I attended the final session of an earth keepers group today.  I was impressed by the generally thoughtful and intelligent level of discussion. 

I am generally skeptical of and not impressed by environmentalism because the majority of it in my experience is either too radical to work effectively (it will seriously and negatively impact the economy) or is not grounded in or founded on the current state of scientific knowledge. 

Environmentalism has been one area where meaningful dialog seems difficult.  The dominant side seems to drown out all others.  This happened in 1992, with the Republican Revolution and again with Al Gore's recent film and book "an inconvenient truth."  We had something that appeared to me like a pendulum effect.  In practical terms, that could mean that nothing productive and sustainable happens. 

I was pleased to see the economic impact of various ideas considered.  If meaningful environmental change is going to happen, it needs to be sensitive enough to economic reality that people will not be hurt too severely.  It also needs to be painless enough that people will be interested in or willing to tolerate it.

The best example I can give is alternative energy.  I am in favor of intelligent alternative energy research and use.  On the other hand, I can't afford an overly large increase in my electric bill to make it happen.  You get the idea. 

As an aside, market forces might be alternative energy's best friend if oil prices keep increasing, assuming nobody discovers as yet untapped oil deposits and that the supply as we know it is relatively well understood.  That makes research into less expensive forms of energy much more attractive.  The relatively low cost of oil was probably one reason alternative energy research has not been more aggressively pursued.  It couldn't compete with currently used forms of energy. 

Mike Hanson