You did not read carefully. I did not say protect, I said manage. The empirical analyses are in the book. I am not fond of posting the whole thing on the website, seeing as it cost me $300,000 to write it.
I submit that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence indicates that while it may be ugly, this so-called environmental damage around man's habitation is irrelevant in the big picture.
I really don't care whether or not you are convinced. You are free to believe that human impact is irrelevant, but your argument devolves to a subjective conclusion as to what constitutes an adequate evidentiary case. Do you really want to go back to cities hanging sewer pipes over the river with people drinking it downstream? If you think that such problems needed fixing, do you want government doing that? If so, where does it stop? You are free to wait and think about that while the socialist machine rolls you down.
We're doing that right now in California:
Redding, Red Bluff, Chico, Oroville, Yuba City, Marysville, Roseville, Sacramento, Stockton, Manteca, Modesto, Merced, Fresno, Bakersfield, etc. all dump their plant effluent into the rivers that come together at Antioch, Where most of Contra Costa County, Southern Alameda County, and Santa Clara county get their drinking water. Loaded with Phosphorus, sulfites, light metals, nitrites, nitrates, clorides, and who knows what else.
This was dictated by environmental bureaucrats as better than land disposal; does that make sense?
" I am not fond of posting the whole thing on the website, seeing as it cost me $300,000 to write it."
Understood.