See, Environmentalists, We Told You So

Two years ago, I wrote that when any nation’s economy develops beyond a certain point, its environment starts getting cleaner without government intervention. The figure has been estimated variously in different places, but when an economy’s productivity reaches around $5000 per capita (in 1987 US dollars), people start getting concerned about the environment. This point was not originally mine – you can find it with a little searching at Junkscience.com, though I remember seeing it in an Economics 101 textbook.

No matter. Now there’s a book that can make you really able to support the claim that the environment magically starts getting cleaner, just as people magically get wealthier and more peaceful, when the government steps out of economic affairs, including environmental affairs. (Yes, the environment is an economic matter: Economics is properly the study of all deliberate human activity, not just money matters. Spend some time with the Ludwig von Mises Institute.)

Dr. Jack Hollander, a self-proclaimed environmentalist and retired professor of energy and resources at ultra-leftist UC Berkeley, has written The Real Environmental Crisis, in which he makes the point that wealth, not poverty, is the key to cleaning up the environment. Precisely as I and others have stated, Hollander notes that when people have met the basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter, they start thinking about other things. Entertainment, fitness, philosophy, religion, and the environment are among those things. Hollander makes the bonus point that the global warming scare is based on weak science or no science at all. He concludes that environmentalists, in all their efforts to turn back the technological clock and keep third-world countries impoverished and prevent developed countries from developing further, are hurting their own cause – they’re hastening environmental destruction.

Informed paleolibertarians have known this for years. We’re not the only ones: Take a look at this report proving that Congress has, or should have, understood the connection between economic development and environmental improvement for at least nine years. Too bad Congress doesn’t know about the connection between economic development and the size of government, which they continue to get backwards.

Another way economic growth improves the environment is by placing fewer demands on it: As populations develop economically, they slow down reproduction. Italians have been having children below the rate required to maintain population size for years, and the rest of the western world is heading for this condition. Population growth from births, as opposed to immigration, continues only where there is widespread poverty caused by oppressive government (the Heritage Foundation provides recent data on the correlation between economic freedom and economic development). Within two generations, maintaining only current population trends, the real problem will be underreplacement: There won’t be enough of us young enough to work to support the elderly. Afterward, eventually, the population will stabilize.

Even if the population were to stabilize at the current 6.3 billion (it will probably end up well below that), consider that if the entire 6.3 billion of us were jammed into the United States alone, the population density would be less than ¼ the density of Washington DC. There is no population crisis anywhere: Famines are poverty crises, always caused in one way or another by government.

What the environmentalists do is oppose industrialization and globalization around the world. They especially hate hydroelectric dams. Opposing a dam or a factory today will result in less environmental impact, today, at the site where the dam or factory is proposed. True enough. Opposing these things, however, keeps poor countries poor, so they never turn their attention to environmental issues. Opposing free trade has the same effect. So by preventing a localized (and manageable) environmental impact today, they’re laying the groundwork for widespread degradation over the long term.

Funny how socialism works that way every time you try it. Domestic poverty in wealthy nations, for example: The immediately apparent solution, welfare (take from the rich and give to the poor right now), indeed puts more money in the hands of the poor right now. But looking one step further, we see that the money given to the poor is a disincentive for them to begin work, just as higher taxes are a disincentive for those who already work. The poor would be better off in the long term without government assistance, in that they would work harder, and the people already working would tend to work harder to earn greater rewards. This would include entrepreneurs, so there would be more jobs available for the poor. This principle works 100% of the time, all over the world.

So the environmentalists have two tasks ahead of them if they want a cleaner environment: Stop opposing economic development, and start fighting to reduce government. These are the opposites of the strategies they have always pursued. We told them so.

Once you realize that their agenda (the leadership's) is the eradication of capitalism and the installation of socialism, they become much easier to understand.

I beg to differ. Though I agree that socialism and the eradication of capitalism is a means, I don't think that socialism is the goal. As a Christian, I am brought up to be rather pessimistic about the human condition, and so far society, using morality as a barometer, hasn't disproved this premise.

I don't think that the eradication of capitalism and the installation of socialism had anything to do with the banning of Freon and DDT. Freon is the least expensive and most efficient refrigerant available. Refrigeration is key to the preservation of food. Making the preservation of food more difficult and expensive preceeds famine. DDT has been used for decades to practically eradicate Malaria and other diseases common to turd world countries. Most estimates show that the use of DDT saved over a half a million lives annually just from preventable Malaria alone. DDT is a great tool in the war against famine. Presently the enivornmental movement seems to consider death through starvation and plague as their preferred means of population control. Combine their deeds with overtly misanthropic associations such as "Zero Population Growth" and all of their miscreant derivatives who favor abortions, forced sterilizations and condoms, and you have another leg of the stool. Another leading cause of population control is war and purges. And those Leftists that support Saddam and other tyrants through their protests against moral nations that take a dim view of such monstrosities, are in effect rooting for the "war and purge" leg of the population control stool. (double entendre intended)

I maintain my position that environmentalism is a tool of misanthropes who wish to see the deaths of billions of other people so they can frollic in their utopian gardens alone.

I maintain my position that environmentalism is a tool of misanthropes who wish to see the deaths of billions of other people so they can frollic in their utopian gardens alone.

Interesting, thought provoking post. I am convinced that some of them are just what you say, but it seems to me their moves all have an anti-capitalist flavor, manifest themselves as an attack on commerce. Restriction on freon hasn't killed anyone because it's only banned in the US, and here the replacement, R134-A is inferior and has environmental baggage of its own.

Possibly backing up your theory is the fact that socialism has killed millions everywhere it has prevailed.

Restriction on freon hasn't killed anyone because it's only banned in the US, and here the replacement, R134-A is inferior and has environmental baggage of its own.

So I have heard. The alternate conspiratorial theory on the domestic banning of Freon, is that DuPont's patent ran out and by coming up with R134, there would be no fear of the US market being filled by cheaper generics. But that must take one heck of a lot of lobbying capital to get Congress or the EPA to enforce a nationwide ban on a particular product, forcing huge costs onto the consumer to replace or upgrade their equipment that wasn't designed for R134. Also, I have heard smugglers getting the 3rd degree for bringing in Freon. Marijuana? Share some with the Customs agent and go on. Cocaine? Some major grease and maybe even a slap on the wrist. Illegal aliens? Who is noticing? Apricot Seeds or Freon? Go Diretly to Jail. Do Not Pass Go. Do Not Collect $200.

Doesn't R134-A get classified as a carcinogen? And doesn't it operate less efficiently therefore requiring more energy expenditure in order to produce the same level of cooling benefit? And doesn't it eat the heck out of tradition refrigeration equipment seals and fittings? Exactly how did these bad things get past the EPA where as the heavier than air Freon got accused of flying directly over Antartica (defying all known global air circulation patterns) and creating this massive hole in the ozone that mysteriously closed up when the Sun's path was north of the equator?

Possibly backing up your theory is the fact that socialism has killed millions everywhere it has prevailed.

I look at the bigger picture and view it as a cosmic battle between Good & Evil. (well that is the cartoon description of it). One side is enraptured with the thought of diabolical power that is only enjoyed when it can be used to destroy other people. I can't find any other reason to explain Turd World Tyrannts thrill over torture, Drug Cartel leaders fascination with chainsaws and the human body, and even Torquemada's innovative ways of inflicting the most possible pain on "heretics".

For those who have not reached the upper echelons of despotic power, they have the consolation prize of knowing that their policies have ruined vacations, killed brown people in foreign lands, jacked up the costs of doing business, cause the loss of jobs to countless others, and otherwise leave a long trail of hardship and misery.

Its almost like they revel in trying to outdo each other in inflicting the most panic and disruption in people's lives. Why else would the EPA make a big stink over showers? There were some Chicken Little's in that office, obviously bored and seeking some cheap and perverted thrill to justify their existance who claimed that the chlorine that is found in municipal water supplies (for obvious health reasons) is a carcinogen, and therefore a person who takes a hot shower is risking their lives by merely stepping in and washing their hair. Perhaps they long for the days when people would splash around nude in the fecal and sludge filled waters of the lower Yangtze River.

These environmentalists are sick people, and it is a national tragedy that they are permitted to prey upon innocent lives such as they do.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.