it seems to me that many “environmental” policies are often the source of much environmental damage - why?
they are usually advocated by academics, they usually deal with statistics - particularly on what MIGHT happen if an action is taken while ignoring both the practical consequences or experienced-time-tested instinct of unintended consequences of not taking that action
malaria could have been wiped out in africa today were it not for the ban on ddt
Roadless wildnernesses areas was another dumb idea, IMO.