Opinion It's "green," they say

We have a host of people with environmental interests telling us what is green.

When one of my four children was a toddler and learning his colors, he tried to do the same thing.

"Green!" he'd proclaim, when asked about a color.

Any color.

I guess he figured that if he stuck with that answer, eventually, he'd get it right.

With many of today's "environmentalists," we're seeing about the same level of scientific understanding.

The term "environmentalist" has come to have a special connotation. Sort of like the word "gay," it no longer carries exactly the same meaning it once did. I also remember when "ecology" was more than a trendy word to drop at cocktail parties. Back then, ecology was a science examining environmental relationships, not a weapon used for political ends.

Two recent events make this discussion timely.

One was last month's somewhat meaningless vote by the U.S. Senate on Arctic drilling, and the other was the tragic death of Beth Allyson O'Brien -- the "tree sitter."

In an article about O'Brien's death, The Oregonian stated, "Some activists said her death makes them more committed than ever to stopping logging on public land."

Excuse me?

Let's get one thing straight, that's not an environmental issue, it's a political issue. It's about changing the nation's economic and commercial base, an effort that has met with some success because it's being accomplished under the "green" banner.

The idea is not that different from halting the harvest of wheat fields so people can contemplate amber waves of grain.

Similarly, the Arctic drilling issue is about economic development, not the environment. However, "environmentalists" are replaying the spotted owl card by leaning on caribou and other creatures to tell us that the refuge will be devastated by drilling.

Well, I've been to the Alaskan north slope where drilling has been going on since the 1970s. The place hasn't been destroyed; industry and nature can coexist.

And the caribou? Well, they're doing just fine, thank you. I've walked through herds of caribou, and they were less disturbed by my presence than the cattle in the pasture next to my house.

Last month, the Medford Mail Tribune quoted Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace: "The environmental movement has shifted from being politically centered and science-based to having a fairly strong left-wing rhetoric that has more to do with politics than science."

Revealing this secret, of course, is viewed as heresy by Moore's former colleagues, but it's also the truth.

The Mail Tribune went on to quote Moore: "Since I left Greenpeace, I have seen the movement drift into extremism, abandoning common sense and logic.

"To a large extent, it is being hijacked by activists who are using green rhetoric to launch agendas that don't have much to do with ecology."

That having been said, I'm going to back up a bit and say that environmental activists aren't necessarily wrong, either.

Wisdom may certainly be found among environmental groups and advocates.

The point is, why do we -- the collective American public -- get tricked into heeding self-proclaimed experts who know nothing about science?

And why are people who have never been to Alaska or seen a caribou dictating what happens in Alaska?

What if Alaskans had the political clout to execute a call to keep beaches in California -- or worse, yet, Oregon -- pristine and people-free?

What's the difference? After all, have you seen what people can do to beaches and marine life?

We should, and must, be wise stewards of our environment; it's the only one we have.

At the same time, we have to be smart enough to recognize the difference between ecology and political extremism.

"Green, green, it's green they say....."

Well, is it really?

Let's take the time to learn our colors.

Eisenbeis holds a degree in zoology from Oregon State University and coordinated Coast Guard environmental programs, including a study of endangered cranes.