Replies

>>The only good that could come of this is if they are stupid enough to discredit the entire environmental movement in the eyes of most Americans. <<

I am very curious, Kay, what does the 'environmental movement' mean to you?

Surely we must have healthy soil, air, and water or we are doomed. A lot of industrial practice would ignore these concerns for immediate self-interest(and the taxpayer ends up subsidizing them, because they must pay for the clean-up of water and so on.

risa

I am very curious, Kay, what does the 'environmental movement' mean to you?

Surely we must have healthy soil, air, and water or we are doomed. A lot of industrial practice would ignore these concerns for immediate self-interest(and the taxpayer ends up subsidizing them, because they must pay for the clean-up of water and so on.

To say that someone who wants clean air and water is an environmentalist or is part of the "environmental movement" because he cares about the environment is to abuse language. This is not what these words mean. But the current batch of "environmentalists" use this as a strategy to insinuate themselves into legitimate concerns and to appropriate for themselves (as the EPA, mentioned below, tries to do) the mojo from the successes of others. "Hey, these folks did this and it helped the environment. They're environmentalists just like us! Do you like clean air and water? Golly, then you're an environmentalist just like us! Now, here are some things you can do to help the environment." And they go on, under the guise of "helping the environment," to propose things that facilitate their own political aims.

What would we do without "environmentalists" to look out for clean air, clean water, and "healthy" soil? There have been people interested in clean air and water long before the current batch of neo-Luddite, Gaia-worshipping, tree-sitting, SUV-hating, socialist wackos exacerbated and commandeered people's fears about them for their own political purposes. Common law and the tort system have been used for centuries by aggrieved parties seeking recompense from others for damages claimed to have been caused by their carelessness or willful disregard. These have worked far more efficiently than the environmental ideologues' method of trying to pass a law or to create a rule (and the agencies to enforce them) for every single instance of what they perceive could possibly result in a "negative" impact (the so-called precautionary principle) on their personal vision of what American society should be like. The reason the tort system worked before the insanity of class action suits (AKA "windfalls for lawyers" suits) is because it provided specific solutions for unique problems. The environmentalists such as Nader, Commoner, Ehrlich and others try to use the system to destroy the system they profess in PSAs to want to help (viz specious class action suits filed to prevent the building or operation of new nuclear plants).

As far as "a lot of industrial practice" willing to screw over the environment for quick profit, I know of a major Midwestern utility that rejected EPA science because it is so outmoded. It also rejected the government loans the EPA encouraged it to take for bringing the facility into compliance with proposed EPA rules (the EPA does this so that it can then claim credit for the wonderful partnership between industry and government). Instead, it paid for everything itself, won major awards, and far exceeded anything demanded of it by the EPA. Its effluent is cleaner going out of the facility than it is coming in--cleaner than tap water. It, like most businesses, has no interest in harming its customers. This certainly hasn't been true of governments or governmental agencies.

There is incredible ignorance of the history of the current environmental movement in the United States, its staggering cost to the economy, and the way its creatures, the EPA, OSHA, and others have reduced the rate at which air and water pollution (and workplace injuries) have been ameliorated; ignorance of the political aims of its major shakers and movers from the beginning of the ecological apocalyptic hysteria back in the late 50's and 60's (including such nut cases as Barry Commoner and Paul Ehrlich). It wasn't this movement that was responsible for developing the most productive use of agricultural land or for turning pollution (petroleum) into wealth or for coming up with a way to vastly reduce pollution from coal combustion by replacing it with nuclear energy. But it was this movement that has been responsible, by its insane and scientifically meritless efforts to ban DDT, for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people worldwide due to malaria.

The intentions of these folks, whose basic philosophies find their logical fulfillment in the actions by ALF and ELF, are no more beneficent toward Western civilization than are those of Al Qaeda and so-called radical Islam.

Incidentally, the idea that "we are doomed unless we understand the interconnectedness of all things" is itself a product of the apocalyptic environmentalist movement.

I am very curious, Kay, what does the 'environmental movement' mean to you?

The formal environmentalist movement today is antagonistic to our free way of life. They are out in our communities urging more and more regulation on private citizens, while ignoring business entities that support them but also pollute.

In my area, there are no real manufacturers to be polluting, but the environmentalists are nonetheless pushing for more and more regulations on private homeowners, as the source of the only remaining pollution. Are they going after communities with many failing septic systems? No, actually they are at the forefront of denying those people access to public sewer, since extending public sewer would "only bring more growth". They are trying to stop all use of lawn fertilizers, though, and have their eye on pet waste at homes...

I personally live a fairly environmentally friendly lifestyle - I drive an old honda civic; never use more than the minimum billing for water; wash my clothes in warm, not hot water; air dry my dishes. I did not need any government regulations to do that, I belief in thrift. The local environmentalists pushing all these additional regulations on ME drive to meetings from their big houses in their SUV's, and say we must do something now, or our creek will be ruined.

Having lived here all my life (unlike those enviro's), I KNOW the creek is much cleaner than it was 30 years ago. It recovered nicely from the leaking septic systems as sewer came through, from the chemical plant as they downsized and implemented new techniques.

I believe the early environmental movement brought needed attention to some real problems that have been resolved. I do not believe, as they do, that the environmental goal needs to be returning our environemt to it's "pre-columbian state".

Do you think I'm exagerating? I've begun going to some of the meetings of trout unlimited and the re-wilders. They are fairly open about their pre-columbian goals, and how they are going to use a combination of pushing regulation at the local level and legal action to accomplish their goals.

Pre-columbian environment means few roads, no motorized vehicles. They think it will be wonderful when everyone lives in little villages where they walk everywhere and don't have the temptations of all the consumer goods that are available to us today.

It might be easier for me to buy into some of their ideas (since I actually, like everyone else, like clean water and clean air) if I saw any environmentalist making any effort to live their beliefs - but I don't. They aren't living in apartments in town, using public transportation, wearing their clothes several times before washing them, staying in the town the grew up in, etc like they want the rest of us to do. They live a far more lavish lifestyle than I do. Don't mistake those comments as jealousy - I believe they are free to live as they want, and can spend their money how they want, just as I believe I am. They, on the other hand, do not believe that I should be free to make my own choices. I've heard environmentalists say that it will be easier to live that austere lifestyle when everyone has to! They don't believe in my freedom, and that makes me oppose them.

The environmental movement is fully capable of producing the very crises they bewail. Indeed, many of their technical preferences are assured to deliver just such disasters.

Perhaps it is no accident that they are largely funded by the tax-exempt, "charitable" foundations of the major stockholders of the very corporations they appear to oppose?