It’s surprising that nobody has pointed out the obvious about improving the environment. That is, everybody wants a nicer place to live, that’s a given. It is how you go about doing that where all the controversy exists.
A simple rule for environmental improvement should be: if political power needs to change hands, or government needs more power or control to improve the environment, then the environment is not the issue; it is just an excuse to take power and money from somebody and give it to somebody else.
Most really good changes to the environment just need a limited number of people doing a few things. They DON’T need the attention of the public as a whole. They DON’T need enormous amounts of money. They DON’T take decades or hundreds of years to fix. And MOST OF ALL, they DON’T need for political power to change hands, OR for government to become more powerful.
This means that there are two kinds of people who are activists about the environment. Scientists who use science to make small changes that improve things. And politicals, who want to *use* environmentalism to get more power, control, and money.
The former group are often sensible and logical. The latter group are so obsessed with power, control and money that they should never have any of them.
Actually, there’s another group — the farmers and ranchers who actually work the land. It is in their best interest to keep it in great shape, and thus they are the hands-on experts.
No ivory towers on the range.