Earth Day predictions of 1970. The reason you shouldn’t believe Earth Day predictions of 2009

By Editor on April 22, 2009 @ I Hate the Media
For the next 24 hours, the media will assault us with tales of imminent disaster that always accompany the annual Earth Day Doom & Gloom Extravaganza. Ignore them. They’ll be wrong. We’re confident in saying that because they’ve always been wrong. And always will be.

Need proof? Here are some of the hilarious,

spectacularly wrong predictions made on the occasion of

Earth Day 1970.

“We have about five more years at the outside to do something.”* Kenneth Watt, ecologist

“Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”* George Wald, Harvard Biologist

“We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation.”* Barry Commoner, Washington University biologist

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”* New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day

“Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”* Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”* Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“It is already too late to avoid mass starvation.”* Denis Hayes, chief organizer for Earth Day

“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”* Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University

“Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”* Life Magazine, January 1970

“At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”* Kenneth Watt, Ecologist



Stanford's Paul Ehrlich

 announces that the

sky is falling.

“Air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” * Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist

“We are prospecting for the very last of our resources and using up the nonrenewable things many times faster than we are finding new ones.”* Martin Litton, Sierra Club director

“By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”* Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

“Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”* Sen. Gaylord Nelson

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”
* Kenneth Watt, Ecologist

Keep these predictions in mind when you hear the same predictions made today. They’ve been making the same predictions for 39 years. And they’re going to continue making them until…well…forever.

Here we are, 39 years later and the economy sucks, but the ecology’s fine. In fact this planet is doing a lot better than the planet on which those green lunatics live.

This Appeared Here

Shakedown Artists: How Activists, Lawyers Collude to Threaten Science

By Special to ACSH — April 11, 2019  @ The American Council on Science and Health

 California is a trendsetter.

It’s home to world-class wine, championship basketball teams, beautiful weather, and legendary cities like San Francisco. But my home state, sadly, is also a trendsetter when it comes to wrongheaded public health policy. There’s no better example of this than Proposition 65, a law that has cost California businesses close to $300 million as of 2016.

Originally approved by voters in 1986, the law empowers the state government to regulate the use of chemicals, over 800 and counting, that it deems toxic to human health and the environment. Scientific shortcomings aside, the language of Prop. 65 has exposed California’s businesses to an unending onslaught of legal trouble, because anybody can “enforce” the law by filing suit against an allegedly offending business.

The problem, though, isn’t just a handful of kooky anti-science groups and “bounty hunter” environmental lawyers. Instead, Prop. 65 has created a self-perpetuating industrial complex of attorneys, consultants, and activists on both sides of the debate who profit at the expense of California businesses and consumers.

The Activist-Legal Complex

The demand for legal and compliance services around the law is so extensive that Prop. 65 Clearinghouse hosts an annual conference at which “stakeholders” keep current on California’s ever-evolving chemical regulations and strategize for the coming year. It’s like an industry trade show for ambulance chasers.

A quick glance at the conference’s list of sponsors confirms this accusation: an odd mix of powerful defense law firms, trade associations, and a nonprofit group that files Prop. 65 lawsuits as a means of fundraising. You may wonder why firms that defend businesses in Prop. 65 lawsuits are co-sponsoring events with an organization that files those lawsuits in the first place. Well, it’s all part of the arrangement.

Businesses sued under Prop. 65 have very few options when mounting a defense. They can fight the lawsuit if they have attorneys, but the associated legal fees are usually unmanageable. The penalty for violating Prop. 65 is $2,500 for every day the business is out of compliance. Then, of course, the company has to pay their attorneys, as well as the plaintiff’s attorneys if they lose. Add to that the wasted time and lost productivity of a protracted legal battle, and many businesses conclude that fighting back isn’t a realistic option.

As a result, companies often choose a different strategy. They join a trade group in which their entire industry is represented by a large defense firm that specializes in Prop. 65 lawsuits, like the ones sponsoring the conference mentioned above. These “opt-in defendants” pay a retainer to the defense firm and a smaller, negotiated penalty for violating Prop. 65, and the settlement remains open to other businesses in the industry who may be sued under Prop. 65 in the future.

Basically, it’s an insurance racket.

As one law firm says, “Defense attorneys get hired, recruit a lot of other defendants, settle the case and collect fees from everyone involved.” In regard to the opt-in settlements, the firm notes, “Defense counsel and plaintiff's counsel effectively teamed up against the interests of any new defendant.” Others, including a former California Attorney General, have caught on to this pattern of collusion in Prop. 65 lawsuits.

The Anti-Chemical Crusaders

None of this would be possible without the help of a radical environmentalist community that provides a “science” foundation for this activist-legal complex. The mission of the Center for Environmental Health (CEH), a nonprofit with a pleasant sounding name, is to “protect people from toxic chemicals … and to demand and support business practices that are safe for human health and the environment.” That’s a lovely sentiment, but in practice, it means that CEH sues any California business that it can get away with.

The group’s “legal action” webpage lists just a few examples of the anti-science quackery it promotes in court. CEH opposes the use of electronic cigarettes, fracking, and so-called endocrine disrupting chemicals like BPA. Not only is there no science to justify the group’s zealous legal crusades, the research we do have tells us that the technologies CEH attacks have benefited all of us.

Electronic cigarettes, for example, are 95 percent safer than tobacco, according to the best evidence available. On a similar note, the EPA says that fracking has minimal environmental impacts, and the natural gas it yields is a relatively clean source of energy since it releases less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than other fossil fuels. BPA, too, has an impressive track record. It is used in the production of vitally important medical devices, food storage containers, eyeglasses, and even DVDs. When used appropriately, research shows that it has no detrimental effect on human health.

California’s legal system is a toxic mess. It was designed this way in order for activists and lawyers to scare consumers and extract money from businesses. If scientists and pro-science activists don’t speak up, activists and lawyers will hijack science in California. That’s a trend the rest of the country can do without.

Cameron J. English is Senior Agricultural Genetics and Special Projects Editor at the Genetic Literacy Project.