On Sept. 21, several disparate groups of environmentalists descended on New York City for the People’s Climate March. Their one unifying theme was predictable and clear: the nefarious, corrupt and morally bankrupt boogeyman that is capitalism was to blame for the world’s environmental and climate change problems. 

If you followed the march, you may have noticed the irony of an event condemning capitalism that literally could not have occurred without benefiting from the corporations and policies it decried. 

Protesters armed themselves with signs, reading “Capitalism destroys the planet… we need revolution, nothing less!” and “System change, not climate change.” Yet they took pictures of themselves using their iPhones and Android smartphones at an event planned on the organizers’ personal computers—all technologies powered through electricity produced most likely by coal. These photographs were uploaded online using profit-making websites like Facebook and Twitter. Don’t forget, by the way, who produced these phones and computers—profit-seeking companies like Apple, Google and Microsoft. And, of course, many protesters, including Brandeisians, ironically transported themselves to New York using fossil fuel-powered buses and other vehicles.

It is evident that some of the protesters do not understand the importance of the free market. On the streets of New York, many protesters chose to denigrate capitalism, ignoring the fact that the overall U.S. standard of living has dramatically increased since the Industrial Revolution precisely because of free markets: we have been able to produce newer, cheaper technologies, raise the American people’s incomes and give our country prosperity not seen anywhere else. In short, the free market comes with flaws, but it is the best system available to this day. Sadly, it seems as if the basic tenet of the present-day climate change movement is to use the heavy hand of government to destroy the economic fundamentals that made the United States the richest country in the world.

The only policies environmentalists seem to favor are carbon taxes, environmental regulations and renewable energy corporate welfare, but these policies have already produced failures like the bankruptcy of the taxpayer-subsidized solar energy company Solyndra and caused electricity bills in countries like France and Germany to skyrocket. That means a higher cost of living, making luxuries like iPhones and Androids a lot harder to come by for those at the Climate March. That also means a lower standard of living for lower and middle-class Americans just trying to make it in our still-struggling economy. But because environmentalists want to shut down debate, not expand it, these concerns fall on deaf ears. 

Our country can and should have a real discussion on climate change and remedies to the problems we see. But when people concerned about the United States economy contribute their thoughts and solutions to the debate, they are immediately shut down and disparaged by supposedly tolerant activists.

Many proposed energy projects would alleviate the affects of the Great Recession and to little environmental cost. Yet environmentalists flatly refuse to agree. Can the U.S. expand hydraulic fracturing by utilizing the massive shale formations across the country to produce natural gas, which would increase competition in the energy marketplace and lower energy prices? The environmentalists’ answer is no, in spite of a study from the National Academy of Sciences  and a study from the Department of Energy confirming that fracking is safe and doesn’t contaminate water. What about building the Keystone Pipeline, which, by conservative estimates alone, would create 42,000 jobs and replace rail as the country’s main source of oil transportation, decreasing emissions and saving the lives of those who perished in places like Lac-Mégantic, Quebec? The answer of the Sierra Club, activist Bill McKibben and other liberals again is, again, no. Why not even consider other opinions? 

The answer is that modern environmentalism is so concerned with an apocalyptic vision perpetuated by media headlines and Al Gore documentaries that it cannot consider other’s perspectives as what they are: opinions, equally valid and equally data-based as the environmentalists’ own opinions. The only narrative promoted by climate scientists and mainstream media is that unless climate change is aggressively addressed, there will be dramatic consequences. The facts and statistics supporting this narrative change and implementing the changes that climate activists call for would require consequences in other sectors of American life. But any voice that runs counter to the common group narrative is immediately suppressed and branded as an enemy. 

Look at the work of Dr. Roy Spencer, a climatologist and research scientist at the University of Alabama. He found that global surface temperatures have remained stagnant since 1997, and 95 percent of climate models have projected higher levels of warming than what was actually observed. When Spencer published a paper on his findings in 2011, the response was so negative and the criticisms against his work so egregious that the editor-in-chief of the magazine resigned. Spencer has since defended his work, though he continues to be a “black sheep” within the climate science community. Another case is distinguished meteorologist Lennart Bengtsson, who researches climate sensitivity and variability. 

He resigned his position on the advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a group skeptical of man-made climate change, because of immense pressure from forces within the climate science community that disapproved of the organization. 

Climate modeler Gavin Schmidt wrote of the GWPF “Groups perceived to be acting in bad faith should not be surprised that they are toxic within the science community.” 

Bengtsson’s words in the aftermath of his resignation from GWPF are telling about the current state of climate science: “I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have [expected] anything similar in such an [originally] peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.” 

The point is clear: if we are to advance as a society, we have to stop being absolutist in an attempt to censor those with different thoughts and beliefs. This will truly bring about an open and fair debate. Presently, we must be realistic, embracing the products in the energy industry that are ready for primetime. Challenging and questioning the message of the People’s Climate March is a great way to start.