Environmentalists get a weirdly bad rap even among Crunchy Cons. At their eponymous blog, Erin Manning writes:
Environmentalists do think of us, generally speaking, as human pollution. They do tend to believe that the way to fix the planet’s problems is to eliminate as many people as possible–and that means teaching civilizations which still value many children that it’s wrong for them to do so, and that they should be contented with just one or two. Ask an environmentalist about China’s policy of forced abortions and forced sterilizations, and often you’ll get either an uncomfortable silence, or else rationalizations (sure, it’s terrible, but they have way too many people, and this is the only way to deal with that situation, etc.).
This is false. Environmentalists do not, generally speaking, think of humans as “pollution.” I’ve talked to some extremely radical environmentalists in the most environmentally radical cities in the United States, some of whom even believe (as I certainly do not), that we have a moral duty to have very few children. I have never met a single one unable to bring himself to condemn China’s forced abortion policies. Why even Crunchy Cons feel obliged ritually to attack the environmental movement, which for its occasional excesses is unquestionably a good thing, remains a mystery to me.