Scams-n-Scandals - Nate's Corner (printer-friendly)

SOME THOUGHTS ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL MENTALITY
Nate Dickinson

A recent edition of the Albany, New York Times Union carried an article entitled "We can act locally on the environment" by Paul Bray, who identifies himself as the founder of the Albany Roundtable. This is a civic lunch forum, the mission of which is not noted, other that to eat lunch.

The piece begins with reference to an article in the New Yorker by Elizabeth Kolbert. Kolbert stated that the recent election was not about the environment, but the environment may suffer the largest consequences. It should be evident right-off that neither she or the Roundtable founder are politically aligned with the Party that racked up smashing victories in the recent national elections.

Kolbert continued, saying that the Bush administration, with remarkable single-mindedness, had set about undoing 30 years of work to protect the nation's air, water, and shrinking wilderness. First off, what is her definition of single-mindedness? According to Webster's the first is guileless, singlehearted. Guile is defined as deceitful cunning and President Bush is certainly less of this; and singlehearted means having an honest heart. Is this what she meant? Whatever the case, these are two of the qualities that are a refreshing change over the previous occupant of the White House.

The second definition is having a single purpose. If Kolbert is implying that Bush's objective is to effect the repeal of all of the environmental legislation of the past 30 years, this is sheer nonsense and is typical of the type of scare tactics employed by the radical environmental movement to play on people's emotions, and in the process, fill their coffers and expand their power and control. There is no question, however, that many existing rules and regulations need to be refined so that they meet real needs, and more importantly make sense.

What the New Yorker writer meant by shrinking wilderness is anybody's guess. The amount of land in U.S.A. designated as wilderness has been increasing to a very striking degree for more than 100 years. Add the vast acreage of farmland that was abandoned during the mid-1880s and has reverted to a woodland situation, similar to what existed prior to the American Revolution. An example would be the entire Appalachian Plateau of southern New York State. In respect to wilderness acreage, the big questions that need to be resolved are how much is enough and for what purposes. Unfortunately, the radical environmentalists will say more, more, and more to satisfy their insatiable appetites.

As to be expected, the next item mentioned was the devotion of time to the defense of the nation to protect its citizens, which should be the first and most important role of government. It is stated that the war fever on the Potomac may give the President and his friends a pass on what they want to do to the environment. Is the Roundtable founder - it is assumed that he is now doing the talking in the Times Union article - implying that the war on terror and the hard stance on Iraq are a design to further other agendas, such as the drilling for oil on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? ANWR is as the name implies a refuge for various species of wildlife and not a wilderness and, from a common sense standpoint, any public lands should be used for other purposes that do not pose a conflict. Do not these people have any faith in the technology that this great nation has at its disposal?

Bray doubts that the public wants such drilling, but it is more a matter of liberal politicians not wanting it. Of course, they are the saviors, when it comes to looking after the public's interests. He says to watch for membership in the Sierra Club and other environmental groups to spiral upward, as it did during the Reagan administration. Credit should not be given to this great figure, but rather to Sierra and others for their slick campaigns; which pulled on a naive public's heartstrings and pursestrings. Speaking of the Sierra, it's interesting to note that Pope's reaction to the rifts developing in various chapters over the prospects of a war with Iraq. Pope is in a quandary, since he undoubtedly does not want his organization exposed for what it is; namely an ultra-liberal group interested in control over people's lives and property.

The remainder of the "act locally" article deals with community efforts to protect environmental quality, which in itself is a very vague term. It refers to the first round of environmentalism beginning with Earth Day more than 30 years ago. This, of course, is erroneous and insulting to pioneers in the field of ecology, such as Aldo Leopld, who made major contributions. And, for years there have been many very successful resolutions of conflicts between man's use of the land and critical elements of the environment long before Earth Day was even a dream. Unfortunately, these did not necessarily get the attention they deserved, probably because they were handled in such a courteous manner.

Then the article seems to start to make some sense. Bray, either consciously or unconsciously, is aware that the bulk of the environmental destruction occurs, or has occurred, in the paved-over urban areas and associated sprawl. Talk about drastic changes in ecosystems. Most of the replacement array of flora and fauna is detested by the populace, and they go to great lengths to destroy them with insecticides, pesticides, poison, traps, disinfectants, demolition of prime habitats, among other lethal means. The urban-suburban dwellers pull weeds from their lawns, use manufactured fertilizer, and regularly mow them so that trees do not stand a chance. They exhibit a lack of respect for Mother Nature and yet many call themselves environmentalists. Please note that a sense of humor is necessary when dealing with them.

So how should we act locally on the environment in areas where the masses of people reside, which incidentally constitute an extremely small percent of the vast U.S.A. ? Chances are Paul Bray might become a little frustrated with the facts and resulting dilemma, which he probably would choose to ignore. Could there be a guilt feeling amongst the urbanites and suburbanites, which they try to make up for by penalizing those who reside in the rural and wild places? What appears to be totally lacking in this discussion is an appreciation of the undeniable fact that throughout the world the only societies that are capable of effectively addressing environmental problems, and also taking care of their needy, are those that are free, foster capitalism and free enterprise with a minimum of government interference, and strictly enforce private property rights.

He does state that his area is not a complete slacker when it comes to environmental stewardship. One of the gems he offers is the new DEC (Department of Environmental Conservation) building which, in conformance with the natural setting sits on the banks of the Hudson River smack dab in the middle of Albany. It has the distinction of receiving the Green Buildings Council award for its environmentally conscious design. It is not stated what makes this edifice more attractive than the natural setting that existed.

A minor question that was not addressed was why the DEC needed a new building, since a good case could be made that this power-hungry agency was already horrible over-staffed. Of course the ultra-green environmentalists demanded more and more bodies to effect the desired harassment of private property owners with non-sensical designations of wetlands and threatened or endangered flora and fauna, preparation of wish lists of properties to add to their kingdom, and the social engineering of the Adirondacks, among numerous other noble undertakings.

Bray identifies the Tivoli preserve and the Albany Pine Bush as outstanding urban projects. Tivoli was created to serve as a model urban park some time ago. A survey was subsequently conducted to monitor use. A question still exists as to the findings, which would give some idea of the benefits to costs. The Pine Bush is a sorry commentary on bureaucratic stewardship. Incidentally, this scrub oak-pitch pine community has been there for eons, and prior to effective fire suppression extended much further to the north. Periodic fires are necessarily to maintain the existing flora and fauna, and DEC has a poor record in conducting the required controlled burns. Deer populations are uncontrolled with resulting devastation of shrubbery and gardens on private properties and the virtual elimination of pitch pine reproduction essential for perpetuation of the Bush.

At times it is very difficult to ascertain just what is on the minds of the environmental leaders. They sure think differently than those on the right side.

December 19, 2002 Nate Dickinson

Common Sense Wildlife Management