I fully expect to be chastised severely, and perhaps even accused of heresy for voicing this opinion, but I am unapologetic in refusing to wax enthusiastic over the extravaganza which has been celebrated since 1978 as “Earth Day.” Admittedly, its adherents are, for the most part, well-meaning and sincere, and I will submit that any activity which weans children from TV, taking them out-of-doors and teaching them not to litter has intrinsic value.
Nonetheless, Earth Day has evolved as little more than a “feel good” exercise in pop environmentalism, embraced largely by those with negligible scientific or agricultural experience. Respect for the environment and for conservation are admirable traits; however, worship of all that is green because it is trendy and popular regardless of the consequences hardly conforms to the properties of conscientious research.
Locally and nationwide, the celebrations of “Mother Earth” include booths hawking “eco-friendly” products such as organic T-shirts, hemp place mats, instructions on organic gardening, recycling and the evils of commercial fertilizers and chemicals and, of course, bringing awareness to global warming or “climate change,” the newest euphemism. For individual practice, most of the methodology constitutes a harmless exercise in pioneer living; nevertheless, to consider it applicable to the entire nation or world is to court economic disaster, a catastrophe in infectious diseases and global starvation.
Those “evil” commercial fertilizers have increased crop yields since the 1950s. Organic or plain gardening are fine for those who have the time and space for growing food but obviously impractical for the majority of us, and the eschewing of the use of fossil fuels will put millions out of work long before sufficient “green collar” jobs can be created. The bashing of chlorine has no basis in fact, as science has shown that its addition to drinking water was the greatest advancement in public health as it virtually eradicated waterborne diseases such as cholera.
Additionally, the banning of DDT, triggered largely by Rachel Carson’s 1962 book, “Silent Spring,” inspired the pioneers of the green movement to a mindset of extremism in treating the use of all industrial chemicals with an attitude ranging from suspicion to contempt. The damage to world wildlife, to birds in particular, was later shown to be wildly exaggerated — the result was the resurgence of malaria, a disease all but eradicated by that pesticide. The cost of this leap to false conclusion to save species from extinction was millions of human lives, particularly in Asia and Africa.
Increasing the awareness of climate change could be considered a plus for society — if the playing field was level. Unfortunately it has been a one-sided program to validate predetermined conclusions, refusing honest debate with those of different scientific persuasion. Any student of geology knows that Earth has survived at least four ice ages, none of which were ended by fossil fuel burning or use of SUVs. Moreover, an increase of six-tenths of one degree in temperature in 125 years is hardly alarming. Perhaps we should question more closely the pied pipers of doom and consider the probability that climate change is a natural evolution
If I sound overly skeptical of the charms of the green, back-to-nature culture it is because I actually lived it from the second through sixth grade. From 1941 to 1947, I lived on a farm without electricity, the drinking water was carried from a well some 100 yards from the house, refrigeration was an ice box and ice purchased in 100-pound blocks, and plumbing facilities consisted of an outhouse at home as well as at school. Wind power supplied water for humans and livestock as well and also a wind charger for a battery radio — no wind meant pumping water by hand and no radio.
Solar power meant pumping tubs of water early on spring and summer mornings and hoping the sun heated them sufficiently for bathing. When inclement weather caused mud or snow, a trip to town was a two-mile trek either by horse or by “shank’s mare.” I do not regret that period of my life; nevertheless, I have no earthly desire to repeat it. Living a primitive and “green” experience one day a year may be fashionable and trendy but a steady diet of it is more than tiresome.
Conservation and environmental stewardship are indeed vital to our very existence — but scientific and common sense application must replace an uninformed or purely political agenda.
Karl Miller retired as a colonel in the U.S. Marine Corps. He is a Columbia resident and can be reached via e-mail at JKarlUSMC@aol.com.