Steven Hayward challenges the established narrative of environmentalism, beginning with the notion that the earth is fragile and that we have little time to save it from environmental catastrophe.
He deconstructs the case for global warming (including "cap and trade" plans to limit greenhouse gas emissions and the new EPA "endangerment finding" on CO2 ) and speaks to the challenges faced by poor countries as they seek to modernize and at the same time reduce the pollution that has historically accompanied modernization.
Finally, he offers his insights into the deep structure of environmentalism that substitutes a human apocalypse for a religious one.
Steven F. Hayward writes on a wide range of public policy issues. He is the coauthor of the annual Index of Leading Environmental Indicators; the producer and host of An Inconvenient Truth . . . or Convenient Fiction?, a rebuttal to Al Gore's documentary; and the author of many books on environmental topics. He has written biographies of Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan and of Winston Churchill. Mr. Hayward is also a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. He contributes to AEI's Energy and Environment Outlook series.
Peter M. Robinson is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, where he writes about business and politics, edits the Hoover Institution's quarterly journal, the Hoover Digest, and hosts Hoover's television program, "Uncommon Knowledge."
Robinson is also the author of three books: How Ronald Reagan Changed My Life; It's My Party: A Republican's Messy Love Affair with the GOP; and the best-selling business book Snapshots from Hell: The Making of an MBA.
Steven Hayward argues that the environmental movement fails to take into account the resilience of the Earth. He references the fast recovery in Prince William Sound from the Exxon Valdez spill and evidence pointing to the rapid regrowth of trees in cleared forests.
Advocacy of the preservation or improvement of the natural environment, especially the social and political movement to control environmental pollution. Other specific goals of environmentalism include control of human population growth, conservation of natural resources, restriction of the negative effects of modern technology, and the adoption of environmentally benign forms of political and economic organization. Environmental advocacy at the international level by nongovernmental organizations and some states has resulted in treaties, conventions, and other instruments of environmental law addressing problems such as global warming, the depletion of the ozone layer, and the danger of transboundary pollution from nuclear accidents. Influential U.S. and British environmentalists have included Thomas Robert Malthus, John Muir, Rachel Carson, Barry Commoner, Paul R. Ehrlich, and Edward O. Wilson. In the social sciences, the term refers to any theory that emphasizes the importance of environmental factors in the development of culture and society.
It makes sense what Hayward and Vasil state: The arc of Industrial growth has effects on Planet Earth so we need to put this into BETTER perspective: look at Third World countries (esp. China and India) entrance into industrialization and also look at if you are barely surviving, where does environmental concerns fit in.
Sure, the environment recovers but he has to realize that because it's not nature vs. nature but more, nature vs. humans, therefore, the environment cannot possibly recover fast enough to counteract all of our harmful doings.
The argument put forward by Mr. Hayward that the environment recovers and therefore we should be less concerned is the worst I've ever heard. Imagine if we said the same thing about the Holocaust, or the bombing of Hiroshima, or any number of other disasters. Also pointing out things that recover as an argument, while specifically avoiding things that don't recover, and indeed cannot recover (extinct species, for example) is no argument at all. It's pretty much feel good stupidity. Please, learn how to think Mr. Hayward.
Steven Hayward's research at some point confirms and supports and interesting observation made by many scholars working in various fields. Majority of people do not care about tomorrow unless they're happy today. No wonder that during the economic recession in the US environmentalists are losing their grounds according to the polls presented by Hayward. Foreign policy's recent survey among 1000 people in US ( http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/c...?story_id=4252 ) shows that even those who're more aware and educated on climate change issues “trust scientists will develop emission-less vehicles and things that are going to reduce the carbon footprint of humanity.” What about those third world countries and developing countries for whom industrialization is the most credible solution to escape poverty? As long as the poverty rates will remain persistent nobody would care about global warming. What would you prefer dying of hunger today or maybe dying from global worming sometime in the future? Therefore problem of global worming has yet to become truly global.
What happens if the global warming crowd turns out to be even somewhat correct? The arguments on both sides have merit but at the end of the day it comes down to this; do we take the cautious approach and begin to take action now or do we choose to ignore these issues and continue as we are? Most modern societies (with a few exceptions) do not possess the political will to take the long view and make appropriate adjustments, and that is the core of the problem here. Is humanity capable of making the right choices for a future they will never experience?
The man makes some valid points, and Al Gore has made himself into an inviting target. But I don't think Hayward is addressing the real issue, which is what to do about climate change to minimize the impact on human beings. He just assumes it's either not real or will go away without anyone doing anything. Is that realistic?
Elaria21, I understand your shock. How earth shattering it is to someone as intelligent as yourself even just to be exposed to such ignorant drivel. Please accept my deepest personal apology for this affront. As for Mr. Hayward, he must be flogged!
Elaria21 I beg of you to please have pity on those uncaring, arrogant and ignorant of us who do not poses your vast intellect and empathy for the planet. Please, so that we may go forth and spread the word, take this moment to educate the ignorant few and hand down to us just one little fact that refutes Mr. Hayward's argument. Please... just one.
Ah, yes, the herd of independent minds grows daily and will crush those of us who find rational discussion of value. What an insulting, arrogant twit you are, Elaria21, to suggest that others might not value nature, the environment, earth as you do. "Our only home", indeed. Fortunately, developing technologies mean that we will soon be able to colonize other planets and launch the likes of you into orbit. The sooner the better.
It is one of the most ignorant, arrogant, and irresponsible talk I ever heard! Fortunately, these individuals are outnumbered by people who are much more knowledgeable and treasure our planet – our only home!