It depends on how you quantify the benefits/harm. Do you think the worldwide banning of DDT was harmful or beneficial? Millions died of malaria which could've been prevented, yet at the same time the groundwater contamination was lessened. Now that time and thought have been applied, DDT is again being used indoors to prevent mosquitoes while avoiding the mass spraying of land outdoors. That's a sensible solution which was arrived at long after millions died.

The problem is that environmental protections are rarely thought through with the logic and understanding that is required. Too often it is imposed as an emotional rather than rational reaction to events, with all the inherent problems of knee-jerk legislation. Combine that with the radical elements within the organizations which seek protections for ulterior motives (again think timber in the NW) and there's an unforeseen Pandora's box effect.

Blanket laws such as the ESA cause far more problems, because they are applied without proper research. The polar bear is the latest example, but it has the potential to cause the most harm. Spotted owls hurt the Pacific NW and the timber industry, but wasn't felt much by the country at large. The elderberry beetle, via the elderberry bush, is a nuisance for construction in parts of the country, but again is not widely felt. When you bring anthropogenic global warming into the mix, via greenhouse emissions, now your talking wide affecting problems. I joke about the steam coming from my ears and the CO2 we all exhale, but remember that those are, by definition, man-made greenhouse emissions.

At least the ESA was legislated and signed into law, the species on that list however, have been chosen by unelected officials and the effects have been determined by unelected judges.

>This is still a bit unclear to me, I guess it has to be because we are talking about unforeseen consequences. But overall are you saying enviromental regulation has done more harm to society than good?
>
>
>>The unforeseen and unintended ones. Maybe one day I'll post a list of unintended legal precedent that has arisen from wayward environmental legislation, but frankly I don't think it matters. Those whom are not directly affected simply do not care. The indirect consequences are blamed on the rich or corporate bogeymen and they merrily pretend that we're affecting the globe for the children. They're happy to let the power of the federal government encroach away, since they're fat and happy, lazily living beyond their means in their urban jungle. I thought that a decision like Kelo might have changed a few minds, but no, private property rights aren't important compared to "real" problems like people talking on cell phones while driving.
>>
>>Great, now there's a fed at my door about this damn steam...
>>
>>>What consequences do you fear?
>>>
>>>>