There is perhaps nothing more counterproductive in public policy than when good people promote policies that have the opposite effect of what they intend. This unfortunate circumstance is, alas, perhaps more often the case in the existing environmental movement than anywhere else. Notwithstanding the intentions motivating them, many current environmental policies would not accomplish what their proponents endorse.
Before commencing this critique of current environmental policies — and presentation of a genuinely environmental counter-program — I should perhaps say I have always considered the environment to be among my core issues. I was nine years old when the Santa Barbara oil spill struck in 1969. I well remember the oil on the beaches, the birds and other sea life that were killed, and the visit by President Richard Nixon to our area. The place of Santa Barbara as the vanguard of the ecological movement had much influence on me while growing up. After I received my Ph. in 1988, I successfully sought election to the Board of Education. Had I not been elected, I intended to move to Washington to work for an environmental think tank. I have regularly had the opportunity to write and lecture on environmental issues.
This essay presents a number of policy recommendations and analyses that are largely in contrast to current perspectives but which appear essential to genuine environmental progress. In my classes, the phrase I quote the most is from the nineteenth century British political economist and philosopher John Stuart Mill: "Ages are no more infallible than individuals; every age having held many opinions which subsequent ages have deemed not only false but absurd." It should also said that all data here are from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Monthly Energy Review, Tables 1.3 and 10.1 (April 2023), whose Administrator, Dr. Joseph DeCarolis, was nominated by President Biden.