PDA

View Full Version : the price for turning "GREEN"


neckringer
09-04-2003, 02:42 PM
The cost of turning green

By Henry Lamb

Enter State Right - A Journal of Modern Conservatism
http://enterstageright.com

September 2003

http://enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0903/0903greencost.htm

In an August 17 editorial, the New York Times chastised President Bush
for
not pushing the $8 billion Everglades Restoration Program. The
editorial
stated that "Despite opposition from the sugar barons and the
developers,
Congress stipulated that restoration was to be the plan's overriding
purpose, and that nature, not commerce, would have first claim on the
water."

An op-ed by Louis Uchitelle, in the same edition, began this
way: "Manufacturing is slowly disappearing in the United States."
Uchitelle went on to report that more than half the manufactured goods
purchased by Americans are imported; up from 31 per cent in 1987.
Manufacturing jobs have fallen from 30 per cent of the work force in
1960
to only 11 per cent now. The trade deficit continues to soar, because
we
are buying far more goods from foreign sources than we are selling
abroad.
Jobs are becoming our primary export.

To the New York Times, the jobs provided by "sugar barons"
and "developers" are not as important as getting water to the snakes
and
alligators in the Everglades. Getting water to the five million people
in
southern Florida, while protecting private landowners from flooding, is
not as important as restoring the Everglades to its "pristine" pre-
development condition.

As long as this attitude prevails, the economy will continue to
decline,
and America will achieve the sustainable development goal of "equity"
with
third-world countries.

The Everglades Restoration Program is only one small part of a massive
program launched by radical environmentalist to restore "at least half"
of
the total land area in America to core wilderness areas, off limits to
humans. In every corner of the country, environmentalists are pushing
programs that value nature over commerce – and the needs of humans.
See: http://wildlandsprojectrevealed.org/

The manufacturing sector of our economy is dying because the raw
material
for processing is no longer available in America. Our children have
been
taught that cutting a tree is sinful, and that mining ore from the
ground
is akin to rape.

Environmentalists have had their way in public policy, with much help
from
such media giants as the New York Times. They must now step up and
accept
the responsibility for the consequences of their actions.

The tragic fires that destroy far more forests and wildlife than
the "greedy" loggers, are the direct result of the
"save-the-old-growth"
garbage spouted by environmentalists. The rising costs of energy, as
well
as the increasing unreliability, are the direct result of environmental
policies that block the use of domestic oil, gas, and coal. The
skyrocketing property tax rates are the direct result of the
environmental
agenda that demands government ownership of all remaining open space.
The
staggering escalation of housing costs is the direct result of
environmental policies that limit the availability of building sites.

It's interesting – and often disgusting – to listen to
environmentalists
squirm when they are confronted with taking responsibility for the mess
they have caused. Their first line of defense is to attack President
Bush
for catering to his (and their) timber and oil industry buddies. Then
they
attack right-wing extremists for not pouring in the billions of dollars
necessary to subsidize the "alternative" energy – which, they say,
would
create a bunch of new jobs.

While they squirm and try to divert blame, the forests burn, the wood
products industry shrinks, oil prices and imports increase, ranchers go
belly-up, and farmers find that they cannot compete with foreign
producers
in countries where there are no environmental and social regulations.

It's bad enough that our jobs are flowing to other countries, and that
our
economy is suffering, but what is even worse, is that our dependence
upon
foreign countries is mounting. We have already become dependent upon
foreign sources for our energy, for no reason other than to accommodate
the misguided vision of environmental extremists – and the New York
Times –
that restoring nature is more important than commerce, or the needs of
humans.

Environmental extremists, and media giants, often demean "sugar barons"
and add a hyphenated "greedy" in front of words such as developers,
loggers, ranchers, to suggest that these people are out to destroy the
environment, just to make a profit.

These developers, loggers, ranchers, farmers, and manufacturers are the
people who built America; it certainly was not the Sierra Club or The
Nature Conservancy. These are the organizations, along with their other
Third Sector cronies, that are ****-bent to destroy America.

Until ordinary people realize that much of their economic grief is
caused
by the unrealistic visions of environmental extremists, we can expect
the
economy to further deteriorate, along with the freedom that was once
the
beacon of this great nation.

RutnNStrutn
09-05-2003, 12:18 AM
What can you say to that, other than "Join the NRA", vote Republican and vote FREEDOM FIRST!!! :mad:

D Duck
09-05-2003, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by RutnNStrutn
What can you say to that, other than "Join the NRA", vote Republican and vote FREEDOM FIRST!!! :mad: You forgot live by the constitution! :D

duckmanJR
09-05-2003, 08:00 AM
So.... You are NOT in favor of Everglades restoration?? It is better to let agri-business have the right to take OUR water...pollute it..then dump it back in the system for us to clean up? :confused: You think that alot of jobs will be lost by big sugar being brought to task for what they have done? The article mentions manufacturing jobs... not migrant cane-cutter positions.
I know my taxes will go up..when has the cost of anything but computer equipment :D gone down. I gladly pay so that there are places that I can go without seeing mans intrusion in nature.

Tell me what the alternative to the Everglades restoration plan is...

Converted
09-05-2003, 09:09 AM
The alternative is what we've got now. Over a billion gallons a day of black polluted fresh water devestating the Saint Lucie Estuary:mad: :mad: :mad:

RutnNStrutn
09-05-2003, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by D Duck
You forgot live by the constitution! :D
If you do what I recommended, you will be living by the Constitution.

Joe and Richard, no, I am not against the Glades restoration, and certainly am no fan of the sugar barons. But there has to be a balance reached between environment and the economy. For instance, while I am concerned about an ecological disaster, I am in favor of offshore oil drilling in the gulf. We need the oil, badly. The same goes for the Glades. It needs help, but not at extreme measures that will tax the pants off of us, and cost the Florida economy.
Additionally, I hate seeing the environmentalists get their way on anything. It only encourages them to go for more stuff. One of their eventual goals is to end hunting on the lands and waters they want restored. So yes there needs to be environmental cleanups and restorations, but we need to be careful who we ally ourselves with to achieve those goals, and be congizant of the effect on the economy those goals will have.

N. Cook
09-10-2003, 11:16 AM
Ahhhh Rut....you have stirred up a hornets nest.....but everything in the post is correct......the radical enviro movement is the socialists' dream come true. Saying you are against any of their carefully constructed anti-capitalist, anti-economic growth "save the planet objectives" is the same as the mantra used by other left-wingers "it"s for the children" when espousing some new entitlement program. Any objection labels you some "uncaring right wing nut case". There are many good enviromental advancements that have been made and many more to do and any thinking person supports the protection of sensitve lands and cleaning the air and water.....but too often the radicals set the enviromental agenda and the benefits are lost for all. If anyone out there does not belive these folks are dangerous.....just check out the recent burning of SUV's in California, the destruction of school labs, etc. that the wackos do. Also, IF YOU ARE A HUNTER.....I can assure you the majority of the enviromental people look at you as some Neanderthal and YOU WILL BE BANNED from disturbing paradise. There are no more rabid anti hunting groups than the vast majority of so call "enviromental" groups.

uncle D
09-10-2003, 09:05 PM
I believe that it's common sense and moderation.

I don't believe in clear cutting ancient cypress or red woods for the lumber's worth nor do I support the past 60 to 100 years worth of no burn policy. If the forest were to be thinned with this in mind great things would be good.

As for the everglades, man has for the past 100 years diked it, drained it and basically destroyed 75% of the natural habitat and if their action aren't stopped the other 25% will be destroyed.

It's that way across the state, I would guess that only 30% remains that was wild.

I don't think humans should be locked out for the sake of nature, but places that haven't been damaged or defaced should remain wild as much as possible.

Duke