I verily hate the radical environmentalist movement. Thus, I was overjoyed when President Obama felt forced to pull the plug on a new set of Clean Air Standards. I believe radical environmentalists support expanding the ability of the state to usurp my property and control my actions in a fascist and iniquitous manner. They are soulless hypocrites endangering the ability of future generations to enjoy a rich and happy life on Planet Earth. This is why Liberals can't be trusted with the environment.
I therefore believe Al Gore is our generation’s answer to Benedict Arnold. He is a traitor to everything that a decently concerned citizen should feel about the Earth’s environment. Thus, I feel both joy and then later concern when Walter Russell Mead writes the following.
As green leaders choke on their locally sourced, organic heirloom vegetables in impotent rage and ponder writing really, really angry letters to NPR, it is interesting to reflect on the political dead end into which they have been driven.
I’m overjoyed because the current environmental movement is, to put this bluntly, run by a bunch of disingenuous, socialistic glory-seekers. It has nothing to do with decency, science, planetary safety or the preservation of human life. The New York Times gave us insight into the recent “endangerment finding” regarding CO2.
The agency finding also will allow Mr. Obama to tell delegates at the United Nations climate change conference that began today in Copenhagen that the United States is moving aggressively to address the problem.
All this posturing set up yet another Mexican Stand-off between President Obama and Congress. On 2 Jan 2011, the EPA pushed ahead with an effort to regulate GHG emissions from petroleum refineries and fossil fuel power plants. The states hit back hard. Twelve states filed suit against the Federal Government to block the regulation. Congressman Fred Upton denounced the regulation.
On Jan. 2, the Environmental Protection Agency will officially begin regulating the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This move represents an unconstitutional power grab that will kill millions of jobs—unless Congress steps in.
Barack Obama was forced to blink. The EPA was preparing to hand down a tougher O3 standard that would have thrown hundreds of American counties out of compliance with the Clean Air Act. The President rejected these standards in the face of open rebellion. I’ve lived in LA and understand well that smog is hateful. I’ve also been unemployed and am not fond of that either. In the end, Barack Obama was forced to repudiate the environmentalist tenet of faith that no economic cost could forestall regulation.
So this should enlighten us all that nobody will save the planet by hating the people who earn a living thereon. The Earth’s environment has serious problems that need a solution. GHGs are not one of them. I’m way more worried declining stocks of edible fish worldwide than I am about climate change.
If I were a better businessman and knew a thing or two about Marine biology, I could also fix this problem with far less power-grabbing and economic dislocation that any movement environmentalist would ever tolerate. I could start a fishery and grow these species with far less effort and greater return than is garnered from trolling the depths. This wouldn’t allow anyone to usurp property rights or ban commerce, so no liberal environmentalist would support it. Therefore, species of rare ocean fish die out each and every year.
It’s far more empowering to play Numerical Dungeons and Dragons with BS Climate Models. You can shut down somebody’s power plant and make them beg you for a permit to turn their lights back on. That’s what stirs the Environmental Activist’s soul. However, it makes honest, concerned citizens look far less credible when we ask people to take an intelligent look at our current over-fishing problem. This is why I opened this post by comparing Al Gore to Benedict Arnold.
I also mentioned President Nixon’s historic diplomacy with China in the title. A GOP-led initiative to fix environmental concerns could be as contra-intuitive as a GOP President cutting a mutually-beneficial deal with China’s Marxian Tyrants to sand-bag the worse and more frightening Soviets. Secondly, unencumbered by the zealotry and idiocy of the Leftist Environmental Activist Community, an environmental policy could address actual problems.
Regulation would be driven by cost-benefit analysis; not whether Barack Obama looked credible enough at the upcoming international hot air summit. Goals would be simple, obtainable and done in accordance with the ethic of “First, do no harm!” So, no, there isn’t any Republican candidate who would lie to us about making the tides recede like King Canute.
However, we may well develop a policy that makes those oceans a safer place for beautiful and exotic fish; while doing so at as low a cost as possible. That would be good, basic stewardship. That, not grandiose, political posturing against all modern industry can ultimately save and preserve the planet.