Danny ChaiAs you may or may not know, I’m a very mild environmentalist. I ride the train to work. I’m maniacal about recycling. I don’t drink bottled water. (SN. This bottled water thing fascinates me. It’s clear now that bottled water is no better health-wise than tap water – whatever issues there might be with tap water, it’s worse with bottled, which is virtually unregulated – and much, much worse for the environment. It is the only environmental issue I know of where it’s actually cheaper and easier to do what’s better for the environment. Seems like a no-brainer. But even in green California, I still see tons of people drinking water bottles. My theory: bottled water tastes different (read bottled water labels; they all add stuff for taste), and the taste makes people feel healthier, even though in reality it’s not. And for that feeling, they’re willing to pay a price premium and needlessly hurt the environment.
Things are changing, though. San Francisco is considering eliminating bottled water from the city budget, which totally makes sense. And when some group came out with Christian-themed bottled water, other Christian groups spoke out strongly against it, even calling bottled water a moral issue: “‘In a world where a billion people have no reliable source of drinking water, where 3,000 children die every day of waterborne diseases, let’s be clear: bottled water is not a sin, but it sure is a choice,’ says Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals. ‘Spending $15 billion a year on bottled water is a testimony to our conspicuous consumption, our culture of indulgence.'” I dunno, for me, like I said, it’s a no-brainer. Not healthier, bad for environment, and cheaper. The last reason alone is good enough for me.)
That said, I find the politics of environmentalism fascinating and sad. A lot of environmental positions are not based on what’s best, but on politics. For example, DDT. There was evidence that DDT caused harm to the environment, and it was one of the earliest environmental causes. From that, DDT was banned in the U.S., and practically banned worldwide (many groups refuse to give aid to countries that use DDT). Thing is, DDT probably saves lives. Its use helped eradicate malaria in certain places. There’s an argument that the environmentalists’ stance on DDT sucks for 3rd world countries that have malaria problems; other countries got to use it and eliminate malaria, then they ban it and prevent these countries from using it as a tool to combat it there.
So why are groups still against DDT? A lot of it is politics. Since much of the environmental movement was built on opposing certain pesticides, there’s a political problem with permitting it; it would undercut the movement’s roots. So it’s sad. It’s not that DDT is necessarily the perfect solution to malaria. It’s just that environmentalists are not willing to let countries try to use it and prevent deaths.
Another issue is nuclear power. You should read this Freakonomics column for the NYTimes on it. It’s not comprehensive, but the gist is, all things considered, nuclear power is better for the environment, compared to all the alternatives, especially coal and oil. Additionally, counting all the nuclear mishaps ever, nuclear power kills (I think far) fewer people than coal, which is the source of most of our energy in the U.S. It’s both better for the environment and safer.
The problem? Mainly a perception thing. Everyone remembers dramatic nuclear accidents. The health problems of coal workers and the ones that die at work every year, though cumulatively greater than nuclear accidents, is much less dramatic. And it’s also political. There was a big anti-nuke groundswell years ago that likely brought many people into the environmentalist fold. That makes it hard for environmentalists to change on the nuclear issue, facts be darned.
In my opinion, a rational environmentalist (which I pretend to be), would be accepting of moderate use of DDT and pro-nuclear power. But politics and perception get in the way. And that is, like I said, both fascinating and sad.