There is a group of people who generally think that we are ruining the planet. Actually, there are a lot of people who have such a belief; however, there is more divergence as to why this is fact (of ruining the planet) is a bad thing.
Some think that it is bad to trash the planet because it has some intrinsic worth. They think that we should protect eagles from extinction because the eagle has a right (or something similar to a right) to exist. I take this to be the extreme position. They would contend that we can formulate a calculus for determining the relative worth of humans and animals. This means that when we have to make the decision between the habitat of a rare species and the well being of a large group of settlers, there is a possibility that the habitat will be more important simply because of the rights of those animals that live there (this is rather utilitarian but we could say a similar story about the competing rights of nature and people). Of course we may value a human life more than that of an animal, but this is only a quantitative difference; for example, 100 birds might be more valuable than a person.
I hope this explanation sheds some light on how radical such a position really is; I don’t think it is unreasonable to hold such a view but it does entail a great deal of other anti-social views that most people can’t really stomach. So, if most of us don’t hold this view, why do I bring it up? Because, I think that much of the prejudice against environmental initiatives comes from the worry that environmentalists actually think nature has the sort of intrinsic value, the sort I described above.
Most of us, however, are concerned about the environment because of its value for people. We don’t want to cut down forests because it releases CO2, and we want to decrease pollution because of the threat it poses to people. Even when most talk about how we need to keep the natural beauty of the environment, they assume that people will be enjoying that beauty. So, debates about how much we should pursue environmental policies are not about nature at all; instead they are merely about what is best for humans and society. This is important because it means that this debate is an empirical one and not based on any difference in values. Conservatives who want to drill for as much oil as possible claim to be concerned with the best interests of people (they want people to have cheap energy), but this is exactly what those presenting evidence for global warming also want. They claim that the overuse of fossil fuels will destroy the ability of humans to survive on Earth. Therefore, we shouldn’t look at these two positions as merely two opinions, but rather as two different theories of how to maximize human well being This debate is often times characterized as one of ideologies; many conservatives believe that environmentalists have already decided that the environment is valuable regardless of human benefit and have therefore biased experimental data in favor of liberal environmental policy, but if we fully consider why someone would warn against global warming then this becomes less plausible.
There is one question of value that remains. That is the question of what sort of world we want to live in. Many people value nature for the joy it can bring to people whereas others seem content in a completely man made environment of little aesthetic value (or at least they wouldn’t pay much to improve their environment). There seems to be disagreement on this point but one might wonder whether one of these groups is simply wrong about what would bring them the most fulfilling life. And this too might be an empirical question, a psychological one. There may be widespread disagreement in values (which are not reconcilable) but there could also be a correct answer of which attitude toward the environment will cause the most fulfillment. That is the hard question.