To environmental doomsayers, everything is a crisis. And expect more of the same Thursday, Earth Day 1999. How else can they get Congress to pass more green laws? They should focus more on the link between wealth and a cleaner Earth.
You have to give them credit. The environmentalists have done a good job scaring the public. Some polls show that three of every four Americans think environmental problems will get worse in their lifetime.
But in the last two decades, environmental conditions in the U.S. have gotten better - no matter what the activists say. And there's no reason to think those trends won't continue.
The air and water are cleaner (See chart). More habitat is being preserved. And species, such as whales, are enjoying a resurgence because of our concern over them possibly becoming extinct.
How could this be? After all, the arguments the activists make - we only have one planet and we're using up natural resources at an alarming rate - are intuitively comfortable.
Any progress we've made in cleaning up the environment, the activists argue further, is due to government control through legislation and regulation. Therefore, if we want to make further gains, we've got to pass more laws and rules.
But as researchers Steven Hayward, Erin Schiller and Elizabeth Fowler of the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy point out in their report ''1999 Index of Leading Environmental Indicators'':
''Most environmental commentary dwells on the laws and regulations we have adopted to achieve our goals, but it is essential to understand the more important role of technology and economic growth in bringing about favorable environmental trends.''
Before the major green legislation of the 1970s - the clean air and water acts, the Endangered Species Act, Superfund act and others - the U.S. was already cleaning up its act.
Pacific Research Institute reports that sulfur dioxide levels fell by about a third before the first federal Clean Air Act in 1970.
Levels of so-called settleable dust in Pittsburgh dropped from more than 120 tons per square mile in 1925 to about 40 tons in 1965 - again before the Clean Air Act.
It's not hard to understand why. As the techniques of refining and smelting advanced, there was less waste - also known as pollution. And as engineers developed more efficient combustion engines, the same result occurred.
And what produced these gains? The power of the marketplace. More efficiency means more profits. And more efficiency means a cleaner environment.
These gains also led to rising standards of income. In real terms, from 1976 to 1996, per-capita gross domestic product rose from $18,713 to $26,088, a 39% increase.
With more income, people have to spend less time worrying about the basics - food, shelter and clothing. Thus contented, they can spend more time and money on secondary matters - like cleaning up the environment.
''It is precisely our material and technological progress that not only makes environmental protection possible, but which has made environmental protection such a prominent social value in the Western world,'' the Pacific Research Institute noted.
Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than with wetlands. For the first 200 years of this country's history, public policy was geared more toward draining and converting such swamps to agricultural uses.
But as our food and timber production grew more efficient, there was less need for farm land. Indeed, since 1980, the U.S. has seen no net loss of wetlands.
But don't expect to hear much of this good environmental news from the green crowd. And you'll certainly hear little about the links between a cleaner environment and profits. To them, that's the wrong kind of green.
Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.