Like many of you, I find myself more alarmed by what I see being done by environmentalists and in the name of saving the planet, than I am by the vague threat of global warming. The Canadian government is facing extraordinary pressures to spend more money on protecting the environment by these special interest groups, while the scientific evidence for their claims remains controversial.

Environmentalism is especially prevalent here in Vancouver – a city that prides foremost on its natural beauty. (The local goverment recently spent $1 million on reforestation in Stanley Park to replace trees damaged by a wind storm this past winter – despite the fact that 1) the park is thoroughly capable of recovering on its own, and 2) the wind storm’s damage decreased the threat of forest fires which is eminent every summer in Stanley Park).

Individual rights come before the environment. This is what is moral, and it simplifies the threat posed by global warming. Rather than determining the state of the environment and what should be done about it, the only proper function of government regarding this issue involves determining who is being harmed (directly) and who is causing the harm. Individual rights – are they being infringed? If so, we correct that and move on.

Like most ideas that I take issue with as an Objectivist, environmentalism (in its coercive form) is extraordinarily difficult to fight. Why? Environmentalists cite an urgent need to protect the planet which supersedes individual rights (you’re lucky if you get so far as even arguing individual rights – this concept seems hopelessly small-minded to them).

So where does the argument go? Much like when we begin by defending Capitalism on moral grounds, but end up justifying it according to its effectiveness, we find ourselves calling the scientific claims made by environmentalists into question. Not only is this wrong (because it isn’t the major issue), it also puts us at a disadvantage if we’re not scientists.