The other day at a talk I was asked, as I often am, whether I
agree that only putting the state in control can clean up the
environment. I wish I had then read this, from the blog at Cafe Hayek: a letter
sent to the Los Angeles Times:
Three different readers write today in praise
of Paul Ehrlich and his predictions of eco-mageddon (
Letters, Feb. 18). Such praise is odd, given that not one
of the many catastrophes that Mr. Ehrlich has predicted over the
past 43 years has occurred.
The drying of the Aral Sea, alas, is not -
contrary to reader David McClave's insinuation - evidence in
support of Mr. Ehrlich's proposition that one of the greatest
threats to the environment is capitalism. Here's what
the BBC reported in 1998: "correspondent Louise Hidalgo in
Kazakhstan says that the most amazing thing about the disaster is
that it is no accident. 'The Soviet planners who fatally
tapped the rivers, which fed the seas to irrigate central Asia's
vast cotton fields, expected it [to?] dry up. They either did not
realise the consequences the Aral's disappearance would bring or
they simply did not care.'"
How interesting that the one genuine
eco-disaster mentioned as confirmation of Mr. Ehrlich's wisdom was
caused by the same institution - the powerful, centralized state -
that Mr. Ehrlich advises we must submit to if we are to be saved
from genuine eco-disasters.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
