Why I DON’T Celebrate “Earth Day”

There are two kinds of environmentalists — conservationists and preservationists — and they have very different perspectives on the role of humans in nature.

This passage from Wikipedia sums it up pretty well:

A key difference between the Preservationist and Conservationist schools is their view of the use of environmental resources. In summary, Preservationist view is that the environment has an intrinsic value; that is, the environment has value solely in itself. Therefore the name “preservationist” is explaining the goal to preserve the environment is its natural form, making as little change as possible.

Conservationists, however, view the environment with an instrumental value. While conservationists are to be considered far more “environmentally friendly” than many, they do not have the same “let it be” view as preservationists do. Instead, they look at the environment and look for what it can do.

A key concept is that conservationists generally accept the notion of sustainable yield—that man can harvest some forest or animal products from a natural environment on a regular basis without comprising the long-health of the ecosystem. This theory was presented by forester Gifford Pinchot. Preservationists usually oppose any resource extraction.

I count myself as a conservationist.  I believe that we have a responsibility to this great world that God has given to us.  God has made us its stewards and while the planet’s resources are at our disposal, we must ensure that we leave things the same as or better than we found it.  That is the whole concept of “sustainability,” which many businesses are now latching onto.  As Pinchot, an ally and political appointee of President Teddy Roosevelt, put it, there is a difference between “use” and “abuse” of our resources.

So, why don’t I celebrate “Earth Day”?  I have two main reasons.  First and foremost, I believe that most of the environmentalists behind it come from the far-left preservationist school of thought, so there is a fundamental disagreement over what the ultimate goals are.  The Sierra Club, the Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace and others (you know, the Algore-types) are always the first ones to file lawsuits to stop practically any new development.  They use the guise of “smart growth” to promote their true agenda of “no growth.”  (See the humor site “The People’s Cube” for its depiction of “Earth Day.”)

Second, “Earth Day” is nothing more than something that makes people feel good without, for the most part, actually accomplishing anything substantive.  Think about it.  Before you recycle that next newspaper or aluminum can, ask yourself whether you are actually conserving resources by doing so or if you are just making yourself feel good.

How does that newspaper or soda can get from your curbside to its final destination?  A recycling truck, separate from your regular garbage truck, that burns gasoline.  How does the item get recycled into something new?  Well, it isn’t the wave of a magic wand.  It takes energy to break it down and reformulate it.  And when you’re dealing with paper, there are two other issues to consider.  First, paper can only be recycled a finite number of times before it is too weak to be used again. Second, you have to remove the ink from the paper before it can be recycled and bleaching it to remove ink produces toxic ink wastes that must still be disposed.  I bet you haven’t thought about that, have you?

I’m not disparaging all recycling.  But a cost-benefit analysis should be performed to determine whether recycling something is actually worthwhile or not.  Consider this:

Some naive manufacturers have seized on the public’s enthusiasm for recycled goods. They produce costly, pointless recycled gimmicks that make little if any difference to the planet. Sometimes recycled products are made in energy-hungry factories and shipped or (worse still) air-freighted halfway round the world. Then it’s possible they are actually doing more damage to the planet than the cheap, disposable products they’re pretending to replace. If you’re not sure whether a recycled product is all it seems, contact the manufacturer and ask them to explain exactly how and where it is made. Ask them to explain exactly how it’s helping the environment. A genuine manufacturer will always be pleased to do this.

So, in short, think carefully about what you use, where it comes from, and where it goes. Try to reduce, reuse, and recycle—in that order! Be a thoughtful consumer, not a reckless one, and you’ll be doing your bit to save the environment.

I couldn’t sum it up better myself.  As with anything, inform yourself and then think for yourself before you act. Don’t just accept something as seemingly obvious as “recycling is always good” at face value.  You could be very, very wrong.

For the record, I DO celebrate Arbor Day, which will be this Friday.