by Lewis Loflin
Environmentalism often presents itself as a science-based movement, but for some adherents, it takes on the characteristics of a religion, prioritizing faith and ideology over empirical evidence. In *Science Under Siege*, Michael Fumento explores how this quasi-religious fervor manifests, from nature worship to apocalyptic narratives, often at the expense of scientific integrity. As a Deist, I value reason and the pursuit of knowledge through science, seeing it as a means to understand and care for the natural world. While environmentalism’s call for stewardship is admirable, its tendency to blend ideology with science can lead to irrational policies and a rejection of progress, as seen in the technophobia discussed in my earlier writings.
Some environmentalists elevate nature to a sacred status, a trend Fumento identifies as akin to religious idolatry. Essayist Charles Krauthammer notes that “contemporary environmentalism… indulges in earth worship to the point of idolatry,” particularly through concepts like the Gaia theory, which posits that the Earth is a living organism (*Science Under Siege*, p. 358). Proposed by James Lovelock in the 1970s, the Gaia hypothesis suggests that Earth’s systems self-regulate to maintain life, a poetic idea that resonates with spiritual reverence but lacks rigorous scientific support for its more mystical claims.
This reverence is explicit in some environmentalist rhetoric. Cathy Young, writing in the *Detroit News*, quoted an environmentalist who described their belief as “deep ecology,” a philosophy that views humans as just one part of nature, with no greater moral claim to resources. A letter to *The New York Times* echoed this sentiment: “The environment is not a political cause. It is a religion. We earth lovers are not just another special-interest group. We are prophets, would-be transformers of the world… seeking a new vision to guide us.” The writer admitted to avoiding a clothes dryer, not for its environmental impact, but because “like all religious rituals, the importance of these acts lies… in their role in the life of the believers” (*Science Under Siege*, p. 358). Such statements reveal a movement driven more by faith than by practical outcomes.
The quasi-religious nature of environmentalism extends to its policy goals, often framed in moralistic terms. The 1972 Clean Water Act, for example, aimed for a “zero level of discharge” into U.S. waterways by 1985—a goal Fumento compares to a preacher urging a congregation to “cleanse themselves of all sin” (*Science Under Siege*, p. 359). This absolutism ignores the reality that pollution, both natural (e.g., a bear defecating in a stream) and man-made, is a byproduct of life-sustaining processes. While man-made pollution can be minimized, complete elimination is impossible without halting essential activities like agriculture or industry.
By framing pollution as an “enemy” to be eradicated through “unconditional surrender,” environmentalism turns a practical challenge into a moral crusade (*Science Under Siege*, p. 359). This approach makes cost-benefit analysis difficult, diverting resources to symbolic battles—like achieving zero pollution—while neglecting other pressing issues. For example, the billions spent on marginal reductions in already-low pollution levels could be redirected to address more immediate threats, such as access to clean drinking water in developing nations.
Even prominent scientists have embraced this quasi-religious framing. In 1990, Carl Sagan and 22 other well-known scientists, including physicist Hans Bethe, MIT President Jerome Weisner, and evolution theorist Stephen Jay Gould, appealed to world religious leaders at a Moscow conference to join them in protecting the environment. They signed a statement asserting that “efforts to safeguard and cherish the environment need to be infused with a vision of the sacred,” with Sagan noting a “religious as well as scientific dimension” to global change (*Science Under Siege*, p. 359). While their intent to bridge science and spirituality may have been well-meaning, it risks blurring the line between empirical inquiry and ideological zeal.
This blending of science and faith can lead to exaggerated claims. Stephen Schneider, a frequently quoted climate scientist and author of *The Genesis Strategy: Climate and Global Survival*, told *Discover* magazine in 1989 that scientists should consider stretching the truth “to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination.” He admitted, “We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest” (*Science Under Siege*, p. 361). Schneider’s earlier work in the 1970s warned of an impending “Little Ice Age,” a stark contrast to his later focus on global warming, highlighting the inconsistency that can arise when science is subordinated to advocacy (*Science Under Siege*, p. 362).
Environmentalism’s religious undertones often manifest in apocalyptic narratives, framing environmental issues as existential “crises” that demand radical action. Vice President Al Gore’s 1990s writings, such as his essay in *Scientific American*, frequently used terms like “radical” and “crisis” to describe environmental challenges (*Science Under Siege*, p. 362). Fumento notes that throughout history, crises—real or manufactured—have allowed small groups to seize power they couldn’t otherwise gain in stable times. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-Colo.) exemplified this approach, stating, “We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy” (*Science Under Siege*, p. 362). This willingness to exploit uncertainty for ideological ends mirrors the tactics of religious zealots more than those of scientists.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) itself has contributed to such confusion. In 1977, the NAS warned of an impending ice age, citing “evidence as diverse as the duration of arctic snow cover, animal migration, sea surface temperatures, and microfossils on the ocean floor, not to mention declining average global temperatures” (*Science Under Siege*, p. 361). Yet, by the 1990s, the NAS lent qualified support to global warming theories, illustrating how scientific narratives can shift dramatically, often driven by the prevailing ideological winds rather than consistent evidence.
Environmentalism’s quasi-religious tendencies are often tied to broader ideological goals, as Joseph Paehlke observes in *Environmentalism and the Future of Aggressive Politics*. He writes, “Environmentalists… have generally seen [their roles as scientists and citizens] as irretrievably linked. Not since the nineteenth century, when Marx, Engels, and many others sought… to blend science and ideology, has there been so explicit an effort in this regard” (*Science Under Siege*, p. 365). Paehlke notes that environmentalists “use science to extrapolate fearsome futures,” much like Marx and Engels blurred their preferred historical outcomes with “scientific” predictions (*Science Under Siege*, p. 365).
Paehlke argues that environmentalism must “blend the natural sciences, values, and social sciences in a distinctive way,” but this approach risks subjugating scientific truth to ideology (*Science Under Siege*, p. 365). Scientists often resent this, as Paehlke acknowledges: “Many scientists deeply resent the claims and style of environmentalists,” comparing their frustration to a good doctor resenting a quack (*Science Under Siege*, p. 366). For example, when an epidemiologist with decades of experience sees a highly publicized book misrepresent their field, or a carcinogenesis expert encounters a report with a “kindergartner’s understanding” of cancer causes, they feel their discipline is being exploited for political ends (*Science Under Siege*, p. 366).
At the heart of this quasi-religious environmentalism lies a utopian vision of a pre-industrial world. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), founded in 1970 as the legal arm of the environmental movement, exemplifies this ideology. With 100,000 members, the NRDC is a powerful force, dubbed a “Shadow EPA” by *The Wall Street Journal* and described as “extreme Left” by Gregg Easterbrook, a self-described liberal (*Science Under Siege*, p. 354). The NRDC’s philosophy often aligns with Ernst Joseph Schumacher’s 1973 book *Small Is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered*, which advocates for a “Buddhist economics” of small-scale production without machines or mass production—a model reminiscent of communist economies at the time (*Science Under Siege*, p. 354).
Jeremy Rifkin, a prominent environmentalist, epitomizes this agrarian utopianism. In *A New Consciousness for a New Century*, Rifkin romanticizes the life of the feudal serf, claiming it offered “communal self-sufficiency” and “spiritual as well as economic security.” Gina Maranto, reviewing the book in *The New York Times Book Review*, counters that “the life of the feudal servant was truly nasty, brutish, and short,” a reality that persists for many modern peasants (*Science Under Siege*, p. 355). Rifkin’s vision, though mainstream among some environmentalists, ignores the harsh realities of pre-industrial life and the benefits technology has brought to humanity.
As a Deist, I believe in a rational approach to understanding the world, using science to uncover truths about nature while fostering responsible stewardship. Environmentalism’s quasi-religious tendencies—its nature worship, moral crusades, and apocalyptic narratives—often undermine this balance, prioritizing ideology over evidence. The Gaia theory, while poetic, lacks the empirical rigor to guide policy, and the absolutist goals of laws like the Clean Water Act ignore practical realities. Moreover, the willingness of figures like Stephen Schneider to stretch the truth for public impact erodes trust in science, as does the NRDC’s advocacy of a pre-industrial utopia that romanticizes a brutal past.
Yet, environmentalism’s core mission—to protect the planet—remains vital. The challenge is to ground this mission in reason, not faith. Scientists like Carl Sagan sought to bridge science and spirituality, but we must ensure that “visions of the sacred” do not overshadow empirical truth. As my earlier climate studies show, natural variability has always shaped Earth’s environment, and while human activities like CO2 emissions play a significant role today, addressing these challenges requires technology and innovation, not a retreat to an idealized past.
Environmentalism can be a force for good, but it must shed its quasi-religious trappings to achieve its goals effectively. By embracing science over ideology, environmentalists can develop policies that balance ecological protection with human progress. This means rejecting manufactured crises, as Senator Wirth advocated, and focusing on evidence-based solutions—like clean energy technologies or sustainable agriculture—that address real problems without demonizing innovation. As Fumento’s *Science Under Siege* illustrates, the tension between environmentalism and science is not new, but resolving it is essential for a future that honors both nature and humanity’s potential.
Extracts from *Science Under Siege* by Michael Fumento. Updated 2025 by Lewis Loflin.
Acknowledgment: I’d like to thank Grok, an AI by xAI, for helping me draft and refine this article. The final edits and perspective are my own.
Click to Visit!
