The Facts as They Exist

Would Aristotle, Lincoln or Gandhi, three of the most renowned debaters in history, have resorted to making stuff up to win an argument?  Lacking the knowledge of Aristotle, the honor of Lincoln or the altruistic goodness of Gandhi, far too many debates in America are drug through the muds of deceit, half-truths and outright fabrication.  Environmental issues are not immune from this.  Though talented debaters emphasize the points that support their argument and downplay those that do not, we hope that they aren't making things up.  Yet dishonorable as it may seem to fabricate things or twist the facts, it seems to happen frequently.  With that in mind, let's examine a few such issues.

• Do environmental regulations infringe on private property rights?  Hardcore Libertarians believe that environmental regulations undermine (what they believe are the more important) individual property rights.  The fact that they ignore is that their rights end where others' begin.  Their right to clear cut their woodland ends when the soil washes onto their neighbors' properties or the nearest stream.  Their right to burn their leaves or trash ends where their neighbor's right to clean air and good respiratory health begins.
• Why should we subsidize passenger rail or other mass transit?  Some have criticized support for mass transit, saying that subsidies for such endeavors are expensive and unjustified.  We should, the argument goes, spend more on highways because most people prefer to travel by car.  This disregards several facts – social, economic and environmental.  Socially, many that use mass transit because they can't afford a car for every person old enough to drive.  Economically, railroads are much less expensive to build and maintain than highways.  Environmentally, they emit less air pollution and use much less energy per passenger mile, too.  Let's also not forget that infrastructure for our cars and planes is more heavily subsidized than our mass transit systems.
• Can and should solar and wind power survive without government support?  Despite notable investments in wind and solar power, driven in part by tax breaks and business assistance, state and federal energy programs are not being renewed.  Utilities are requesting that solar generation be capped, complaining that it's costing them money.  The fact is the electric utilities had ignored electrical grid upgrades for decades and are now shoveling the blame on those power generators.  Just as notably, buying power is not as profitable as making it.
• Is recycling a waste of time and money?  New York Times' writer John Tierney recently contributed an anti-recycling editorial, contending that most recycling is a waste of time and money.  Tierney claims that recycling costs "more than it would cost to bury the trash," landfills "have been welcomed in rural communities that reap large economic benefits," and that recycling will eliminate mining and logging jobs.  The facts are these.  Low income areas are cursed by a disproportionate number of disposal facilities.  It costs more than four times as much to dispose of trash than it does to dump recyclables here in Blair County.  More than 50,000 jobs are directly connected to recycling here in Pennsylvania.
  

Want to hear more on this topic?  Naomi Oreskes, professor of the History of Science at Harvard University, spoke at Penn State's Colloquium on the Environment in October 2015 and has presented the speech a number of times over the last few years.  Watch the video, Why We Should Trust Science (Most of the Time), for more.