Negative Positive
Title: Generally very silly and misguided
Review: My sense from reading this book is neither that Easterbrook is a purposefully misleading, nor that he is particularly insightful. He is looking for an antitode to negativity that he seems to believe pervades the enrivonmental community.But whether you agree with his perspective or not, the simple fact is he gets many facts completely wrong, and his arguments are logically flawed. A prime example is the arguments he makes against the need for having regulations on air quality: he points out that the air has gotten cleaner in the US over the last 30 years. Well, yes it has, but BECAUSE of the clean air act, not in spite of it.There is no reason to be depressed about the environment, but nor is there any reason -- as Easterbrook would have us do -- to ignore it. If you want a balanced view, read the scientific literature, not the quasi-science of an naive journalist.
Is the review positive or negative? 