Initially I was going to submit this paper for my class today but after reading and discussing on whether a price should be put on the goods and services provided by the world's ecosystem, I've changed my mind on what my first paper should be..
Nonetheless, I've decided to post it here, as to not waste my past effort.. read it and tell me what you think..

DO ENVIRONMENTALIST OVERSTATE THEIR CASE?


The never ending debate of the ever growing environmental crises increases the public awareness about the future of the environment. Environmentalists accuse the industrial leaders of being confused by misrepresenting scientific facts and overstating potential economic impact in order to protect their own profits. They also imply that the natural resources are rapidly declining, thus threatening the human survival. On the other hand, others argue that environmentalists tend to overstate fears about damage to ecosystems, that hyped environmental disasters tend not to happen and that man-made environmental disaster is far from a certainty. However, as in all debates, overstating facts to convince the public is a norm, and so environmentalists are of no exception.

One of the fascinating things about arguing with neoconservatives is the fast and loose usage of facts. Inevitably, environmentalists make dire predictions from time to time based on current technology. More often than not, a technological solution is proposed which diminishes those concerns. The penchant of radical environmentalists for casting hypotheses as facts, and ignoring all evidence against impending catastrophe, and their anti-human bias are much of a common perception. According to David Pimentel “One example of the impact of population growth and development is occurring in California where an average of 156000 ha of agricultural land is being lost each year. At this rate it will not be long before California ceases to be the number one state in US agricultural production” (108). This type of overstatement and twist of fact could easily be contrasted to saying that if horse traffic in London continued to increase, then in fifty years the streets would be filled with ten feet of dung. Of course, technology and inventions has its own way of changing the human’s lifestyle in order to improve our life. London has switched to internal combustion which has been changing day by day to suit our convenience. Even though air pollution is the current environmental issue, it is not impossible that in the future, humans would develop other methods of traveling or ways of reducing carbon dioxide emission.

Overstatement is far from being a problem unique to ecology. Both sides of a debate tend to overstate their cases. Economists depend on the spectra of inflation for their mantra. If there is no inflation threat on the horizon, it would be invented, while making a molehill out of the more important problems to which none of the unproven remedies can be applied. Just like the witch doctors of the east, they operate by convincing us we are ill, or are about to become ill, when we are not. It is the same with radical environmentalists who claims that imminent disaster is a near certainty, and that we as a species must therefore drastically change our ways.

Science can be politicized. We like to take ally positions. In doing so, we seek to use and create scientific knowledge for the purpose of supporting those positions. Indeed, to gain public good research funds, it helps to be seen to be in a politically correct site that is predisposed to the current biases of the funding authorities. The same could be applied to environmentalists. In order to change the publics’ perception and lifestyle, it seems necessary to overstate. Undoubtedly this has resulted in some positive outcomes such as the 1972’s Conference on the Human Environment, 1983’s US Environmental Protection Agency and 1992’s Earth Summit on Sustainable Development, to name a few (xviii).

Whether doom for us is global warming, inflation, or profligate public servants, we could relax a bit, accept the 80:20 rule that 80% of what happens to us individually and collectively is beyond our control, and just get on with living our lives through maintaining a moral respect for the environment. We can behave well for ourselves and for our environment without having to control other people's behavior through the use of overstated scenarios of doom. Yes environmentalists were wrong to overstate, but not because their conclusions were false. Whales were hunted almost to extinction. Coal resources have been exhausted in many parts of the world. Deforestation was a major problem, and many previously forested areas have never recovered. While new and improved methods of protecting and preserving the environment should continuously be researched and developed, unbiased facts and information should be distributed to the public in order to increase public awareness. Overstating facts would only erode the public’s trust on environmentalists just like the tale of the boy who cried wolf. After all, isn’t human morality more important than environmental conservation?