Protecting the environment.

I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT on the subject raised by Professor John R.E. Bliese in a past issue of Modern Age. The theme of the article, "Taking the Lead in Environmentalism," is that conservatives should "come to terms with environmentalism and environmental issues." Setting the stage with quotations from highly respected conservative writers, he proceeds to chastise conservative writers for not dealing with this subject, censuring them by using phrases like "virulent anti-environmental attitude" and "'conservative' politicians and pundits and entertainers" (emphasis added). From this he posits that the libertarians are ideologues whose "ideas tend to get lost in their utopian rhetoric and blind worship of markets." (1)

Bliese's real concern becomes clear as the focus of the article becomes more cosmic with assumptions and predictions regarding irreversible alterations of the ecosystem. Listing changes in the atmosphere, he accepts without question some of the most radical predictions and calculations of contemporary environmentalists and ecologists. In accepting the proposition that man, in the normal course of using and developing processes for his use of natural resources, is capable of making changes that the Creator of the Universe has not anticipated is presumptuous indeed. There may be a possibility that the end of the world will come about by some nuclear holocaust, but short of this, change is inevitable and will be continuous as long as man is free to use the resources and the intelligence he has been given. This type of use of man's ingenuity, which is at the heart of individual freedom of expression and development of ideas, is what the environmentalists seek to restrict and/or replace with a system of governmental controls. European statist governments use this type of restriction on individual activity with the consequent repression of individual entrepreneurial activity, and reduction of individual expression, that characterizes restrictive societies.

There is a tension in this world which manifests itself in many ways and on many levels. This is the tension between good and evil, between the representative forces of good and evil in any situation or debate. At the governmental level it is between a Government of Principles and a Government of Earthly Power. Think of the representative Government of Principles as the Founding Government of these United States and contrast it with the Government of Earthly Power as the Communist Government of Josef Stalin. One proclaims the worth of the individual with inherent powers granted by his Creator, the other proclaims the supreme worth of the government as the answer to all of mankind's problems and that the individual has no worth other than to serve the superior aims of the state. The earthly power government does not tolerate men of principle nor the religions which proclaim these principles.

On the level of science we see this tension in the respect for the earth as a creation of a superior being on the one hand, and, on the other, to the respect for the planning of human science that is proclaimed as the only possible hope for continued survival of the planet. Thus, in analyzing Bliese's article we see that for him the only hope for a viable earth is trust in science and computer models which predict the future. This is the gospel of the environmentalist which proclaims that all actions and activities must be subject to the approval of the scientists.

Certainly there is a need for a conservative approach to environmentalism. The key word here is conservative. There is no need to make radical changes in the operative science and industry of our country as the environmentalists proclaim. There is a pressing need to adopt a serious and sensible approach to improving the environment by carefully analyzing problems and accepting sensible and scientifically sound solutions. In order for this to happen our society must have a standard for determining and accepting scientific truths. Currently scientific truth seems to be the province of a legal community in pursuit of monetary gain, rather than a respect for proven scientific fact. The environmental activist approach is to create fear and hysteria by proclaiming an inevitable apocalypse if we continue to use materials, products, and processes that have been serving mankind for decades and in some cases even centuries.

Examples abound, cigarettes and tobacco products are now anathema though they have been in common use for decades. Yes, there are definite harms in the use of these products, but a free society will rely on education not proscription. Asbestos is a valuable product that was used for many years. It can still serve a valuable purpose if properly applied and handled, but the environmentalists and their mercenary allies have made it a scare word. We can no longer use it sensibly, and essentially not at all, due to manufactured hysteria and the resultant liability problems. Mercury, a toy generations ago, is now treated as an aggressive horror waiting to pounce on an unsuspecting populace. Lead is actively pursuing our children to rob them of their ability to think and retain information. For the environmental activist the relative danger of these things is not to be considered or evaluated. They must be eliminated from society and banned from the market place.

More currently, mold has become a scare word, or more specifically to use current jargon, "toxic mold." Allowing petroleum products in even minute amounts to return to the soil from which they originated is anathema. The required clean up, removal, and treatment of "contaminated soil," whether it is in a sensitive location next to a water source or in a remote wasteland, seems irrelevant, and is costing society millions of dollars. The same is true of the draconian insistence on the removal of asbestos or asbestos-containing materials from the nation's school buildings, regardless of the quantity, type, or percentage involved. Money that is needed for education is being wasted on these removals, not because of a proven danger, but simply because of a perceived horror of "asbestos" and the legal liability that this perception represents.

Environmental activists and the sensation-hungry media are robbing us of the use of materials and products through a public relations scare campaign. Evaluation of risk is no longer an acceptable procedure. Yes, there is an urgent need for conservatives to address environmental issues. Conservative voices are needed to bring logic and good sense into the picture. Mandated removal procedures that logically should cost thousands are costing millions due to the establishment of excessively stringent and unnecessary standards, perceptions of legal liability, rules, and laws. Politicians are unable to make sensible laws due to the hysteria that has been created by sensationalist news stories, histrionic lawyers, and confused juries.

The practical aspects of determining which processes and materials are dangerous and evaluating risks associated with their use is a job for scientists and engineers operating under a governmental and judicial system that provides an atmosphere of reason and a method of logically evaluating and approving the resulting decisions. Deciding these questions in courtrooms under highly emotional circumstances can never produce intelligent and reliable results.

The challenge, then, for the conservative thinker and politician is to promote the principles and political atmosphere that can bring logic and common sense back into the government, its legal system, and the media. The relative danger of exposure to various materials can be determined, codified, and promulgated. The toxicity of dangerous or hazardous materials is available in the technical literature as are the carcinogenic properties. Such data are ignored or are too complicated for evaluation in the nation's courtrooms. The present atmosphere is not hospitable to the idea of accepted scientific data no matter how reliable or completely researched and investigated. Conservatives must help the country discard relativism and return to an acceptance of immutable facts in contrast to the currently popular concept that there is no certain truth, no hard and fast right and wrong.

1. John R. E. Bliese, "Taking the Lead in Environmentalism," Modern Age: A Quarterly Review, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Winter 2000), 102-109.

THOMAS A. MOSER is a Consulting Professional Engineer in the Cincinnati area.