Banning Pesticides and Flawed Logic

In today's Telegram, Brian Jones takes aim at environmentalists, specifically  their “alarmist” views on banning pesticides in St. John’s. His logic is flawed however and, much like his argument that environmentalists distort facts, so does Jones. I think he misses the bigger picture.

Here’s my response to Jones, as posted in the comment section.

''Does anyone believe anything the David Suzuki Foundation says anymore?''

The answer is yes. But it’s not based on the premise you purpose – outlandish claims by environmentalists. True, they can be alarmist. So too can claims from corporations who act primarily in their own self interests. The oil and tobacco lobbies are two that immediately come to mind.

Ask yourself, whose interests are better served by downplaying the negative impact of the checks and balances meant to ensure environmental safety?

Your prejudices against David Suzuki and Sheilagh O'Leary seem to cloud your judgment and diminish the validity of your argument. How is the fear-mongering you accuse environmentalists of perpetuating any different from the fear-mongering of any corporation or lobby, big or small? Fact is, there is no difference.

Their mantra seems to be that they know what's best for us and we better not tell them what to do. Their ''do-as-we-say-and-nobody-gets-hurt'' policy is great until somebody gets hurt. Or the environment is negatively impacted. Just ask British Petroleum.