As a teen, I can vividly recall the sight of dead fish floating off the shores of Lake Erie. I remember days when large swatches of sky were yellowed from the emissions pouring from the chemical plants that lined the Niagara River. Once, I parked my dad's car near a chemical plant in Niagara Falls only to find it a few hours later covered with a spotty film that had to be scrubbed off.

I drank that water and breathed that air for 20 years. It was then that I realized that if industry were left to its own devices, it could unintentionally kill us all.

I believe that preserving the environment is an individual responsibility. What is disconcerting to me is the way this issue has become politicized, even to the point where it has taken on a religious fervour.

Some activists have decided that we all should march under the banner of global warming, trumpeting the potential destruction of climate change.

These groups occasionally use faulty science and scare tactics as a means to predict an inglorious end of our species, thus frightening people into action. They are anchored to a point of view and those who disagree are called deniers.

Unfortunately, by polarizing the debate, no consensus can be reached. We cannot afford to be at odds with each other when dealing with the environment.

Have you ever asked why a number of anti-American, former anti-nuclear activists suddenly became a vanguard of the environmental movement? Why has failed presidential candidate, Al Gore, now become an environmental prophet and media superstar? Why has the well-being of our planet turned into a battle of the left versus the right?

Fundamentalism frightens me. When people take an extreme position, whether it be about politics, religion or the environment, rational people should ask why. What is the motive?

Recently, articles have been published discussing how environmentalism has taken on the characteristics of a religion. In 2007, Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, spoke of the hysteria generated by global warming enthusiasts. He said environmentalism was "a way of introducing forms of statism, a new form of masterminding human society from above."

As a society we need to examine scientific facts, not conceptual models. When those chemical companies of my youth were releasing noxious gases at night so people couldn't see them, or used the Great Lakes as a toilet, they were doing grievous harm.

I cannot compare that to a family using incandescent light bulbs or not driving a Prius. People talk about a carbon footprint as if carbon, a basic element of life, is considered a poison. They speak of climate change as if the climate doesn't naturally change. It would be better to tone down the rhetoric and turn up the science.

There may be those who see these views as narrow-minded. I do not. The state of the environment is not a concern to me because the polar icecaps are melting and we will soon be under a foot of water. I am concerned because each of us must adapt an individual mindset to preserve the health of the planet and then translate that mindset into votes and individual action. Turning off the lights for an hour and watching An Inconvenient Truth for the fifth time is not going to cut it.

Average user rating