One sad fact is that, on most issues, it's the extremists who dictate the agenda. Extremist whack jobs like Smith do represent the lunatic fringe of the environmental movement, but they also can have an impact on the agenda.

Despite all the gloom and doom rhetoric, things are actually quite a bit better today than there were in the not too distant past. At 45, I'm old enough to remember what things were like before there were environmental regulations here in the US. Virtually all cars got crappy gas mileage, used leaded gas, and each emitted roughly 400 times as much pollution as modern cars. Raw sewage and industrial wastes were commonly discharged into rivers around the country. No one really gave a damn about dumping toxic wastes anywhere they pleased, either. All of this happened routinely as recently as the early 1970s.

Believe it or not, compared to the 1960s, the environment here in the US is actually quite a bit cleaner. Despite having about twice as many cars on the road today, total auto emissions are much less than back then. Average gas mileage per car is higher today, too. Factories and power plants have to filter their smokestacks and getting caught illegally dumping toxic wastes will result in massive cleanup costs, fines, and very bad publicity.

Unless you've lived long enough to gain some perspective, it's easy to think things today are the worse they've ever been. It just isn't so. Interestingly enough, the president that signed the legislation for the EPA, OSHA, and several other environmental related pieces of legislation was none other than Richard Nixon.

As with all things done by the government, environmental concerns have to pass a rational cost-benefit analysis. Sure, we can clean up the environment further but at what cost? In doing so, what opportunity costs do we have to incur? By that, I mean what do we have to give up? For example, would we be better off spending and additional billion dollars on some new environmental regulation or using the money for something else, such as childhood immunization programs or improved highway safety? If measured in lives saved, odds are the increased environmental spending won't save nearly as many lives as any of a host of other spending priorities. We have essentially unlimited desires confronting limited resources, so obviously something has to give. Contrary to the old Michelobe beer commercials, we can't have it all.

I've read there are several environmental laws like the Clean Water Act and Superfund that are coming up for renewal. This would be a great time to review the results of these laws, both good and bad, and see how they can be improved. Those things that worked well should be continued and those that didn't should be modified or eliminated. For example, of the billions spent on Superfund cleanup, roughly half has gone to legal fees. This is absurd and should be modified so that the overwhelming majority of the funds go to actual cleanup instead of lawyer enrichment. However, those involved in environmental litigation don't want their rice bowl touched, so they'll be quick to demonize any attempts to modify the law.