Knapp's claims about environmental cause are unsupported

I am writing in response to Alex Knapp's recent Tech News article, "Radicalism only hurts the environmental cause." Knapp makes a series of unsupported conjectures in order to create the illusion of a radical left-wing movement that is alienating the public. The only purpose an article like this serves is to confuse the issue and undermine the very movement it claims to support.

Knapp begins his article pointing out that Dr. Paul Ehrlich, whose doomsday theories have proved to be false, "is still trotted out onto talk shows and discussion panels" and that "radical members of the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) have begun a campaign of burning down new houses to prevent 'sprawl.'" He insinuates that these facts are evidence that "The strains of extremism and radicalism within the environmental movement are growing." However, this does not provide any evidence that radical groups have gained acceptance in the mainstream environmental movement.

Paul Ehrlich is his own person and is not controlled by the environmental movement. If he chooses to go on talk shows and discussion panels, that is his business. One person with extreme theories does not constitute a radical group, let alone a radical group with mainstream acceptance.

ELF, on the other hand, is a radical group. It does not hide the fact that it is not accepted by the mainstream. The ELF web page states that it was founded in 1992 by some members of Earth First! (which is itself considered a radical group by some), who did not agree with the "mainstream" policy not to support criminal acts.

Next, Knapp claims that "...the environmental movement is being subjugated to the left-wing, particularly Green Party politics." This is completely false. The environmental movement cannot be subjugated by the left, since it has traditionally been left-wing and is logically a left-wing issue. The only body that has the right to enforce environmental standards in this country is the government. Since the right is opposed to bigger government, in general, it is going to be much less supportive of environmental measures than the left. Not too long ago, it would have been a contradiction to be a Republican environmentalist. Things are more complicated now. The Republican party has given the environment more lip service in recent years, yet many of its policies and actions, such as support for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and appointing people such as Gail Norton and John Ashcroft, who have histories of being anti-environmentalist, to the presidential cabinet.

In addition, the environment is connected to many left wing issues. A disproportionate environmental burden is imposed on many poor and minority communities. The fact that these communities are often closest to polluting industries, dumps, and major transportation hubs means they often get the worst quality air and water, resulting in a reduced quality of life. For example, providers for Norpac foods often employ immigrant farmers in the Pacific Northwest, and these farmers must deal with the health issues associated with pesticides, often without the necessary safety precautions. The environment is intertwined with civil rights, health care, and labor issues. By working in solidarity, these movements gain more power than any one of them would have alone.

Knapp claims that the environmental movement is becoming increasingly technophobic and has "shut the door on potential solutions to environmental problems." This is actually the exact opposite of reality.

The statement that Green Party members are "stating that wind power is the solution for the state's current energy woes" is incorrect. Ralph Nader recently had a press conference on the California energy crisis in which he blamed the problems on poorly implemented deregulation of power, which allowed wholesale energy companies such as Enron and Dynergy to gouge prices. He never suggested that using wind power would have prevented the crisis. Environmental groups, especially the Green Party, are the first to support increased research into clean, renewable energy technologies that increase efficiency and decrease pollution. The idea that they would support 4,000 square miles of wind plants using current technology is naive.

Knapp's evidence of the environmental movement's technophobia is that the movement does not support nuclear power. It is ignorant to believe that nuclear power is a sort of miracle energy source and insulting to suggest that those who do not support nuclear energy are technophobes. For starters, the waste that Knapp mentions will remain hazardous for more than 200,000 years. It is impossible to safely dispose of this waste. These facts by themselves are reason enough not to support nuclear power. Also, despite claims that "modern plants are virtually incapable of meltdown," at least five reactors in this country have experienced partial core-melt accidents, in addition to numerous small accidents. A perfectly functioning nuclear plant will occasionally have "routine" releases of small amounts of radioactivity. Nuclear power is not an energy panacea.

Knapp states that the conclusions of scientists were greatly overstated by politicians at the recent U.N. council on global warming. As with the rest of the article, he does not give one example of this, so it impossible to critically examine this. There is a very fine line between preparing for the worst case scenario and exaggerating the problem. Also, regardless of the veracity of the statement, this is not something controlled by the environmental movement directly. Actions by politicians are not controlled by environmentalists.

In summary, Alex Knapp has attempted to create a scare about a burgeoning radical left-wing movement that does not exist. His tactics ranged from unsupported insinuations to vague generalities to outright falsities.

It appears that, as usual, the one who is running around like Chicken Little and crying wolf is Alex Knapp.