The American Enterprise Online, May 6, 2005

Right Idea

Environmentalism is in a funk these days. Not only has their favorite political party been voted out of office but there's plenty of dissention in the ranks.

Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus's "The Death of Environmentalism" typifies this malaise. Although actually a call by a pair of "green-diaper-babies" for greater environmental extremism, this manifesto has been taken in the press at face value.

Environmentalism, as the authors say, has become "just another interest group," lobbying Congress and the bureaucracy over obscure regulatory minutia while browbeating its supporters in the hinterlands for more contributions.

Some of the reasons environmentalist has lost its steam were revealed in AEI's Index of Leading Environmental Indicators, released last week in its 10th anniversary edition, which was presented complete with a press conference and panel discussion.

"Air pollution is at the lowest levels ever recorded," said Steve Hayward, a fellow at both AEI and the Pacific Research Institute, which co-sponsor the report. "Bald eagles, whales, ocean fishing stocks, forest and wetlands are coming back. More than 70 percent of Americans say they are happy with the environment."

Of course there are snippets of bad news as well. Sea lion populations in Alaska have declined steadily since 1965, although the pattern now seems to have leveled off. Researchers from Oregon State found a "dead zone" off the coast of Oregon--but nobody has yet figured out whether it's pollution-related or not.

Reflecting the generally upbeat reports, general alarm over the continuing environmental crisis is also ebbing. "For the first time since polling began in 1984, the public puts economic growth and environmental protection almost on a par--49-44 percent in favor of the environment," reported Hayward. "As recently as 1999, people chose the environment over the economy by 70-23 percent."

"Environmentalism has been absorbed into the public consciousness the same way as women in the work force has been," added Karlyn Bowman, AEI's expert on public opinion. "There's no longer any real controversy. It's just a question of interpreting the facts."

Also noted was the increasing isolation of environmental groups as their agenda loses its sense of public urgency. "Michael Chrichton's book State of Fear is a big indicator," said Hayward. "It's the first best-seller that comes with scientific footnotes and illustrates in fiction what people have always suspected--that environmentalists exaggerate their cases and use alarmist tactics to gain public support. If it is made into a movie like his other books, it's going to have a huge impact."

Just to prove that environmentalists haven't lost their touch, however, Ted Gayer, visiting scholar at AEI, outlined the story behind EPA's recent decision to require power plants to spend $3-5 billion over the next decade to reduce their mercury emissions by 30 percent "The good news is the EPA has opted for emissions trading rather than the old command-and-control method," said Gayer. "Environmentalists claim this endangers children and want command-and-control, which will cost $15 billion. The bad news is, when you see how the standards were set, you realize these huge costs will produce virtually no benefits in either case."

The mercury scare has its origins--wouldn't you know it?--in a 2004 New York Times story claiming 630,000 babies--16 percent of all births in the U.S.--are in danger of mental retardation because of prenatal exposure to mercury in their mothers' blood.

It turns out the entire alarm is based on three studies of South Seas islands in which mothers and children are exposed to mercury through whale meat. The New Zealand group showed no effect. The Seychelles study produced mixed results by removing from the data one high-mercury, high-IQ child who was deemed an "outlier." In a Faroe Islands, however, youngsters with high levels of mercury showed slightly lower test scores.

"The lowest level where you got any effect in the Faroe Island study was 85 parts per billion," said Gayer.

The EPA went to the ninety-fifth percentile--58 ppm--then added a factor of 10 for safety sake, making it 5.8 ppb. One earlier study in the U.S. found 7.8 percent of women of childbearing age exceed this level. The Times decided to double this figure by arguing the mercury could be concentrated in the umbilical blood--a factor that was already taken into account in the 10x safety figure. That's how they arrived at 16 percent. More recent studies now show only 3.9 percent of American women exceed the 5.8 ppb standard. Also, the children in the Faroe Island with low mercury exposure all lived the capital while children with higher exposure and lower test scores were from the countryside. It's well known that children in urban areas score higher IQ's. What we may be observing is a capital-cities effect. Nonetheless, the study is being used to set the standard.

Somehow all this has a familiar ring. Based on one dubious scientific effort, the EPA will require power companies to spend $3-5 billion by 2018. But since power plants only produce 30 percent of the nation's mercury, the overall reduction will be 10 percent. And since most of this mercury eventually settles outside the United States anyway, the overall effect will be negligible. In addition, there is no proven technology yet for eliminating mercury traces from coal. (Please don't mention nuclear power; it upsets people.)

It is all depressingly familiar. No matter that the public is happy with environmental progress, tired of being scared to death, and ready to move on to other things. The old one-two-three punch of bad science, alarmist reporters, and a lawsuit filed in D.C. federal court is having its usual effects.

Even in its current moribund state, the environmental movement still has remarkable power to squander our nation's resources.

Contributing writer William Tucker is the author of "Right Idea," a weekly column for TAEmag.com.