This article made my brain hurt. Let's just go through each of the "myths" they "debunked" shall we?
1. Local food is not always better.
The buy local movement is a strong current in the river of environmentalism, and for a good reason: It does make good sense to keep your money and shopping close to home ... but not always. Local food isn't always better. There are many things you have to consider when assessing the environmental impact of a food item. Besides just how far it traveled from field to market, consider how the food was harvested, processed, stored and transported.
YES! TRANSPORTED! THAT'S THE POINT OF THE "BUY LOCAL" THING! If your food traveled 3000 miles or more, I'd be amazed if it was better than getting something from 100 miles away (unless it traveled by rail). It also helps your local economy! Notice the author implicitly acknowledges that local food is usually better: "but not always." You could pretty much apply that to everything! And guess what? That's pretty much how the whole list goes.
2. Big farms aren't evil.
Freelance journalist Tracie McMillan found that some workers prefer the benefits and consistency of a larger operation. Big farms are also more likely to be visited by government inspectors, and there is something to be said for the efficiency gained from a large-scale operation. We certainly need to support small farms, but we shouldn't dismiss all big farms as evil.
Same tactic here: big farms aren't always evil. He doesn't discuss the horror to the planet that monoculture farming is. Instead they use some vague labor argument, that starts with "some workers." And just because the government is inspecting a farm doesn't make it safe. The FDA and USDA don't really have any power thanks to the way the laws have been written. So there's no "eco-myth" debunked here.
3. CFLs are bad.
This one ends up saying CFLs are good! After going off about the amount of mercury in them, it says:
But consider this: the source of most of America's electricity, burning coal, releases lots of mercury into the atmosphere. The mercury generated from the extra electricity needed over the lifetime of an incandescent bulb is far more than the amount found in your average CFL bulb.
Nothing debunked.
4. Invasive Species are Good
Anytime an exotic animal is brought into a new environment, it frequently ends badly, but there are some places where that's not the case.
Same argument. "...there are some places...." You can find exceptions to everything somewhere. That doesn't mean you debunked anything.
5. The Rainforest Is Manmade
Rogue archaeologists Clark Erickson and William Balée believe the North and South American continents were populated by large and advanced civilizations that pulled off enormous feats of geoengineering, and the rain forest is a result of hundreds of years of fruit and nut tree cultivation by farmers. If we planted it once, that would mean we could plant it again.
NOT IF WE'RE TURNING IT INTO FARMS TO GROW CATTLE TO MAKE BURGERS FOR AMERICA! Besides, it's not just that there the rainforests are disappearing, it's what's IN the rainforests disappearing that is the problem. "Rogue archaeologist" seems to indicate to me that their hypothoses are generall discredited by peers.
6. Trees are bad.
The more trees, the better, right? Not always.
Same tactic. Not a good argument again.
7. Hybrid cars are bad.
There's no dispute that hybrid cars use gas more efficiently, but is a hybrid the best choice for everyone (and the planet) every time?
Again the argument is against absolutes. Seems like a hack-ish way to write an article to me.
This whole article is the kind of thing some crazy person would read and think something has been disproven when in fact it's all just common sense.
The most condescending thing about the whole article comes from #1: "Do your homework." That goes double for you, author.
