Dangerous Environmentalism
from the mind of Unknown.
This article at NRO (if you don't check there often... you should, especially on Fridays... it has something to do with VDH...) looks at the hidden dangers of the emotionally motivated environmental policies pushed by groups like the Sierra Club. Now... don't get me wrong, we need a viewpoint that will look at protecting resources and balancing the protection of the environment and the ability of us humans to go about our daily lives. The opposition to flood control projects is pretty damming to these groups, one might be able to say that the Sierra Club hates... well... the same people our President was accused of hating.
These groups have a history of picking a cause and stonewalling it to death. Look at the Northwest forests for example. We obviously need woodproducts in the US... we build houses and businesses... very little commerce is done under tye-dye tarps out in dirt lots. Environmental groups have put up so many barriers to the industry that the industry has found different markets by importing raw lumber from other places... places where we can impose none of our standards. In the Northwest, clearcuts must be limited to a certain size and must leave a certain number of trees still standing. Studies must be done to make sure a certain rodent doesn't live there in high numbers because a certain non-native species of winged creature eats that rodent. This drastically decreases the efficiency of opperating a logging site. So, instead of the lumber companies just 'dealing' with the regulations, other markets that do not have the same restrictions (South and Central America... and even Canada) are able to be much more competitive and basically have brought or logging to a halt. So... the forests in Oregon are now protected... but what about those in Central America... what about those in Canada. Do those forests not matter? Is the USA in a little bubble where our environment doesn't overlap with others? It seems to me we would have much more control over the impacts of harvesting timber if we would keep regulations at a level that we are still competitive here in the Northwest... and keep higher volumes from transferring to less regulated markets.
Another example would be our power generation. Nuclear power is, hands down, the most containable pollution producing power source we have. A nuclear plant can be built in many places... and all of the dangerous pollution can be contained in neat little boxes. Burning coal, oil, gas, and wood by-product all release pollutants into the air that will eventually end up in our lungs, in our water, in our oceans... everywhere. But, the anti-nuclear lobby has placed a stigma on nuclear power being dangerous beyond usefulness. They say nothing about it only being dangerously polluting if someone really screws up... Other viable sources of energy all have uncontainable pollutants as byproducts regardless of someone screwing up or not.
So... my question is... are they (they = environmental lobby groups) really looking out for the common people, or the common good of the earth? I just dont' see it that way. I think they are looking out for their inner circle and looking out for their organization's existence. If they really cared, they would look for a way to keep timber harvest in the US and research ways to meet our markets needs in the most environmentally friendly ways. They would be pushing for as much nuclear power generation as we can get... and... they would be pushing for proper flood control for our population centers. Just think about all of the resources that would not be needed if we didn't have to rebuild a city for a million people... and just think of the toxins that would not have made it into lakes and rivers and the Gulf of Mexico had NO not flooded.
I get the feeling that some of these groups believe that human existence on earth is not compatible with their ultimate goals. I feel as though they blame my breathing for robbing good old oxygen from the snowy pluver or spotted owl which only makes things worse for the endangered species.
So, I say they can start with a solution to the problems they tell us are severe. They can voluntarily stop breathing. wouldn't that be a good way to help bring an end to 'global warming'??? isn't CO2 a 'leading cause'???
well, be sure to read the NRO article that prompted all of this. It's a little more collected than this rant.
These groups have a history of picking a cause and stonewalling it to death. Look at the Northwest forests for example. We obviously need woodproducts in the US... we build houses and businesses... very little commerce is done under tye-dye tarps out in dirt lots. Environmental groups have put up so many barriers to the industry that the industry has found different markets by importing raw lumber from other places... places where we can impose none of our standards. In the Northwest, clearcuts must be limited to a certain size and must leave a certain number of trees still standing. Studies must be done to make sure a certain rodent doesn't live there in high numbers because a certain non-native species of winged creature eats that rodent. This drastically decreases the efficiency of opperating a logging site. So, instead of the lumber companies just 'dealing' with the regulations, other markets that do not have the same restrictions (South and Central America... and even Canada) are able to be much more competitive and basically have brought or logging to a halt. So... the forests in Oregon are now protected... but what about those in Central America... what about those in Canada. Do those forests not matter? Is the USA in a little bubble where our environment doesn't overlap with others? It seems to me we would have much more control over the impacts of harvesting timber if we would keep regulations at a level that we are still competitive here in the Northwest... and keep higher volumes from transferring to less regulated markets.
Another example would be our power generation. Nuclear power is, hands down, the most containable pollution producing power source we have. A nuclear plant can be built in many places... and all of the dangerous pollution can be contained in neat little boxes. Burning coal, oil, gas, and wood by-product all release pollutants into the air that will eventually end up in our lungs, in our water, in our oceans... everywhere. But, the anti-nuclear lobby has placed a stigma on nuclear power being dangerous beyond usefulness. They say nothing about it only being dangerously polluting if someone really screws up... Other viable sources of energy all have uncontainable pollutants as byproducts regardless of someone screwing up or not.
So... my question is... are they (they = environmental lobby groups) really looking out for the common people, or the common good of the earth? I just dont' see it that way. I think they are looking out for their inner circle and looking out for their organization's existence. If they really cared, they would look for a way to keep timber harvest in the US and research ways to meet our markets needs in the most environmentally friendly ways. They would be pushing for as much nuclear power generation as we can get... and... they would be pushing for proper flood control for our population centers. Just think about all of the resources that would not be needed if we didn't have to rebuild a city for a million people... and just think of the toxins that would not have made it into lakes and rivers and the Gulf of Mexico had NO not flooded.
I get the feeling that some of these groups believe that human existence on earth is not compatible with their ultimate goals. I feel as though they blame my breathing for robbing good old oxygen from the snowy pluver or spotted owl which only makes things worse for the endangered species.
So, I say they can start with a solution to the problems they tell us are severe. They can voluntarily stop breathing. wouldn't that be a good way to help bring an end to 'global warming'??? isn't CO2 a 'leading cause'???
well, be sure to read the NRO article that prompted all of this. It's a little more collected than this rant.
posted by Unknown at 8:10 PM
1 Comments:
The Sierra Club have posted a item on their website in which they state that they sued to ensure that an environmental impact study was undertaken before the Corps of Engineers proceeded with major engineering works.
Taking their posting at face value, I think it is essential to undertake an environmental impact study before major engineering works are commenced, it is required as part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing process, and the licensing process for many other types of facilities. It makes sense to ensure that we do the least harm possible to the planet, whilst protecting the greatest number of people and their assets.
That said, most organizations like to paint themselves in as rosy a light as possible. So whilst that may have been the substance of the lawsuit, had the Corps of Engineers done the EIS (which they didn't, and for which they should be castigated) I am sure that they or anoother group, would have tied the levee project up in additional lawsuits.
Post a Comment
<< Home