.newsobserver.com/987/story/954011.html
Published: February 23, 2008 3:08 AM
Alex Peak
Mr. Koerber asks three questions, directed toward "the environmentalists." I contest that we are all environmentalists here, even the people who do not wish to call themselves such, because we all want a healthy environment. Moreover, I would argue that our libertarian approach to solving environmental problems is a far superior approach than that of the interventionists.

But since Mr. Koerber asks his three questions, I'll be happy to answer.

The first of Mr. Koerber's three questions is:
Where does the idea of human rights enter into the mix?
Property rights are human rights, and are essential in the mix. Without property rights, I would not be able to sue someone for polluting my property. In fact, without property rights, all land would be unowned or "public" property. Thus, there would be no disincentive, without property rights, for polluting.

Mr. Koerber then asks,
How can you logically make a separation between human rights and property rights?
That's like asking me how I can levitate. I can't. "Human rights" is simply a term refering to rights held innately and equally by all humans. "Individual rights" simply refers to rights held innately and equally by all individuals. Logically, they're the same thing. "Property rights" are the rights of humans/individuals to justly acquire (either through homesteading, exchange on the free market, or as a gift), maintain (defensively), and control property. All human/individual rights are derived from property rights, including the innate right of self-ownership. There can, in short, be no logical separation.

Mr. Koerber finally asks,
Why not redirect your energies towards refining property rights so that human rights are protected?
I don't understand. How do property rights not already protect human rights? Are not human rights derived from property rights?

Mr. Brent writes,
Dr. Reisman is right. Many Germans called themselves Nazis and many Russians called themselves Communists to escape the harsh consequences of failing to do so. But once the Nazi / Communist Party fell, the "good" people quit calling themselves those names. In most parts of the country, you are not yet shamed for rejecting environmentalist propaganda... so most people have no excuse for calling themselves environmentalists.
I'm about to pull a bunch of numbers straight out of my hind quarters, so don't take any of this as being precise.

We can divide Americans up into two groups, the intellectuals and the regularly-educated. The first group may comprise three percent. (Totally made-up number.)

Among the regularly-educated, we find three groups: liberals, conservatives, and libertarians.

The regularly-educated liberals hear the word "environmentalist" and 100% see it as a good thing. (This group is either unaware of the pro-virus faction, and those that are suspect it to be a tiny minority.) This group is usually unaware of the free-market environmentalist arguments, but are not repulsed by them. This group is the major target for free-market environmentalists, who know they have no shot at convincing the anti-humanist types, but do believe they have a good shot at convincing your run-of-the-mill regularly-educated liberal environmentalist.

The regularly-educated conservatives hear the term "environmentalist" and only 75% think it's a good thing (another made-up number). This group hates liberals, and the Green Party, with a passion, but they don't hate the environment, and want to make that very clear. They like the environment, just not Al Gore, they'll tell you. This group is another target for free-market environmentalists, because they're already concerned that the regulations put forward by liberals will fail and make things worse.

The regularly-educated libertarians hear the term "environmentalist" and also 75% think it's a good thing. Free-market environmentalists will target this group because this group wants to have arguments under its belt to present to its liberal friends about how interventionism fails and the free market works, and free-market environmentalists can provide some of these arguments to the regularly-educated libertarian's arsenal.

The intellectual liberals are 90% in favour of environmentalism. There is really no point in targeting them.

The intellectual conservatives (what few exist) are only 25% in favour of environmentalism (do you love these made-up numbers yet?), but will react positively to free-market environmentalists because they recognise that we aren't the anti-humanist types, and in fact we're just libertarians who want to try to explain to people how property rights will, if respected, help promote the health of the environmentalist. Plus, we're not Al Gore.

The intellectual libertarians are 50% in favour of environmentalism (that's my last made-up number).

Add all this up, and we can see that the vast majority of Americans see "environmentalism" as a term denoting something good, even if it sometimes attempts to attain this good through ineffective or detrimental means (e.g. interventionism).

Conversely, the vast majority of Americans see communism, Nazism, and fascism as denoting something bad. If there ever comes a point in time when the vast majority of Americans start associating "environmentalism" with anti-humanism, as Dr. Reisman does, then I'll re-evaluate my use of the term. But for now, there are two things keeping me from rejecting it:

A) Most Americans favour "environmentalism" and do not associate it with a desire for a virus to wipe out humanity, instead associating it with "the desire for a healthier environment," and

B) it's the only term that seems to easily fit the definition "the desire for a healthier environment."

The question for all of us should be: how best do we get our message out there, how best do we go abour promoting the free market, private property, peace, non-interventionism, voluntaryism, and anti-statism? How best do we do it?

Do we do it by calling outselves "anti-environmentalists," thus alienating 75% of our potential audience, ensuring that they won't even listen to us?

By simply calling ourselves "free-market environmentalists" instead of "anti-environmentalists," we quadruple our audience. (Okay, I was wrong. I have more made-up numbers. But you get my point.)

It's not hard to simply point out what we mean when we call ourselves free-market environmentalists. "We want a healthier environment, but we believe this can be best achieved through a free market, not through interventionism. We are not the anti-humanist types of environmentalists."

See? Two quick sentences.

Try explaining to someone what you mean by "anti-environmentalist," and you'll need to present paragraphs and paragraphs, as Dr. Reisman has done above. But even those many paragraphs were not enough, since, as you can see, a debate now broils, a debate over terminology of all things. And we're libertarians! Try this with one of your liberal friends, and I suspect it will be a hundred times harder. (Yes, another made-up number.)

I see Dr. Reisman's approach is, simply, poor strategy, and that is why I do not condone it.

Mr. Jam writes,
So they bureaucratise DDT and kill tens of millions of people indirectly. Or they just inhibit economic development and property rights. And particularly they inihibit energy production, which will kill millions down the track...
You're saying the same thing free-market environmentalists say, Mr. Jam. The only difference is that you are claiming that the "they" are all of the environmentalists, while free-market environmentalists claim that the "they" are only the interventionist environmentalists.

Talk to a regularly-educated person and tell him/her that all environmentalists are responsible for this, and you'll find yourself not being listened to. You will find your arguments ignored.

Talk to a regularly-educated person and tell him/her that this is the result of interventionists or anti-humanists within the broader environmentalist movement while telling him/her that you are an environmentalist and that your free-market solutions will help protect the environment far more effectively than will interventionism, and you will find that people are listening to you.

Which would you prefer, to get your message out to virtually no one, or to get your message out to many people? Unfortunately, Dr. Reisman's approach ultimately lends its weight for the worst segments of the environmentalist movement by turning off would-be allies in the fight against interventionism and statism.

Samuelsson writes,
OK, but I do not think it is a good strategy to pretend that environmentalism is less than evil.
I don't think it's a good strategy to pretend that libertarianism is anti-environmentalist; or that, to be an environmentalist, one must support interventionism, coercion, aggresson, and slavery. Can't we do what we do with the feminist movement, i.e. promote our own brand of feminism while simultaneously saying that any form of feminism that proposes that "men ought to be subserviant to women" is evil?

Sincerely yours,
Alex Peak
Published: February 23, 2008 10:15 AM
TokyoTom
Bruce:

- "Where does the idea of human rights enter into the mix?"
- "How can you logically make a separation between human rights and property rights?"

It's hard to know exactly what you are driving at, as none of these questions is clear. The mix of what? Who is trying to make a separation between human rights and property rights?"

Our environment has no intrinsic value; rather it is WE who appreciate IT. I don't separate human rights from property rights.

- Why not redirect your energies towards refining property rights so that human rights are protected?

Great question, as it is a core Austrian insight. You might not have noticed, but that's precisely what I've been calling for for the past two years.

Rather, it is Dr. Reisman who feels that the best way to defend property rights is to rub out those humans who worry about resources for which there are no clear property rights. So why don't you as k HIM precisely the same question?

TT
Published: February 23, 2008 10:41 PM
TokyoTom
Unfortunately, because Dr. Reisman's insists on tilting at strawmen and adamantly refuses to engage honestly (either with despicable man-haters or with his milder interlocutors here) from an viewpoint that accepts basic understandings of (i) the need for property rights and law and order to be able to express preferences through private transactions and (ii) the persistent problems of rent-seeking when government is involved, it simply impossible to take him seriously, except as an object lesson for how difficult it is to hold tribal cognition/reaction patterns in check and to actually use our Reason. Emotion is always easier than Reason.

It is in consequence of this (and because it is difficult not to grow tired of pointing out, to no avail, the well-known bases on which Austrians may fruitfully engage others on "environmental" issues) that I have frequently responded at the same level that his posts appear to be - tongue-in-cheek parody:

- Standards of Environmental Good and Evil: Why Environmentalism Is Misanthropic, November 17, 2006,
http://blog.mises.org/archives/005910.asp

To which I responded as follows:

"So many environmentalists, who are the philosophic and mortal enemy of the human race! How do we identify them, how do we enlist and when do we start to eliminate them? Will it cost us less than half a trillion? Whom to we get to hate and scorn? Point the way!

"Do we start with the Christians? http://conservation.catholic.org/cornwall_declaration.htm

"Do we get to bump off anybody who sues anyone else for an environmental harm?

"Do we get to eliminate the the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, NEPA, the EPA and FDA?

"Can we execute people who want clean air and water? The attorneys general of state that bring nuisance claims against others?

"Do we get to eliminate economists such as Cordato, Block and Rothbard, John Baden, Terry Anderson, Gary Leal and legal scholars like Jonathan Adler, who allege that environmental problems stem from unclear and unenforceable property rights? How about Nobel prize winning economists who say that such failures result in expensive "tragedies of the commons"?

"Do we get to eliminate the hunters who form the backbone of conservation groups like Ducks Unlimited and NWF? Fisherman who call for ITQs?

"And after we eliminate all these, then everything will be fine, right, because there never really were any real problems with corporate irresponsibility or corporate statism - just a bunch of evil and jealous people-haters who lived downwind or downstream from all that makes America great, right? Responsible corporations that can act with limited liability (backed by investors who have even less liability).

"I`m with you, Dr. Reisman!! You`ve convinced me. Hating America and hating the human race are wrong, and loving nature is evil! Let`s keep our focus on this vicious threat.

"And by the way, don`t ask me to pick up my litter; that kind of request for "responsible" behavior clearly masks a hatred of mankind.
Posted by: TokyoTom at November 18, 2006 10:44 AM"

In reply, Dr. Reisman kindly welcomed me back to the human race in his post, "It's Over: Tokyo Tom Concedes", November 18, 2006, http://blog.mises.org/archives/005916.asp

My reply to him is at November 20, 2006 9:15 AM.

TT
Published: February 23, 2008 11:22 PM
TLWP Sam
Good points TT! Suppose an wealthy African landowner has a large workforce whose families live and work on estate and he has a love of nature on his land such that he's forbid DDT from his property and has the workforce signing an agreement to the tune of 'tough luck if you get malaria'? Is this guy a human-hater too? Similarly, from an example I've given before - suppose a section Amazon forest is unowned and local farmers want to clear the forest to feed a growing population, but at the last moment greenies 'homestead' the forest (if they actually could, I'm not sure) and declare they own it and forbid any clearing? Likewise of the notion of 'people privately owning land and sea to sue polluters' 'human-haters' because they are restricting progress and population growth? Indeed how could progress continue to progress when a slip could see the crap getting sued out of you?
Published: February 24, 2008 1:33 AM
TokyoTom
TLWP Sam:

As Mises, Yandle and others noted, the development of property rights (both private and shared) is an essential key to wealthy societies. But the resource demands of those wealthy societies create pressures that result in destructive exploitation of open-access, ineffectively-owned and public resources in other countries (and leave elites free to privatize the natural wealth once held and managed by traditional societies.

Both phenomena (absence of are clearly at work in the Amazon, which you seem to like to refer to, as I noted here:

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001043lahsen_and_nobre_20.html.

Of course the same thing happened in North America, and can be seen not only in the near extinction of the bison but the continuing ravaging of salmon populations:
http://mises.com/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2007/12/17/bison-markets-the-tragedy-of-the-commons-and-the-indian-war.aspx.

How the developed economies can assist in the development of clear ownership and sound management of resources and rule of law in other countries and in unowned commons like the oceans and atmosphere is the very sticky problem we are facing now.

Regards,

TT

PS: Yes, I know that I have just again proven my profound hatred for mankind for pointing to issues like this and indicating that I care about them. And yes, I know that, in contrast, it is Dr. Reisman and others upthread who are the ones who expressing a TRUE love of mankind, by combining their hatred of misanthropes with a blithe unconcern for any sick dynamics relating to ineffectively owned resources.

So be it.
Published: February 24, 2008 3:29 AM
Aussie Mike
how do I print this? I'm finding that I can only print one page on all articles on the blog site. Is this universal or just a problem of mine? It used not to be like this(six months ago). Is there someone who can help me? BTW I'm a great fan of Dr. Reisman & I like to print out all his articles. I find his reasoning impeccable.
Published: February 24, 2008 6:37 PM
Raheem
Its pretty easy to see where Tokyo Tom is coming from. He's a spammer whose been trying to neutralise the message of Reisman by recourse to relentless cyber-stalking. Which makes me think that the mises institute has gone soft on environmentalism and in fact has, since the death of Murray, developed a fear of the C-word. That is they do not wish to be called "cranks" with regards to global warming.

Its pretty easy to see where the fanatic, crank, and cyber-stalking spammer Tokyo-Tom is coming from.

But this Goeffrey fellow and this Allex Peak fellow. Where on earth are they coming from?

I guess the kids are spineless. They don't wish to call out evil for what it is.

The Mises-institute has to tackle this science-fraud head on. I've seen people make jokes about the warmers. But I've only seen Reisman and Higgs talk about this science-fraud as if it were simply another governmental racket of some sort.

Take me off moderation, ban the multi-year spammer Tokyo Tom. And let me fight it out with these kids.

What you older Miseans might not realise is that some of the youngsters amongst you have been brought up with this nonsense along with Mothers milk. Its quite likely that Geofrey is a CO2-bedwetter with a superstitious fear of Mother Natures revenge.

Lets take the gloves off and sort it all out now. But leave the spammer outside.
Published: February 25, 2008 8:36 AM
TLWP Sam
Geez, could you be more specific Raheem? Enviros still equal Communists, Nazis, baby-eaters, reptilian aliens with a taste for human flesh, etc. So what if global warming if doesn't exist or does exist but is so slow that it's not going to cause appreciable effect on anyone's lifestyle for the next 10 million years? The greater question is should people care about 'the environment' at all? Do you hear the claim for nature reserves (even if they're private ones) equivalent to denying people the right to farm land and feed their ever-growing families? That to show concern for any particular endangered animal should be seen as bad as anyone who would call for protection and breeding programs to restore the malaria-carrying mosquitos to their former population?
Published: February 25, 2008

Ludwig von Mises Institute

The Nature of Environmentalism

Comments (75)