Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist Read Free

somehow the “deep ecologists” have managed to twist things to make us inferior even to worms, as if all other life forms are superior to us. I don’t buy this philosophy of self-loathing.
    Since I left Greenpeace, its members, and the majority of the movement, have adopted policy after policy that reflects their antihuman bias, illustrates their rejection of science and technology, and actually increases the risk of harm to people and the environment. They oppose forestry even though it provides our most abundant renewable resource. They have zero tolerance for genetically modified food crops, even though this technology reduces pesticide use and improves nutrition for people who suffer from malnutrition. They continue to oppose nuclear energy, even though it is the best technology to replace fossil fuels and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They campaign against hydroelectric projects despite the fact that hydro is by far the most abundant renewable source of electricity. And they support the vicious and misguided campaign against salmon farming, an industry that produces more than a million tons of heart-friendly food every year.
    This divergence in opinion and policy is the result of a single difference of perspective. The extreme environmentalists see humans as the problem, an impediment to salvation, a blight on the landscape. Sensible environmentalists see humans as part of nature and as individuals who are capable of intelligent analysis and decision making and who can learn to integrate themselves into the web of life. The subject of forests and forestry offers a perfect example of this dichotomy.
    Anti-forestry activists like those who belong to the Rainforest Action Network argue that we should minimize the number of trees we cut down and hence reduce the amount of wood we use. We are told this will “save” the forests. Indeed, in the absence of humans the forests would do just fine. But there isn’t an absence of humans; there are nearly seven billion of us. We need materials to build our homes, offices, factories, and furniture, and we need farmland to produce food and fiber. It’s not as if we can just stop eating or using resources, it’s a matter of survival. If we decided to reduce our wood consumption, we would automatically increase our consumption of steel, concrete, and other nonrenewable resources. This would require a huge increase in energy consumption, largely from fossil fuels, to manufacture the steel and concrete, adding to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. So on balance, using less wood would result in increased damage to the environment.
    Once we accept the existence of nearly seven billion people, the entire equation is altered. Now we want to maximize the use of renewable resources and keep as much land forested as possible. One of the best ways to do this is to use more wood sustainably. In fact, the more wood we use the more trees must be grown to supply the demand and the greater the economic incentive to keep land forested. This is a major reason North America has about the same area of forest today as it did 100 years ago; because we use so much wood, landowners plant trees and keep their land forested in order to supply the demand. It’s not rocket science, but this fundamental economic relationship has managed to escape the attention of many activists, who automatically believe the way to save the forest is to reduce the use of wood.
    There certainly are examples of unsustainable forest use, which results in the loss of forests. But these cases have virtually nothing to do with the forest industry and everything to do with poverty. In poor and underdeveloped countries where wood is the primary fuel for cooking and heating, forests have suffered badly. This is the case in many of the drier regions in the tropics, where fuel wood and charcoal production have denuded whole landscapes. Add to this the grazing pressure caused by goats, sheep, and cows and you have an