- Well, boo hoo hoo. That's the most sympathy I can muster
for all those Californians currently tripping over their espresso makers
in the dark. For once we have some justice. Very bad decisions mean very
cold hot tubs.
-
- I'm not talking here about deregulation (though the bureaucrats
sure botched the job). I'm talking about supporting extreme environmentalism.
-
- California is home to any number of earth-saving groups.
More to the point, it's home to an inordinate number of people who fund
them. From the Napa Valley to the Imperial, middle-class, left-leaning
types have stumped up quite a bit of booty for "good environmental
causes." Californians consider themselves some of nature's best friends.
-
- But now these armchair environmentalists are faced with
a big decision. A decade's worth of ill-advised programs are starting to
cramp their cushy lifestyles. California enacted some of the strictest
environmental rules in the world and refused to build any new dam or plant.
Now, with supply low and prices high, the state is flailing. And so the
armchair crowd must decide: Will they support radical environmentalism
or pragmatic conservation?
-
- Armchair environmentalists are very much a product of
our times. They're the people who say we mustn't cut down trees or drill
in the tundra, but then drag their children through Yellowstone in a gas-guzzling
SUV and start campfires on the side of the road. They sit in their four-bedroom
houses, on nice one-acre plots at the edge of town, and fret about urban
sprawl. They own energy-sucking computers and televisions, but adamantly
oppose new hydroelectric dams. Once a year, perhaps twice, they sit down
and write fat checks to the Sierra Club or Greenpeace. And they feel very
good about themselves. There are a lot of these folks. They qualify for
the "armchair" label, because they actually know very little
about the environment. They don't really need to, because their mission
isn't really to do right by the planet but to ease their own guilt over
the good economic times. And so they lazily support causes that sound good:
affirmative action, campaign finance and . nature.
-
- Armchair environmentalists have done little to follow
up on their environmental investments. The groups they funded sallied forth
to Washington during the 1990s, and, finding an all-too-willing Clinton
administration, became shrill and extreme in their demands. Reasonable
suggestions for preservation gave way to backroom deals on animal research,
severe restrictions on logging, and ill-considered decisions to stop building
fire roads in millions of acres of forest land.
-
- And hey presto, look what the armchair dwellers got.
Their prized Western vineyards are being shut down in deference to a supposedly
endangered salamander. Wealthy upstate New Yorkers have had their backyards
turned into protected wetlands. Snowmobiling, that favorite weekend treat
of hardworking executives, may be barred from national forests. Electricity
prices are soaring because no plants have been built. And with all those
blackouts, how are Californians supposed to charge up their electric cars?
-
- Now the armchair crowd is whining: This wasn't what we
meant!
-
- California is an amusing lesson of cause and effect.
It takes all those worst-case scenarios that responsible conservationists
have been warning about for years and makes them reality. It shows, step
by step, what happens when pie-in-the-sky environmental policies--initiated
by environmental groups, paid for by armchair environmentalists and pushed
through by ambitious politicians--win out over a reasoned balance between
humans and nature. California energy demands have risen 25% over the past
eight years, while the supply of new electricity has risen 6%. What makes
for the difference? Well, a coalition of environmental groups spent decades
fighting the building of the Auburn Dam, a hydroelectric facility with
immense electrical potential. The Rancho Seco nuclear reactor near Sacramento
was shuttered after environmental groups campaigned against it. Calpine
Corp. has been barred from building a plant in the Coyote Valley. Severe
air pollution regulations have kept plants from running at full capacity.
The list goes on. No major power plant has been built in California for
10 years, each one stopped because of environmental protests.
-
- A friend recently mourned the days when environmental
groups gathered like-minded people to appreciate nature and think of ways
to care for it. There still are some: Hunting organizations across the
U.S. organize cleanup days when members go out into the forest to pick
up litter. Many private charities use their money not for lobbying but
for buying pieces of land at market prices and then working hard to preserve
the flora and fauna on their plots.
-
- But most of these grass-roots organizations have given
way to radical groups demanding heavy-handed government intervention. This
is partly because the people who funded them didn't bother to understand
what they supported. It was partly because younger idealists came to their
helms. It was partly because Eastern lawmakers, ignorant of the West and
its needs and practices, had these special interests to lunch and made
them promises.
-
- Either way, these groups no longer care about stimulating
public interest in the natural world. They have their own, fanatical views
of how nature should be managed and intend to make us live by their rules.
The eco-terrorist who has been burning down houses in Arizona because they
obstructed his mountain-biking views has been egged on by environmentalists
of all stripes.This shouldn't surprise us; it's the next logical step for
people who believe humans play second fiddle to trees.
-
- George W. Bush has said when he leaves office he wants
cleaner air and water than when he arrived. But Mr. Bush and his interior
secretary, Gale Norton, realize the way to do this is through forward-looking
ideas like market environmentalism, an approach that holds that market
incentives encourage individuals to conserve resources and protect the
environment. By putting market values on our resources (like water for
electricity, or land for grazing rights) we as a nation can decide how
much we are willing to pay forour conservation, how much for other activities,
and then make intelligent tradeoffs. Of course, I could be wrong. If you're
a Californian and you have ideas for how to keep enjoying your plump lifestyle
without exploiting natural resources, by all means e-mail them to me. Oops,
I forgot, you can't. You don't have any power for your computer.
-
-
- Ms. Strassel is an assistant features editor of The Wall
Street Journal's editorial page. Her column appears on alternate Thursdays
Comment
-
-
- From Michael Feeney
mfeeney2@mediaone.net
2-16-1
-
-
- Please accept this response for a reader who did not
appreciate the content, but rather, considered the article misleading and
irresponsible reporting.
-
-
- It's Not So Green In The Dark - CA Environmentalists
Had It Coming....
-
- M.F. Oh, yes, the Environmentalists had it coming.
These must be the same environmentalists who voted for de-regulation, meaning,
you, "big business", do whatever the hell you want to form silent
cartels, gouge consumers, pay off politicians, and spend tax-payer money
to lobby and produce misleading or outright propaganda that would put the
very notion of deregulation in a falsely positive light. Oh, you must mean
us...... right? Who are you kidding? What the hell are you doing there
in enlightened New York? You've got corpulent pseudo-green yuppies up the
wazoo.... yeah, I've been to New York before.
-
-
-
- By Kimberley A. Strassel Wall Street Journal 2-15-1
-
- Well, boo hoo hoo. That's the most sympathy I can muster
for all those Californians currently tripping over their espresso makers
in the dark. For once we have some justice. Very bad decisions mean very
cold hot tubs.
-
- M.F. Hmm.... do note a bit of "attitude" here,
that is unfounded, and really mean spirited and small minded.... yes. What,
you don't have 'espression- makers' and hot tubs in New York - that are
using excessive amounts of energy for the rare privileged you have there?
We're getting off to a fine, hypocritical start here....
-
-
-
- I'm not talking here about deregulation (though the bureaucrats
sure botched the job). I'm talking about supporting extreme environmentalism.
-
-
- M.F. Oh, well, you should be talking about deregulation.
That's what's screwed up the whole affair, with big money supporting falsely
represented legislation, a deception that survived a vote. This is why
unbridled greed - something that New York is most famous for - should not
be rewarded. The people should own the utilities, the essential services
necessary for survival. Not companies - like IBM - who would support the
Nazis. I am talking about Edison, and Enron.
-
- When Utility Companies set up a false front - then bring
down a threat for bankruptcy, that is the problem. They don't care about
people, they care about themselves, about profit. Screw them.
-
- This was more than obvious when you investigate the set
up that the power companies executed.... the dispersal of dividends and
artificial reduction of assets. No doubt part of a thought-out plan to
suck a "bail out" money from the minions of California. Oh,
why do I want to vomit all of a sudden, excuse.. me.....
-
-
-
- California is home to any number of earth-saving groups.
More to the point, it's home to an inordinate number of people who fund
them. From the Napa Valley to the Imperial, middle-class, left-leaning
types have stumped up quite a bit of booty for "good environmental
causes." Californians consider themselves some of nature's best friends.
-
-
- M.F. What other choices are there, really, if you want
a sustainable future? What is Washington, D.C. doing, or your state? Not
enough. Your garbage problem is just the tip of the iceberg, Sissy. Your
environmental management practices are embarrassing. So, when you get abound
to actually doing something of value, you might be afforded some room for
attitude.
-
-
-
- But now these armchair environmentalists are faced with
a big decision. A decade's worth of ill-advised programs are starting to
cramp their cushy lifestyles.
-
- M.F. Yeah, so who's next? Didn't you write your article
on a computer? You folks burn your lights at night in the city. Isn't
our problem quite possibly everybody's problem..... eventually? Hey, check
out India if you want to see runaway rip offs.
-
-
-
- California enacted some of the strictest environmental
rules in the world and refused to build any new dam or plant.
-
- M.F. Yeah, and your point....? The point is that everyone
should do the same, considering dwindling resources, global warming, and
six billion people and counting. All taken with reasonable steps towards
a sustainable future goal.
-
-
-
- Now, with supply low and prices high, the state is flailing.
-
- M.F. Artificially...... Hey, we try and try to get alternative
energy price breaks going, and we push for conservation, but it's tough
without government support, programs, rebates, and the lot. This is, by
the way, something that the whole world should be partaking..... but you
seem to pin this condition on California as if it's our own fault.
-
-
-
- And so the armchair crowd must decide: Will they support
radical environmentalism or pragmatic conservation?
-
- M.F. What exactly in the hell are you talking about?
Who is the armchair crowd? Speak for yourself, if you can possibly conceive
of what I have just written. This is anecdotal, idiotic prattle, that you
seem to purvey with assurance as if it's actually true, and not stinking
propaganda. The answer is both, and more.... imbecile.
-
-
-
-
- Armchair environmentalists are very much a product of
our times.
-
- M.F. Yeah, and you're somehow not?
-
-
-
- They're the people who say we mustn't cut down trees
-
- M.F. Why cut down trees, when you can grow hemp, just
like during WWII when the practice was accrued temporary legality? The
stuff grows like a weed, in more places that coastal regions. Why isn't
this practice in effect? Perhaps because of bought off politicians, who
owe a lot of stupid behavior to the Lumber Industry lobbyists.
-
-
-
- or drill in the tundra, but then drag their children
through Yellowstone in a gas-guzzling SUV and start campfires on the side
of the road. They sit in their four-bedroom houses, on nice one-acre plots
at the edge of town, and fret about urban sprawl. They own energy-sucking
computers and televisions, but adamantly oppose new hydroelectric dams.
-
- M.F. Hey, speak for yourself, fool! Even is SOME people
are like this, not ALL are. You seem to paint environmentalists as if they
are in one big boat, as if they are all hypocrites. You are the hypocrite,
and an embarrassment to journalism.
-
-
-
- Once a year, perhaps twice, they sit down and write fat
checks to the Sierra Club or Greenpeace. And they feel very good about
themselves. There are a lot of these folks. They qualify for the "armchair"
label, because they actually know very little about the environment.
-
- <M.F. Who's fault is that? Ever check out a library
recently? They're all but gutted, hours chopped. You ever see stuff on
TV or hear about environmentally progressive ideas on the radio - like
enduring practices for conservation? No, of course not.... not enough to
matter. Corporate Special Interests pay people to hypnotize the populace
to believe that they must depend on them. What's coming: BOYCOTT. Yes,
a systematic Boycott applied to companies that do not demonstrate environmental
responsibility will become a regular practice. Yeah, I wonder, does McDonald's
offer any matching funds for contributions to the Sierra Club? Hmmmmm I
don't think so.
-
-
-
-
- They don't really need to, because their mission isn't
really to do right by the planet but to ease their own guilt over the
good economic times. And so they lazily support causes that sound good:
affirmative action, campaign finance and nature.
-
- M.F. Okay, then, what the hell is the Wall Street Journal
doing? Blocking out Nader's recommendations, like the New York Times? Publishing
an annoying, no-solutions article? Bleahhhhh. I don't buy your concern.
I believe the word that comes to mind is inauthentic, your article. I believe
your motivations are purely propagandistic. Bush-league garbage.
-
-
-
- Armchair environmentalists have done little to follow
up on their environmental investments. The groups they funded sallied
forth to Washington during the 1990s, and, finding an all-too-willing
Clinton administration, became shrill and extreme in their demands. Reasonable
suggestions for preservation gave way to backroom deals on animal research,
severe restrictions on logging, and ill-considered decisions to stop building
fire roads in millions of acres of forest land.
-
- M.F. Propaganda. So says you. Utter non-sense. Honey,
everyone was stuck with the Clinton administration, even people who want
to foster a sustainable future. Any back room deals have and will always
be going on.... AT LEAST WE MADE THE EFFORT! Armchair, or not..... Oh,
and "shrill"? Do you know that at least an acre (at least an
acre) of oxygen producing growth is being destroyed every second? Consumable
water will be the biggest problem on the earth (barring nuclear, biological
attacks) in the next decade, and you have the gall to apply the word "shrill".
You have got to be a fool, or a Republican, or both.
-
-
-
- And hey presto, look ...
-
- M.F. What garbage you shovel out to readers under the
illusion that you speak from wisdom!
-
-
-
- ....what the armchair dwellers got. Their prized Western
vineyards are being shut down in deference to a supposedly endangered
salamander. Wealthy upstate New Yorkers have had their backyards turned
into protected wetlands. Snowmobiling, that favorite weekend treat of hardworking
executives, may be barred from national forests. Electricity prices are
soaring because no plants have been built. And with all those blackouts,
how are Californians supposed to charge up their electric cars?
-
- M.F. Guess what's coming your way? The inevitable fight
to shut down the fools and idiots that would destroy the earth. Wherever
they live....be it in California, or New York. Quit your whining, and do
something that matters, as opposed to grinding out junk like this article.
-
-
-
- Now the armchair crowd is whining: This wasn't what we
meant!
-
- M.F. Yes it is. And so will you reap the results of
this change in consciousness. So will you flee from producing stupid articles
like this, as even YOU TOO will eventually succumb to the unassailable
logic that the earth's resources are indeed precious, and being wasted,
and that its genetics - be it flora and fauna - including salamanders -
must be protected. This will reach a point where even your wrong-headed
organ - in an effort to avoid retractions - will rather confuse, grouse,
and change the subject, so as to diffuse the record of your own shining
stupidity.
-
-
-
- California is an amusing lesson of cause and effect.
It takes all those worst-case scenarios that responsible conservationists
have been warning about for years and makes them reality. It shows, step
by step, what happens when pie-in-the-sky environmental policies"
-
- M.F. Pie in the sky? What in hell are you talking about?
Tell, me, did the Bush administration plant the notion for this article
in your lap? Sure sounds like it. Like our SELECTED PRESIDENT, the notion
is false, propagandistic.
-
-
-
- ....initiated by environmental groups, paid for by armchair
environmentalists and pushed through by ambitious politicians--win out
over a reasoned balance between humans and nature. California energy demands
have risen 25% over the past eight years, while the supply of new electricity
has risen 6%. What makes for the difference? Well, a coalition of environmental
groups spent decades fighting the building of the Auburn Dam, a hydroelectric
facility with immense electrical potential. The Rancho Seco nuclear reactor
near Sacramento was shuttered after environmental groups campaigned against
it.
-
- M.F. So? What, this is an example of why unbridled energy
demands should be allowed and encouraged? Uh, regarding Rancho Seco, have
you any bright ideas on how to safely, cleanly, remove the remainder fissionable
product that nuclear reactors produce? Didn't think so.
-
-
-
- Calpine Corp. has been barred from building a plant in
the Coyote Valley. Severe air pollution regulations have kept plants from
running at full capacity.
-
- M.F. Anyone hear of "conservation", anyone?
A very under-exploited option. Oh, sure, how about non-polluting energy
resources, could you imagine if they were supported by government funding,
and supportive legislation.... anyone? Who are you kidding, again. No me,
nor many Californians like me - that detest stupid articles like this.
This propaganda isn't doing anyone any good, unless you work for a PRO-BUSINESS,
"sustainable future" immune administration, and frame of mind
(see Texas).
-
-
-
- The list goes on. No major power plant has been built
in California for 10 years, each one stopped because of environmental protests.
-
- M.F. The anti-green BS never stops. Corporations are
afraid that people will mobilize for a sustainable future, and so they
should be afraid. So should you be afraid - because you're the one that's
looking stupid.
-
- A friend recently mourned the days when environmental
groups gathered like-minded people to appreciate nature and think of ways
to care for it.
-
- These days are not over, they are just beginning.
-
- There still are some: Hunting organizations across the
U.S. organize cleanup days when members go out into the forest to pick
up litter. Many private charities use their money not for lobbying but
for buying pieces of land at market prices and then working hard to preserve
the flora and fauna on their plots.
-
- Yeah, there are lots of ways people try and stop the
destruction of the earth. This bit of anecdotal crap is not helping by
looking down on the effort. This just more propaganda. Who's going to mourn
corporate dinosaurs? Not this writer, not Californians like myself.
-
-
-
- But most of these grass-roots organizations have given
way to radical groups demanding heavy-handed government intervention.
-
- M.F. Propaganda. Example, in California, if THE PEOPLE
own the utilities, or a major part of them, then the system operators won't
threaten bankruptcy while giving away their profits wholesale so they can
create an artificial crisis. Yes, artificial. It's not having enough electricity,
now, but a cartel of utilities that are seeking to get corporate welfare
handout from the population.
-
-
-
- This is partly because the people who funded them didn't
bother to understand what they supported. It was partly because younger
idealists came to their helms. It was partly because Eastern lawmakers,
ignorant of the West and its needs and practices, had these special interests
to lunch and made them promises.
-
- M.F. What is this? "Partly because"? This
is more than partly B.S. Wall street depends upon investors. Green minded
investors can cause change, if you get enough of them. That is what this
article is about. It is about keeping people's minds in a vacuum sealed
bottle of ancient thinking. This article spells fear, fear that the irresponsible
corporations - that is, no sustainable future-minded corporations - will
have to bend to the green demands of the stock-holders. Yes, or they will
withdraw their funds! Ha ha .
-
-
-
- Either way, these groups no longer care about stimulating
public interest in the natural world. They have their own, fanatical views
of how nature should be managed and intend to make us live by their rules.
The eco-terrorist who has been burning down houses in Arizona because they
obstructed his mountain-biking views has been egged on by environmentalists
of all stripes. This shouldn't surprise us; it's the next logical step
for people who believe humans play second fiddle to trees.
-
- M.F. "no longer care"; ""They
have their own fanatical views" "eco-terrorist"; "this
shouldn't surprise us". These terms are the very imprint of anecdotal
hyperbole (see also propaganda). It is incorrect analysis, really an attempt
to color a multitude by the smallest example. Garbage.
-
-
-
- George W. Bush has said when he leaves office he wants
cleaner air and water than when he arrived.
-
- M.F. Just like in Houston, the dirtiest U.S. city?
-
-
-
- But Mr. Bush and his interior secretary, Gale Norton,
realize the way to do this is through forward-looking ideas like market
environmentalism, an approach that holds that market incentives encourage
individuals to conserve resources and protect the environment.
-
- M.F. You must be paid off, or fearfully instructed by
your Editor and Publisher. You must really need to keep you job to put
out this asinine bullpucky.
-
-
-
- By putting market values on our resources (like water
for electricity, or land for grazing rights) we as a nation can
-
- M.F. Privatize and destroy the environment.
-
-
-
- decide how much we are willing to pay for our conservation,
how much for other activities, and then make intelligent tradeoffs.
-
- M.F. Yeah, who decides....? The same people who secretly
meet to decide NAFTA matters? No. You are incorrect. If you look to history,
say.... the railroads, you will see that business and the will of brainless
capitalism isn't going to correct itself. It will, as it has, rush headlong
into the destruction and consumption of resources for the sole goal of
self aggrandizement - or for the few - all for power and control without
responsibility. Consider that if you cook the golden goose that afforded
the gifts in the first place, you will have nothing in the end. That is
what is happening, and the fools in charge are the ones you wish to remain
in charge. Only an idiot would want this.
-
-
-
- Of course, I could be wrong.
-
- M.F. Yes, and so is your screwed-up sense of sarcasm.
-
-
-
- If you're a Californian and you have ideas for how to
keep enjoying your plump lifestyle without exploiting natural resources,
by all means e-mail them to me.
-
- M.F. Hopefully, you won't be around. You and your ilk
will become extinct.
-
-
-
- Oops, I forgot, you can't. You don't have any power for
your computer.
-
- M.F. Oh, that is so-o clever. This pseudo-clever conclusion
is the true mark of a weak imagination, just like your comrades in the
White House.
-
-
-
- Ms. Strassel is an assistant features editor of The Wall
Street Journal's editorial page. Her column appears on alternate Thursdays.
-
|