I have always hated the “environmentalist” movement. Every time I hear people declare themselves environmentalists without a scientific background, Klaxons immediate sound off in my head and I invariably roll my eyes, expecting this person to be an utter moron.
But it isn’t because I think environmentalism’s general goals are wrong or misguided. On the contrary, I firmly believe in the sustainable and responsible management of the planet’s resources.
The thing I so despise about these environmentalists is that, more often than not, they are championed by people who have no real perspective of what they talk about. I hate to generalize, but with Sheryl Crow recently espousing the benefits of a “one-square-per-toilet-visit policy,” it reminded me of the problem with the public face of environmentalism. Although she called it a “joke,” she proposed creating a shirt with a detachable “dining sleeve” that would be used instead of paper napkins to help save the trees.
As much as I admire the time and effort celebrities spend promoting an effort, such comments only draw ridicule to the movement and hurt the chances for implementing real and effective change. Needless to say, saving a few scraps of paper from the dumpster won’t save the rain forest or help prevent global warming. Sorry Sheryl.
While such comments are relatively minor and somewhat innocuous, much more damaging to the real ideals of environmentalism are the ridiculous, unequivocal opposition to certain technologies that have been declared as “anti-green” by traditional environmental groups like Greenpeace, The Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth.
Particularly concerning is their exploitation of fear, uncertainty and doubt, often known collectively as “FUD.” Preying on the ignorance of the general public, these environmental groups spread FUD as a means of publicly discouraging the adoption of new technology, which they disagree with, usually on principle. Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are against genetically modified organisms on principle, which is to say that even safe, beneficial genetically modified organisms are opposed.
One such technology opposed was “Golden Rice,” which was rice that was genetically modified to provide vitamin A to people who consume it. More than 110 million people are affected with vitamin A deficiency, and more than 1 million die of the deficiency each year. Many others are left with vision damage, including permanent blindness.
Despite the promise of the technology, Greenpeace came out strongly against the technology. Instead of addressing the great promise of this technology to combat vitamin A deficiency, they spent much of their argument making unfounded claims like “the GE rice will be no real solution for vitamin A deficiency,” and “GE rice could exacerbate malnutrition and undermine food security.” They concluded that “Golden Rice was designed more to help industry overcome the widespread consumer rejection of GE crops than to help overcome a vitamin deficiency.”
Ingo Potrykus, one of the Swiss researchers associated with the Golden Rice research, responded with incisive and scientific clarity, noting that they had provided no such concrete evidence for their claims, were responsible for viciously misrepresenting the merits of Golden Rice and had threatened to destroy the test fields. He ended strongly, concluding that if the research fields are destroyed, Greenpeace “will be accused of contributing to a crime against humanity.”
This kind of irrational fanaticism against genetically modified organism technologies serves to further show how irrational and irrelevant these “mainstream” environmentalist groups are and why they should not be given an inch of credence when their public relations campaigns are put into motion.
While awareness campaigns by these groups may truly represent growing problems and concerns, it is important to truly understand the issues surrounding the problems presented by reading reputable sources like scientific magazines, peer-reviewed papers and governmental research documents. All these are easily accessible through online sources and are much more reputable than thoughts by female singers.
—–Contact Jon Lo at jlo@lsureveille.com