It is your argument, so you tell me. However, since you don't think pollution is good, then I'm satisfied and will leave you to ponder what it is that environmentalism is really all about.
I have no problem understanding what environmentalism is about, never said I had a problem with it, other than it needs to be balanced against economic needs and the need to advance technologically.
You give a definition of what an environmentalist should be, not what they are today in practice. However, today, enviromentalist have become a polictical faction and are placing polotics above real science. They have, in the recent past been caught using discredited data in scientific pressentations, spying and have refused to alter testing methods when those methods are questioned, instead prefering to attempt to discredit those asking the questions so that those in charge of funding don't start limiting their funds. Also, in the case of many government "conferences" on enviromental issues, they have actively blocked presentation of material and persons questioning their "science".
Case one: Enviromentalist, through various incarnations of the EPA have attempted to put limits on "pollutants" and "green house gasses" emitted by internal combustion engines, specifically those use in personal transportation by gasoline or diesel. To measure these polutants, they use a parts per million test. However, testing parts per million only tests the ratio of pollutants or Air Quality, not the volume. The theory is apparently that if you put out "cleaner" air, then you get "cleaner" air in the atmosphere and if you reduce the ratio of CO2, you reduce CO2. But this presents problems.
Problem 1: An automobile that puts out 2 thousand particles per minute can have the exact same "ratio" when measured in parts per million as one that puts out 2 hundred particles per minute. (Yes, these numbers are abritrary, but I do not have actual data at present, but they serve to demonstrate my point.) Obviously the first car puts out more pollutants, however, "enviromentalist" ensist that the parts per million measure is an accurate measure for pollutants and CO2.
Problem 2: If gasoline is burned with oxygen at 100% efficiency, the only byproducts are Water (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2). Therefore, the ratio, or parts per million of CO2 must increase with an increase in the efficiency of the process. Limiting the parts per million of CO2 can only lead to decreased efficiency. A more efficient vehicle could put out above the alloted parts per million of CO2 on an emissions test but actually produce less CO2 per minute or mile driven.
Problem 3: Indroduction of "pollutant" reducer into gasoline/fuel. Ethanol is the most common of these "pollutant" reducers. When measured by an emissions test using the parts per million formula, it does indeed reduce the ratio of undesirable pollutants. However, since the introduction of 10% Ethanol into gasoline reduces efficiency (mpg) by around 15%, even if the 10% Ethanol blend reduce pollutants by 10%, the overall pollution emitted, measured in particles per mile, would increase because you are using more fuel and the reduction of pollutants is not equal to the reduction in efficiency.
Case 2: Enviromentalis insist that CO2 emmissions from man-made sources is causing Global Warming. However, they either do not calculate in all factors or they refuse to release those other factors in their "scientific" reports.
Even before man learned to control fire, glaciers were retreating. Those retreating glaciers uncovered more land and water. Since land and water reflect or emit more heat into the atmosphere than the ice of the glaciers did, the atmosphere warmed, melting more ice, exposing more land and water, causing the atmosphere to heat, etc, ect...Global Warming advocating enviromentalist refuse or do not have data showing how much deglacierization affects the warming process or how much declacierization is actually caused by man, they blame it all on us.
High CO2 levels are blamed on man-made sources. Enviromentalist tests emissions from natural sources, such as volcanoes, by various methods but mostly from ground stations. When geologist questioned their testing methods, attempts were made to discredit geologist because "they all work for polluting oil companies) and no actual changes in the testing methods were initiated. If their methods are so accurate and dependable, why would enviromentalist not try a different testing method to quiet dissent instead of trying to discredit the dissenters?
These are just some of the problems with enviromentalist today. Enviromental "science" has been corrupted by politics. Policies based upon this politically motivated "science" costs jobs and increase the deficit. One way to reduce the deficit would be to get the real science, based upon accurate and correct measurements and proper use of the scientific method, then balance that against economic needs.
I am against these politicized enviromentalist and the 'true believers" of these enviromentalist, not against achievable enviromentalism balanced with economic needs.