206 The Environmental DebateSeeking a New Approach to
Environmental Issues
The political polarization of the country has
forced those interested in advancing an environmen-
tal agenda to look for new ways to address complex
environmental issues. While it has long been recog-
nized that most so-called environmental issues are
intertwined with economic and social issues [see
Document 146], environmentalists have often taken
a very narrow view of environmental issues and
failed to consider the benefits and importance of
economic growth. Bjorn Lomborg [see Document
153] maintains that many environmentalists have
the wrong priorities and underestimate the value
of human activities that impact the natural world.
Michael Schallenberger and Ted Nordhaus, who
have proclaimed the death of environmentalism [see
Document 156], have proposed, with others, an “eco-
modernist” alternative that foresees the possibility of
“decoupling human development from environmen-
tal impacts” [see Document 180]. On the other hand,
Christine MacDonald questions the whole concept
of “sustainable development” [see Document 164]
and is troubled by the close ties between big environ-
mental groups and the business world.v
Because per capita consumption in the United
States is 32 times that of the poorest developing coun-
tries of the world [see Document 168], it is incumbent
on us to reconsider not only how we use resources but
also how we dispose of them. Some commodities, such
as beach quality sand [see Document 178], which are in
high demand around the world, are often put to ques-
tionable uses or too readily discarded. Waste, some of it
toxic [see Documents 154, 170], often ends up polluting
the sea or the most impoverished nations of the world.
Will we achieve change rationally and incre-
mentally through consumption taxes, rationing, a
cap-and-trade system, or some other economic con-
trol? Will we wait until a financial or environmental
crisis forces change upon our country? Or will we
wait until we face a military confrontation stemming
from competition for one or more of the earth’s finite
resources, be it water, fossil fuels, habitable and ara-
ble land, or strategic minerals?
We can never predict the future with complete accu-
racy or foresee the consequences of newly introduced
technology [see Document 179]. As a precaution,
though, we need to lower our carbon footprint, pre-
vent the extinction of species, and build resilient
coastal communities.DOCUMENT 151: Norman E. Borlaug on Biotechnology and
Antiscience (2000)There is an ongoing debate about the benefits and dangers of the widespread use of genetically modified
seed for corn, wheat, rice and other crops whose patents are held by the agribusinesses, such as Monsanto,
that developed them. On the one hand, this type of seed enables the production of more nutritious food, in
increasing quantities, to feed the burgeoning population of the world. On the other hand, a position paper
posted by the American Academy of Environmental Medicine (an organization whose bona fides have been
questioned) claims that “[t]here is more than a casual association between GM foods and adverse health effects.”^5
Furthermore, the planting of huge fields resistant to weed-killers such as Roundup Ready may encourage
the natural development of super-weeds and also increases the likelihood that agribusiness-owned seed will
cross-pollinate with the crops of farmers who prefer to use their own saved seed. In Europe, several countries
have banned the planting and importation of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). In the United States,
resistance to GMOs has given added impetus to the organic and locavore food movements and has led to the
banning of GMOs in Mendocino County, California [see Document 155].
Norman Borlaug, the winner of the 1970 Nobel Peace Prize for his work in reducing world hunger and
a professor of international agriculture at Texas A&M University, is considered the father of the Green
Revolution.During the 20th century, conventional
breeding produced a vast number of varie-
ties and hybrids that contributed immensely
to higher grain yield, stability of harvests, andfarm income. Despite the successes of the Green
Revolution, the battle to ensure food security
for hundreds of millions miserably poor peo-
ple is far from won. Mushrooming populations,