By Author:Iain MurrayJonathan H. Adler Amy Ridenour Tom Tanton Steve Hayward Randal O'Toole Michael DeAlessi Joel Schwartz IMGrant Andrew Morriss J. Bishop Grewell Chris Horner Marlo Lewis Carlo Stagnaro Pete Geddes John Downen John Baden Jane Shaw John La Plante Fred L. Smith Ken Green Ben Lieberman By Category:AgricultureAir Quality Biotechnology Brownfields CAFE Standards Climate DDT/Malaria Energy Energy Independence/National Security Environmental Alarmism Environmental Economics Environmental Risk European Union Extinction Federal Lands and Parks Federal Programs Federalism Forests International Media Oceans Pollution Population Poverty and Hunger Precautionary Principle Private Conservation Property Rights Recycling Sustainable Development Tragedy of the Commons Transportation Urban Planning and Sprawl Water Wildlife By Month:September 2007April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004
Powered by
Site design by |
Is "Choice" a Green Issue?
Posted by Jonathan H. Adler · 21 October 2004 · Population
There's no doubt that most environmental activists tend to lean left on political issues across the board. This has even been confirmed in surveys of the leadership of environmentalist organizations. But I am nonetheless bemused by the constant effort to turn various liberal issues into "environmental" issues. We see this in the Sierra Club's embrace of campaign finance reform (unless, of course, it might limit their ability to promote or oppose a candidate), RFK Jr's call to reimpose the "fairness doctrine" on the national media, and so on. One of the most regular examples of this is the constant characterization of abortion as an "environmental" issue, as in this article from E magazine. Insofar as population is an enviromental issue in parts of the world, there is a plausible case that financial support for family planning and the like is a "green" concern. Population density, growth rates and the like clearly effect some environmental concerns in many parts of the world -- even if population numbers themselves are not the source of the problem. On the other hand, the copious data that economic growth and increased wealth reduces fertility rates might suggest that those who fret over whether federal tax dollars fund Planned Parenthood clinics overseas have misplaced priorities. In any event, this is a debatable point. On the domestic front, however, it I find it implausible that abortion, as a domestic issue, is an intergral part of the environmental agenda, and (to use E's words) that a pro-life or "anti-choice agenda" comes at the "expense" of the environment. To the contrary, one could argue that insofar as domestic law or culture protects fetal life, there will be more support for environmental protections that address threats to fetal development. Setting aside the ultimate policy question of whether abortion should or should not be legal, constitutioally protected, regulated, encouraged, or whatever, it seems clear that many other normative questions are far more central to this issue than environmental protection. Thus, when I see E or other environmental outlets focus on abortion rights, I take it as more evidence that (too) much of the mainstream environmental agenda is simply traditional liberal politics with a green veneer.
|