While I was on vacation in Myrtle Beach I still found time to read the newspaper and came across an environmental editorial in The Sun News of Myrtle Beach. It was titled “Doomsayers always proved wrong” and was written by Walter E. Williams, professor of Economics at George Mason University. It reads, in part-
Now that another Earth Day has come and gone, let’s look at some environmentalist predictions that they would prefer we forget.
At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”
C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”
In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich, Vice President Gore’s hero and mentor, predicted there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and “in the 1970s … hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989, and by 1999 the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”
Now, don’t get me wrong. I’m a big fan of having an environment. I just don’t buy all the hype that alarmists like to throw at us in order to get more government control and regulation. I prefer a voluntary, market based solution. For example I’m a big fan of GreenIQ.com- How green are you?
GreenIQ is sponsored by the Environmental Defense Fund an organization I have many, many problems with) and is the perfect example of using the media (in this case the internet) to raise awareness about an issue while simultaneously changing their opinions and their every day activities.
Essentially, you register for the site and then take their Green IQ Quiz which asks questions about your behaviors and then tells you what your “environmental footprint” is. While I may disagree with some of their conclusions I still think this is the right way to try and get their message across as opposed to the wrong way which is paying politicians to pass restrictive laws on everyone in America. In return, they plant a tree in your name.