very real and difficult challenges ahead, we must find and implement sensible and pragmatic solutions. Today’s environmental movement, marked by intolerance and shrill tirades against capitalism and globalization, is simply not up to the job at hand. In fact, it has become a roadblock to meeting these challenges. In this chapter I will use the issues of climate change and energy production to show how the environmental movement has become disabled by its own ideology. Every day we are bombarded with dire predictions of ecological collapse and social disintegration. We are told there is no time for debate; radical action is necessary now if we wish to avoid an apocalypse of biblical proportions. No one paints a negative picture better than Robert Kennedy Jr.: Our generation faces the greatest moral and political crisis in human history. Will we take the steps necessary to avert catastrophic global warming or will we doom our children to a new Dark Ages in a world that is biologically and economically impoverished and defined by ever diminishing quality of life?…The scientific debate is over except among a few polluter-financed junk scientists and ideologically blinded flat Earthers. [1]
The question that might pop into a reader’s mind: “Is this a load of sensationalist hogwash or is the world really coming to an end?” Some would say that the writer has an impressive pedigree, and an Ivy League education. His occupation as a senior lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, D.C., gives him access to both what you know and who you know. At the very least he must be sincere in his fears, even if they are exaggerated, right? Many scientists and nearly all environmental groups believe global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Many other scientists believe the present global warming trend is a natural phenomenon similar to the other warming and cooling periods that have occurred throughout Earth’s history. It is not possible to “scientifically prove” which opinion is correct because there are too many variables and we are talking about predicting the future, a difficult task for the simplest of issues. And climate change and global warming are anything but simple—this is one of the most complex and challenging areas in science today. As I stated earlier, we should remember that the crystal ball is actually a mythical object. And it is possible either or both positions are partly right; that there is a natural warming trend that is being accelerated by our fossil fuel emissions. In later chapters we will explore the complexities of climate science and policy, but in this chapter I want to focus on the policy dilemma we face due to the environmental movement’s positions on climate change and energy production. These positions have greatly influenced environmental and energy policies at national and international levels. To sum up the present predicament, most environmental groups oppose the continued use of fossil fuels, but they also oppose or ignore nearly all the available and affordable alternatives. They have adopted a policy framework on energy and climate change that is logically inconsistent, technically impossible, and entirely self-defeating. Many environmentalists believe renewable wind energy can help displace fossil fuels and their greenhouse gas emissions. A large wind energy facility has been proposed for an offshore site near Martha’s Vineyard at Cape Cod. Robert Kennedy Jr., with the help of his friends in Congress, is leading a campaign to defeat the proposal. He claims the location is inappropriate. [2] It is in fact an excellent location as the wind blows regularly; it is out of shipping lanes, and far enough from shore not to cause noise pollution. How can someone who thinks the planet will self-destruct if we don’t halt global warming be opposed to some windmills six miles from the shore? And even though Greenpeace