From: hwstock@snll-arpagw.llnl.gov (stockman harlan w)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: intimidation
Date: 12 Dec 92 00:13:15 GMT
Organization: Sandia National Labs, Livermore, CA

In article <wkFJVB2w165w@nwfdc.nwf.org> cap@nwfdc.nwf.org (Chuck Paquette) writes:
>hwstock@snll-arpagw.llnl.gov (stockman harlan w) writes:
>
>> I think environmental groups get a much larger bang-for-the-buck with
>> their money, compared to industry -- because most people inherently feel
>> industry is deceptive and evil, whereas they feel environmental groups
>> are motivated by goodness and altruism. I personally believe they are
>> all (industry AND environmental groups) motivated by the desire for
>> self-perpetuation.
>
>Naturally, given my employer and interests,  I disagree with most of 
>Harlan's post.  I do sort of agree with his first sentence (but 
>alas, not the second) in the paragraph above.  Any charity's mission 
>is only as effective as the trust its supporters place in it.  Given 
>our reliance on support from direct mail supporters, I don't think 
>any environmental organization would survive the sort of self-inflicted 
>crises other charities have found themselves in recent years.
>
Unfortunately, quotation out of context is a boon to the critic and the
responder. The quoted section (of my original post) is the least
significant. 

I don't place all environmental groups in the same category; I apologize
if I gave that impression. For example, I believe the National Wildlife
Federation (and the Nature Conservancy groups) came out looking pretty
good in the "Outside" magazine survey; other, more strident
groups looked bad. And once again, Ralph Nader's groups seem
particularly ill-mannered and hypocritical at times.

>Also, I'm somewhat surprised by the free-enterprise/libertarian
>critique of U.S. environmental organizations.  Most of us compete in
>the marketplace without significant government support or endowments.
>We also tend to emphasize private action and monitoring of government 
>policy.  And most of our active organizational opponents are or 
>represent beneficiaries of government policies and public assets.  Just 
>an added thought.
>
I'm not sure if there is a hidden knock here or not. My political views
are considered liberal by most. I just don't like the methods that both
industry AND environmental groups use to make their points. My concern
carries over into many groups that accept my donations; for example, I
don't like having the League of Women Voters (a group I strongly
support) send me literature that implies the failure of a particular
bill will mean the end of womens' rights in this country. I don't like
getting NRDC literature that intentionally misrepresents the results of
scientific studies. I don't like it when legalistic and scientifically
indefensible solutions are sought for environmental problems.

I work at a government lab (NOT the one that feeds my e-mail) in an
environmental research group. Most of the people in my group are
politically liberal, and came here hoping to make a difference by way of
our scientific training and commitment. In the process of earning our
PhD's, we were trained to be quantitative and to be skeptical of
one-sided, all-or-nothing arguments. Nowadays, we find that many of the
most unsupportable arguments come from environmental groups; there is a
strong tendency for these groups to focus on unimportant minutia and
neglect more important but less glamorous problems. Rather than being on
the opposite side of government agencies, they often seem to be in bed
with them, pushing for excessive control of tiny analytical labs, while
ignoring effects of farms, roads and other "non-point" sources.

In general, there are very few checks and balances on the ideas
expressed by environmental groups. They don't publish in peer-reviewed
literature, and they tend to repeat emotional catch-phrases long after
scientific studies have proven them wrong. I think their hearts are in
the right places, but they lack the scientific training to be
self-skeptical. If they are shown to be wrong, no one (who controls
their funding) will be the wiser. They tend to grossly oversimplify
complex scientific problems, and frequently show little understanding of
magnitude.

Environmental groups often act as if money were the only motivator of
human behavior, and these groups will comment darkly on the motives of
profit-making institutions and "rich" government agencies. From my
experience, the lust for power and control seems to be a far more potent
motivation than $$$... and there is no shortage of that lust in
government, industry, and SOME environmental groups.

I apologize for the long diatribe. I look forward to the day when I can
once more donate to environmental groups without wincing, and wondering
what fraction of my $ goes to slick, shrill publications and
"administration".
Newsgroups: sci.environment