Extremism won't help Environmental Awareness

Greenpeace says that we're destroying our ancient forests at an alarming rate. One wonders how truly alarmed we ought to be.

It gets rather tiring after a while to hear all the horror stories that typically come out in the media. We're running out of trees, we're running out of oil, we're running out of farmland. Yet the general ecology is better than it's ever been, people (on the whole) are eating, well, well enough, the air is cleaner than the smoke filled cities of the early 1900's, and everyone seems able to get gas for their cars. Why is there always that segment of the population which worries and frets, and indeed threatens our daily lives, so much?

To be sure, good conservation of our resources is expected of us. We cannot run wantonly over planet Earth and not expect some repercussions. But are we, as individuals, truly acting that wantonly?

Part of the blame surely lies with the sensational nature of apocalyptic stories. Telling someone that 'you're gonna die' is bound to get a reaction, pro or con. And it is difficult for laymen to tell the good guys from the bad. Greenpeace tells us they speak for the environment against evil corporatism; isn't it fair to ask how self-interested they are in what they do, and whether that may cloud their judgment?

We obliged to good stewardship of the environment. But if the best we can muster is that the sky is falling when it clearly is not, we are left to question the intent of the doomsayers.