Opinion writers continue to bad mouth environmentalists. I suggest they look in the dictionary to see what an environmentalist is. Perhaps you really are anti-environment.
As for "best science" it reveals that man is a part of and is dependent upon the natural biological ecosystems of Earth.
U.S. economy is capitalism, which depends upon converting the natural resources of Earth. We are depleting those resources.
Pogo said, "We have met the enemy and he is us." Truly that is me too: I claim to be an environmentalist yet use electricity, burn gas, buy lumber and eat plants and animals. I guess the status of who can say what is good for us is the ones who don't disrupt or deplete our natural biological environment.
Civilization and capitalism are antithesis to biological ecosystems. Should we be more like early peoples of the world - eat, drink, live and die in the natural environment? Population would be naturally limited.
Dams greatly alter the natural rivers and convert them into artificial systems - which will be a much greater problem in the future. Simply - they are filling with silt.
Our foods consume soil nutrients, thus we consume/deplete soils.
Our lumber comes from forest nutrient cycles. Now we have groups and opinion writers saying (best science) we should burn up forest and range nutrients so that they won't be fuel for fires. Well - houses are fuel too, should we burn them so they won't be fires?
As our biological ecosystems go, so go we, I.