In Cal Thomas’ commentary titled “Environmental fundamentalism” (Op-Ed, Aug. 13), he criticizes a number of Earth-friendly arguments.
First, he criticizes environmentalists for wanting to “expand government power.” This is often true, but mainly because history has proved that the market is a poor caretaker of water and air. In light of this, many people concerned with the environment would appreciate any support they can get from local and non-local institutions. Thomas himself says he is “all for clean air and water.” But it seems the best way to attain this goal is through cooperation on every level–personal as well as political.
He also makes it appear that the argument for reducing air pollution is based solely on concerns about global warming. Since there is fervent debate about global warming, it makes the environmentalist position look less than authoritative. If Thomas were to add the increase of acid rain and ozone holes and lung diseases to his list, suddenly the scientific community would be parked more firmly in the environmentalists’ corner and their worries would be harder to dismiss.
In the end, Thomas criticizes an “environmental wacko-ism” that preaches a theocracy based on the premise that the Earth is holy. Even if such a position is actually the foundation for the mainstream environmentalist movement (which I don’t think it is), I’m not sure the tree-huggers fare too badly when compared to other world religions.
Finally, I’m a little disappointed with name-calling in general as an argumentative tool (fanatics, wackos, etc.). First, it seems name-calling does not have a productive influence on the culture. Second, it reveals an ability in the writer to preach only to the choir–a skill of less than remarkable value.
