StarNews editors offer another example of techniques used by environmental activists to mislead and scare the public about our natural resources industries. Bruce Holsten’s letter illustrates several. (link)
He cites cases of unusual industrial accidents. Mr. Holsten uses the “Gulf BP tragedy” and “eight off shore oil spills” over the past five years—in his mind, justification to ban oil exploration off the North Carolina coast.
Virtually every human activity involves risk, but that does not stop us from trying to improve our lives by developing our resources. I’ve seen statistics that show agriculture to be our most hazardous industry. Is Mr. Holsten prepared to suggest a ban on farming? And thousands die annually from highway accidents. Would he ban cars and trucks?
Next, activists spread myths, such as our environment is “fragile.” This planet has survived millions of years of catastrophic events: earthquakes, volcanoes, storms, meteorites and fires, but life goes on—evolves and thrives. During the 20th century world wars devastated large areas of our world. Entire cities were obliterated. People quickly recovered and restored property, landscapes and their lives—building stronger and better. We’ve seen the same recovery after many destructive hurricanes that have changed the shape of the Atlantic coast—evidence that it is not “fragile.” However, that word describes environmentalism.
Activists use extreme language and false claims to frighten people. Holsten says “…it would only take one accident to destroy our coastline, wetlands and critical tourist industry.” Who would believe this claim? It didn’t happen in the Gulf of Mexico, or in Alaska or anywhere else. He writes: “The cost would be incalculable, the damage done unimaginable and potentially irreparable.” Based on any oil spill in history, there’s no evidence to support this wild assertion.
People lack credibility when they grossly exaggerate, make unfounded claims and predict Armageddon. Reasonable people understand that our necessary earthly activities have immeasurably improved our lives—they accept some risks for great benefits.
Environmentalist’s visions seem blurred in a utopian fog; unable to see the real world around them. They unreasonably deny the necessary human activities to sustain and improve our lives. For example, is it reasonable to believe that tourism is more “critical” to our standard of living than is developing our natural energy resources?
Read full article » No Comments »