Earth Day 2007
"Environmental progress no longer depends on hundreds of bureaucrats at the Environmental Protection Agency mandating what piece of pollution-control equipment will be on each smokestack."
- Daniel C. Esty, Hillhouse Professor at Yale University, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/02/AR2007030202044.html as of April 17, 2007.
"Believe it or not, global warming is not due to human contribution of carbon dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.."
- Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg, available at http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm as of April 17, 2007.
"I imagine that in the not-too-distant future, all of the hype will have died down, particularly if the climate should decide to cool-as it did during much of the past century; we should take note here that it has not warmed since 1998. Future generations will look back on the current madness and wonder what it was all about."
- Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, available at http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1945 as of April 17, 2007
"A general characteristic of Mr. Gore's approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse. Regardless, these items are clearly not issues over which debate is ended--at least not in terms of the actual science."
- Dr. Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, available at http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597 as of April 17, 2007.
"Spending just 1% of GDP or $450 billion each year to cut carbon emissions seems on the surface like a sound investment. In fact, it is one of the least attractive options. Spending just a fraction of this figure -- $75 billion -- the U.N. estimates that we could solve all the world's major basic problems. We could give everyone clean drinking water, sanitation, basic health care and education right now. Is that not better?"
- Author, professor and former Greenpeace member Bjorn Lomborg, available at http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009182 as of April 17, 2007.
"The 20th century saw the United States' population multiply by four, income by seven, carbon dioxide emissions by nine, use of materials by 27, and use of chemicals by more than 100. Yet life expectancy increased from 47 years to 77 years. Onset of major disease such as cancer, heart, and respiratory disease has been postponed between eight and eleven years in the past century. Heart disease and cancer rates have been in rapid decline over the last two decades, and total cancer deaths have actually declined the last two years, despite increases in population. Among the very young, infant mortality has declined from 100 deaths per 1,000 births in 1913 to just seven per 1,000 today.
These improvements haven't been restricted to the United States. It's a global phenomenon."
- Indur M. Goklany, Author of "The Improving State of the World: Why We're Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Lives on a Cleaner Planet," available at http://www.reason.com/news/show/119252.html as of April 17, 2007.
Compiled by Peyton Knight