Happy Earth Day! Reason Recycles 5 Decades of Environmental Coverage
A selection of Reason's most incisive articles on population, pollution, resource depletion, biodiversity, energy, climate change, and the ideological environmentalists' penchant for peddling doom.

About 20 million Americans turned out for the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970. In his Reason March/April 1970 article "Infinite Sink No More," future Reason editor Robert Poole called ecology "The Issue of 1970."
Poole addressed contemporary concerns about rising air and water pollution, increasing population, and natural resource exploitation. He argued that the solutions to environmental problems were not to be found in the creation of new federal bureaucracies and the proliferation of regulations; instead, he advocated for "full liability," where individuals and companies would be responsible for the nonconsenting harms and costs they impose on other people. Poole observed that many, if not most, environmental problems are the result of the "tragedy of the commons," in which resources are plundered and polluted because no one owns them and thus no one has an incentive to protect, preserve, and profit from them.
Poole flatly rejected historian Lynn White's infamous conclusion in his 1967 essay, "The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis," that he personally doubted "that disastrous ecologic backlash can be avoided simply by applying to our problems more science and more technology." Poole countered that "technology is inherently life-supporting in that it seeks to apply man's understanding of the facts of nature, to enable him to live on earth (or in space) more effectively." He added that the "essential nature of technology" is "finding ways of doing more with less and less use of resources."
"Capitalism, by providing an atmosphere in which technology can flourish," Poole wrote, ensures that the "size of the pie increases, such that everyone gains." He concluded, "Those who cry that we must choose between a technology which destroys the environment or a simplified, static, no-growth society misunderstand both technology and ecology."
To celebrate Earth Day 2023, we are recycling a selection of some of Reason's most incisive articles addressing the issues of population, pollution, resource depletion, biodiversity, energy, and the ideological environmentalists' penchant for peddling doom.
August 1972: "Ayn Rand vs. Ecology," by Brian Mason: "Truly amazed that Ayn Rand, whose political philosophy is based on the ultimate value of life, came out strongly against the whole ecology movement!"
May 1975: "The Energy Crisis & How To Solve It," by R. Johnson: "The most important action we can take right now is to amend, at the very least, or preferably repeal in its entirety, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969."
March 1977: "Energy Crisis: Made in Washington," by Alan Reynolds: "Our energy problems were made in the U.S.A."
November 1977: "Doomsday Criers & Technocrats," by Jerome Tuccille: "Optimism gives the technocrats no reason to plan for anything, while pessimism gives them sufficient reason to plan for everything."
August 1978: "Debunking Doomsday," by Phillip Gramm: "Civilizations don't die by exhausting their resources. They die by consuming the institutions that made their vitality possible."
January 1980: "Solar Myths and Solar Facts," by R. Johnson: "Solar power is generating a lot of heat, but what the debate needs is a cool-headed look at where solar systems will pay off and where they won't."
November 1980: "Sane Environmentalism," by Dick Bjornseth: "It certainly will not upset…true free-market advocates."
February 1981: "Love Canal," by Eric Zuesse: "The truth seeps out."
April 1984: "Does Doom Loom?" by Julian Simon: "There's always been an abundance of resources. Is the party over?"
June/July 1984: "Why Aren't You Worried About a Shortage of Whale Oil?" by Charles Maurice and Charles W. Smithson: "America's first oil crisis occurred long before the 1970s—and it was solved without the government stepping in."
August/September 1988: "Gone Fishin'," by Jane Shaw and Richard Stroup: "Britain's streams are lovely, clear, and deep. And private."
December 1988: "Apocalypse, No," by Virginia Postrel: "Environmentalism has a split personality. Its outgoing side, the one most people know, likes tall tales of global destruction and demands absolute solutions—eliminate fossil fuels or die."
April 1990: "The Green Road to Serfdom," by Virginia Postrel: "At least the socialists claimed to like people."
April 1992: "All Creatures Great and Small," by Charles Oliver: "Species preservation out of control."
November 1994: "Of Mice and Men," by Virginia Postrel: Postrel conducted an interview with biochemist Bruce Ames on the real causes of cancer.
February 1997: "Dances With Myths," by Terry Anderson: "Half-truths about American Indians' environmental ethic obscure the rational ways in which they have lived with and shaped the natural world."
November 1997: "Climate Controls," by Gregory Benford: "If we treated global warming as a technical problem instead of a moral outrage, we could cool the world."
April 1999: "Precautionary Tale," by Ronald Bailey: "The latest environmentalist concept—the Precautionary Principle—seeks to stop innovation before it happens. Very bad idea."
May 2000: "Earth Day, Then and Now," by Ronald Bailey: "The planet's future has never looked better. Here's why."
April 2001: "The Future of Life," by Ronald Bailey: "Protecting biodiversity through the private sector."
June 2001: "What Cancer Epidemic?" by Ronald Bailey: "Sir Richard Doll, head of the Clinical Trial Service & Epidemiological Studies Unit in Britain, estimates that only 1 to 5 percent of cancers can be attributed to pollution."
December 2003: "'Shoot, Shovel, and Shut Up,'" by Ronald Bailey: "Celebrating 30 years of failing to save endangered species."
April 2005: "The Exotic Species War," by Ronald Bailey: "Scientifically mandated or culture clash?"
May 2006: "Peak Oil Panic," by Ronald Bailey: "Is the planet running out of gas? If it is, what should the Bush administration do about it?"
September 2006: "Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore," by Ronald Bailey: "Actually no one paid me to be wrong about global warming. Or anything else."
August/September 2007: "Our Intangible Riches," by Ronald Bailey: "World Bank economist Kirk Hamilton on the planet's real wealth."
July 2008: "Attack of the Super-Intelligent Purple Space Squid Creators," by Ronald Bailey: "Debating evolution and intelligent design at FreedomFest 2008."
December 2009: "Is Government Action Worse Than Global Warming?" by Ronald Bailey: "Why policy nihilism may be the only rational response to climate change."
March 2010: "Sea Turtle Tastes Like Veal," by Ronald Bailey: "Can eating endangered species help save them?"
April 2010: "Earth Day Turns 40," by Ronald Bailey: "Environmentalist pioneers have had it their way for four decades. It's time for a change."
July 2010: "Got Environmental Problems? Think Government," by Ronald Bailey: "Foreign Policy identifies true environmental catastrophes, but misses the main cause."
November 2010: "Invasion of the Invasive Species!" by Ronald Bailey: "Local biodiversity is increasing because of man, not despite him."
May 2011: "The Politics of Protection," by Katherine Mangu-Ward: "The battles over the Endangered Species Act are all too human."
April 2012: "The Limits to The Limits to Growth," by Ronald Bailey: "Contemplating 1972 predictions of environmental doom, just in time for Earth Day."
June 2012: "Free Markets = Sustainable Development," by Ronald Bailey: "Without capitalism, true sustainability is impossible."
April 2013: "De-Extinction Would Be Really Cool," by Ronald Bailey: "Extinct species might be brought back to life by means of back-breeding, cloning, or genetic engineering."
January 2014: "Eat Your Frankenfood!" by A. Barton Hinkle: "The conspiracy-minded, anti-science liberals."
September 2014: "How Markets and Property Rights Can Protect Nature," by John Stossel: "It's natural—and wrong—to assume greedy capitalists will run amok and destroy the Earth unless stopped by regulation."
October 2014: "Is Capitalism Environmentally Unsustainable?" by Ronald Bailey: "The goal must be to find ways for liberty and the environment to flourish together, not to sacrifice one in the vain hope of protecting the other."
June 2015: "Extinction Is Not Forever," by Zach Weissmueller: "Q&A with the Long Now Foundation's Ben Novak."
October 2015: "Plastic Bags Are Good For You," by Katherine Mangu-Ward: "What prohibitionists get wrong about one of modernity's greatest inventions."
February 2016: "GMO Alarmist Nassim Taleb Backs Out of Debate. I Refute Him Anyway," by Ronald Bailey: "Fallacious arguments against developing and growing modern biotech crops is cause for great moral concern."
April 2016: "Happy Earth Day: A Reprise of Failed Doom," by Ronald Bailey: "A trip down memory lane of failed Earth Day predictions past."
October 2016: "Actively Open-Minded Thinking About Climate Change," by Ronald Bailey: "It's not really all that open-minded. Science curious people on the other hand…"
February 2017: "High Population Density Just Might Be Good For You," by Ronald Bailey: "For people, unlike rats, the human 'behavioral sink' seems to be greater creativity, not pathological collapse."
November 2017: "How Concerned Should You Be About Species Extinction?" by Ronald Bailey: "Not very, says biologist R. Alexander Pyron."
March 2018: "Humanity Is Not Destroying the Natural World. We're Changing It," by Ronald Bailey: "Welcome to Anthropocene Park."
October 2018: "Wild Animal Populations Down 60 Percent Since 1970," by Ronald Bailey: "But economic growth will reverse this trend by sparing lots more land for nature during this century."
March 2019: "Good News! No Need To Have a Mental Breakdown Over 'Climate Collapse,'" by Ronald Bailey: "The hot new Deep Adaptation report about near-term climate catastrophe is overblown."
May 2019: "U.N. Says 1 Million Species Will Go Extinct Without a 'Fundamental, System-wide Reorganization,'" by Ronald Bailey: "But predictions of the apocalypse are again likely overstated."
September 2019: "Think Globally, Shame Constantly: The Rise of Greta Thunberg Environmentalism," by Nick Gillespie: "Her future—and that of the planet—hasn't been 'stolen' and the best way forward is through serious policy discussion, not histrionics."
April 2020: "Earth Day Turns 50," by Ronald Bailey: "Half a century later, a look back at the forecasters who got the future wrong—and one who got it right."
March 2021: "We Are As Gods: Stewart Brand & The Fight To Bring Back Woolly Mammoths," by Nick Gillespie: "From 'stay hungry, stay foolish' to 'try everything, take nothing off the table.'"
April 2022: "After 53 Earth Days, Society Still Hasn't Collapsed," by Ronald Bailey: "The Limits to Growth is still 'as wrongheaded as it is possible to be.'"
May 2022: "Stop Using 'Too Hot' Climate Models, Says Nature Commentary," by Ronald Bailey: "And avoid implausible, worst-case scenarios for greenhouse gas emissions too."
December 2022: "The Myth of Wild Nature and Creating a New Form of Paradise," by Ronald Bailey: "A review of the new book Tickets For The Ark, by Rebecca Nesbit."
January 2023: "60 Minutes Promotes Paul Ehrlich's Failed Doomsaying One More Time," by Ronald Bailey: "The Population Bomber has never been right, but is never in doubt that the world is coming to its end."
March 2023: "Rousseau, Malthus, and Thanos Were Wrong," by Nick Gillespie: "The authors of Superabundance make a strong case that more people and industrialization mean a richer, more prosperous world."
March 2023: "Is 'Climate Time-Bomb' Really Ticking Toward Imminent Catastrophe?" by Ronald Bailey: "Climate change is a problem, but the IPCC AR6 Synthesis Report is wrong to suggest that humanity is on the brink of catastrophic warming."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I earned $25000 last month by using the use of working on-line most effectivefor five to eight hours on my computer and this turned into so clean that i inmy view could not receive as proper with earlier than working on this internetsite. in case you too need to earn this kind of huge coins then come and be apart of us. try this internet-website on-line ...........
This Website➤---------------➤ WORK AT HOME
Ron, I don’t mean to discount your opinions entirely, but it seems by relative coverage, that Reason is more interested in teaching students ideology that refutes more than two millennia of science and biology. If the science of biology so fundamental is in question, then your late stage climate doom trutherism can’t be substanitated one way or the other for at least a couple thousand years if at all.
Again, not saying you don’t have a point or even that I disagree, but the debate over the real or perceived ideas of 1 degree of warming on a global scale is beyond meaningless if pretty much anyone at any time can just say, “Nuh uh!” and refute 2000+ (and running) yrs. of empirical vertebrate biology. Might want to find another platform that supports the centuries old precepts woven into your arguments or find a way to convince your employer to knock off the “Anyone can refute any amount of science at any time, must be considered stunning and brave for doing so, and is, via the 1A, entitled to teach their ideology, no matter how ill-conceived and counterfactual, as fact in public schools.” bullshit.
I used to have a lot more respect for Ron Bailey, but anyone who climbs on the global warming wagon has lost it.
CO2 is plant food.
CO2 grows more food.
CO2 greens the planet.
CO2 does not warm the planet as much as the alarmunists claim.
Alarmunist climate models don’t work and are fraudulent.
20 times as many people die from cold as heat.
Warmth grows more crops.
He's a tranny who was wrong regarding everything about covid and wants people to eat lab grown tumors rather than cow meat.
There is nothing to respect there.
The Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period were eras of expanding population and civilization. The Little Ice Age was a period of famine, plague, and instability
MC: First thank you for your civil critique. Much appreciated. I believe that a consistent theme of my reporting is that man-made global warming is not likely an impending apocalypse. As you know, I was very skeptical, but accumulating data caused me to become concerned about climate change. Consequently, in my judgement it is likely to become a significant problem by the end of the century. Why? Well, I've reported all kinds of data and studies, etc., that have led me to that conclusion, but let's just consider this: The difference between now and the height of the last ice age was 5 degrees C. Based on my reporting, the current trends in energy tech and emissions indicate that the average will rise to about 2.2 degrees C by 2100. But it is not only the projected increase, but also the speed of the increase which is between 10 and 20 times faster than the increase over 5,000 years that led to the end of the last ice age. Even the low end satellite temperature records report that average global temperature is rising at the rate of 0.14 degree per decade. If sustained that would mean an increase of 1.12 degrees C more than now. So temperature is now about 1.2 degrees above the 19th century baseline so at that rate average global temperature would increase to 2.3 degrees C by the end of the century. Half of what it took to end an ice age over a period of little more than a century. Anyway, thank you for your civility - it is a rare commodity nowadays. Enjoy your weekend.
So temperature is now about 1.2 degrees above the 19th century baseline...
Admittedly, I'm not a climate expert, but I've always wondered where this statement originated, and what data supports the statement.
Can someone quantify the 19th century baseline?
Can someone quantify the 19th century baseline?
"Yes. 1.2 degrees *above* current temps." - Non-birthing, penis-having woman.
Hilarious! Made my afternoon.
Nope. Most of the historical areas accounted for at that time cover less than 15% of the globe. They estimate 85% with non validated models.
It is a trick narrative pushers utilize to claim knowing it is worse now. We have seen them even change historical records to better match predicted models of historical Temps.
Go to realclimatescience.com
Tony Heller is as Trumpy a mystical conservative as there is following a near-death experience some years back. But like most EEs he is a competent mathematician and data sifter. The "increased" temperatures are all or mostly all fraud and equivocation. The guy gives away warez so you can graph the data yourself. Econazis ignore his calculations and cry to have him deplatformed--but never does anyone competent test his conclusions on climate hysteria.
It’s a dishonest rhetorical trick. Like looking at the causes of terrorists deaths- since 2002. Or the growth in the market or GDP – since Jan 2009 or July 2020.
Or weight loss before and after photos, when Before was just after 6 months of bed rest on a problem pregnancy, with no attention to posture, wardrobe, hair or makeup.
1850 was the end of the Little Ice Age, when temps had dipped.
Ron, if it is you, I think you missed my point. I think you can agree that the change of ~1 degree by the end of the century is a bit speculative. You know what’s not speculative? A biological human (or the vast majority of vertebrates) male can become a biological human (or other) female or vice versa. Yet, many of your fellow writers consider the notion, despite empirical recognition by-and-large for over 2000 yrs. and through virtually all vertebrates then-discovered and not, to be speculative. If 2000 yrs. of empirical observation is speculative, then your assertions of ~1 degree in the next 100 yrs. and the empirical evidence you’ve piled up to support it is beyond wild confabulation. Rather than lecturing those of us who would/could cede agreement about climate or the empirical underpinnings, you should speak to your fellow authors at Reason about undermining the evidence out from under both/all of us.
To mix metaphors: it doesn’t matter how hurricane-proof you establish the structure of your AGW argument above grade if your co-workers pollute the intellectual atmosphere with CO2, cause the oceans of mis- and disinformation to rise, and wash the scientific and intellectual firmament out from beneath what you’ve built.
Well, I’ve reported all kinds of data and studies, etc., that have led me to that conclusion,
Bailey, the problem is these studies changing your mind are based on the same incorrect models you used to be critical of. Now you accept them. The modern climate culture has been taken over by Mann and others whose models are quite literally laughable. You are galling for an appeal to authority and appeal to population. You have changed your views merely because more people say something more than science becoming more of a prediction vehicle.
Even the low end satellite temperature records report that average global temperature is rising at the rate of 0.14 degree per decade.
And how does that compare to say the MWP? One of the biggest slight of hands the community you now support has made is comparing yearly data to averaged data over decades. Ice cores have freezing and unfreeze over decades so give a bad estimate for deltas in change at even the decade level. Yet you’ve fallen for this slight of hand.
If sustained that would mean an increase of 1.12 degrees C more than now. So temperature is now about 1.2 degrees above the 19th century baseline so at that rate average global temperature would increase to 2.3 degrees C by the end of the century.
If true, who cares? Retreating glaciers are still uncovering historical tree lines much further north. This ties into warmer times of a population boom, not a population decrease.
You've drank the kool-aid. It is obvious to anyone who follows the actual science and not the narratives.
Ron - As usual the question is not whether the climate is changing and warming, but whether the warming is being caused by (or significantly contributed to) by human CO2 emissions or, by corollary, that we can stop any bad consequences of global warming by any reasonable controls on human activity. Even if it's true that global warming will "become a problem" by the end of the century AND that it's being caused or aggravated by human activity, the question still remains whether proposed remedies (if they ARE remedies) would cause worse problems than the warming itself would cause. And ALL of that is wrapped up in uncertainty at every stage of the assessment process, not to mention the ulterior motives of everyone involved in the controversy. So not buying it.
The chart speaks for itself. The conclusions drawn by the guy who posted it are wrong. CO2 rising sharply at the same time as global temperatures stopped rising contradicts his conclusion! Also, CO2 lags behind temperature rises between Ice Ages, suggesting that temperature before industrialization CAUSES CO2 release into the atmosphere, not the other way around. Also, unless we're creating the narrative that human activities caused CO2 rises and temperature increases during the Glaciation cycles 400,000 plus years ago, any correlation NOW is just coincidental and also silly.
https://johnenglander.net/single-image-proves-human-caused-global-warming/
I don’t have anything to add to the other posters, I think they make good cases against your conclusions, but I appreciate the balls it takes for any of the writers to actually respond to us commenters and not just bitch about us on Twitter.
Ron - and just one more point if you will ...
"If sustained that would mean an increase of 1.12 degrees C more than now."
One of the oldest tricks in the alarmist book is to take a period of time that happens to be changing more rapidly and compare it to a period of time that happened to be changing less rapidly without any other particular basis for picking those two particular periods in order to compare them, drawing the conclusion that change is happening more rapidly now BECAUSE OF some other factor that you want to blame for the change. That's why we should consider the trend line over various lengths of time over various, preferably random, periods together with the factor of concern - in this case CO2 - and the outcome of concern. If the trend doesn't hold up as you vary the periods in this way, then the alarmist conclusion is spurious, usually intentionally.
AKA "cherry-picking".
oh Earth Day...every year we are remined of the cultural Marxist, little Bolshevik pervert who started it while killing his girlfriend and stuffing her into a trunk then fleeing to Europe where he shacked up with wealthy trust fund liberal chicks until finally old Ira was sent home for "justice" while the left screamed it was an injustice.
These degenerates who created what the left adores (John Maynard Keynes was a pedo) should be rejected as should their legacies like Earth Day and Keynsian Economics.
I hope old Ira is burning in hell along with Pedo Keynes.
Robert Poole is a national treasure. He has been for 50+ years. May he long continue.
Half a century of being wrong; is that really something to celebrate?
August 1972 Ayn Rand - I take no side in the assertion that Rand was overly simplistic or dismissive of the unwashed hippies, but just because a "movement" concerns itself with a good goal doesn't mean that it is actually targeting that goal or that it is based upon reasonable premises. It certainly doesn't mean that their tactics are justified or valid. Simply saying that pollution is bad does not lead to the conclusion that any silly strategy for trying to eliminate pollution that they promote is worth trying regardless of the unintended consequences the "movement" will almost certainly cause.
A "compendium" of Reason environmentalism comprising 35 articles by Ronald Bailey and zero articles by Petr Beckmann. I've subscribed to Reason most of the time from 1981 and only recently noticed Bailey. I cannot tell if he finished High School. I worked for Petr Beckman, PhD in math and EE, and the most impressive libertarian I've ever met--author of many books, pamphlets and Reason articles I read eagerly. If this is an April Fools joke, it's about 20 days late.
“Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up? […] James Hansen issued dire warnings in the summer of 1988. Today earth is only modestly warmer…”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/thirty-years-on-how-well-do-global-warming-predictions-stand-up-1529623442
Five years back, but the weather still trumps the climate in most places.
And then, in the book “The Great Mortality” (black plague; pg45): “says Dr. Phillip Stott, prefessor emeritus of bio-geography at the University of London: “What has been forgotten in all the discussion of global warming is a proper sense of history […] During the medieval warm period, the world was warmer than even today and history shows that it was a wonderful period of plenty for everyone.” Phillip Stott, interview, Daily Telegraph, 4/6/2003)
Also old, but in the intervening 20 years, only the man-made disaster of the Wu Flu lockdowns have materially harmed global prosperity.
There are two issues which do not seem to get the deserved attention:
1) AFAIK, not a single one of any specific (result) predictions have proven accurate.
2) More importantly, in spite those predictions which accurately predict CO2 increases and corelated temp increases, no one seems to be doing the least effort in anything like a cost/benefit analysis.
Based on ignorance of this sort, we are to turn over control of the entire automotive industry to the EPA, and we have more than ample historical evidence of the results of government-planned economic activity.
Happy Hippie Festivus
https://twitter.com/No_Beret/status/1649748587759247360
To celebrate Earth Day I went out into the driveway, started my Semi and let it idle for an hour.
Right on!