From Dave D.: The video in the April 22 issue of The Palm Beach Daily is a blatant propaganda piece!

Some of it is true (people generally live longer now than they did at the start of the industrial revolution). Improvements in medicine and nutrition knowledge had something to with it.

However, making a claim that we live in a clean world doesn’t ring true. When I camped as a kid, we had no qualms about filling our canteens from mountain streams. I wouldn’t dare do that now (acid rain, runoff from industrial agriculture, etc.). Views in places like Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon are obscured by pollution from fossil fuels.

There are good and not so good consequences of fossil fuel use. You have to take the good with the bad. Claims like everything is better because of fossil fuels are inaccurate and irresponsible.

From Todd C.: Nice bit of propaganda from the Center for Industrial Progress, guys…

Earth Day is about recognizing, and attempting to minimize, the damage we do to the other beings that share our environment. They were (mostly) here long before us, we depend on them to survive, and they have just as much right to live healthy lives as humans.

That video is arrogantly human-centric to the point of being naive. Sure, we’ve improved the environment for humans… AT THE EXPENSE of nearly everything else.

I can understand why you would put it on the website, though. It helps to justify investing in and making money from the environmental destruction perpetrated by most of the stocks recommended.

From Peter A.: The young Mr. Epstein from Prager tries to convince us that fossil fuel use is good for the environment. He has convinced me that fossil fuel has been good for humans, but only because we have put controls on their use.

We once used wood—with its soot, smells, fire danger, and lack of control—to heat our homes. Then coal, with its particulates and incomplete combustion; then oil, with its spills and carcinogens; then natural gas, which still poses risks from extraction and global warming.

Humans have benefited from the changes, no doubt, but this would not have been feasible without human concern for the environment—air, water, climate, and biota. Would we have looked for replacements if we were complacent?

Would we have sponsored research, provided tax credits, and passed pollution laws if we did not want to protect the rest of the earth from fossil fuel extraction and combustion? I think not.

Reeves’ Comment: Thanks for your letters, gents. When reading them, I’m reminded of a 1996 article in The New York Times called “Recycling Is Garbage.” It laid out, through facts and analysis, a compelling argument against most forms of recycling.

And it, too, prompted an emotional response in its readership: The article still holds the Times’ all-time record for hate mail. Here’s an excerpt:

We’re [supposedly] squandering irreplaceable natural resources. Yes, a lot of trees have been cut down to make today’s newspaper. But even more trees will probably be planted in their place. America’s supply of timber has been increasing for decades, and the nation’s forests have three times more wood today than in 1920.

…the public’s obsession wouldn’t have lasted this long unless recycling met some emotional need. Americans have embraced recycling as a transcendental experience, an act of moral redemption. We’re not just reusing our garbage; we’re performing a rite of atonement for the sin of excess.

People may agree or disagree with the merits of recycling. Or with the environmental movement in general. But that’s not really the point…

The Times article is another example of what we try to espouse at PBRG: critical, open minds not afraid to take positions contrary to the herd, when the data support such a view. This ultra-skeptical lens is fundamental to our investment success.

If you’re someone who enjoys challenging your own assumptions… I invite you to read the full New York Times article, for free, right here.