Posted on 06/29/2007 10:40:30 PM PDT by Gondring
[...] the law of unintended consequences, and in the context of the environmental movement, it means that when you go green, green isn't always what you get.
[A] major effect of Carson's indictment of pesticide use was a widespread ban on DDT, which amounted to a reprieve for malaria-carrying mosquitoes and led to a higher continued death rate from the disease than otherwise would have occurred.
[...]
"It's a cliche to say that everything is connected to everything else," says Eric Orts, a legal studies professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School and director of the university's new global initiative on business and the environment. "But at some level that's true, and we really need to have some creative analysis" to predict the effects of a given action.
Orts says legislation is one area where it's particularly easy for results to "go over the mark" of what was intended.
"The most significant example is the Superfund law," [...], he says. "The total cost of legal fees [...] is just ridiculously high compared to the money spent actually cleaning it up."
Orts warns that legislation being considered to address climate change also has the potential to deliver unintended results, especially if it includes a carbon tax. [...]
Perhaps the most perverse of green's unintended consequences are those that are antithetical to green. [...]
The green bias that says "everything has to be small and every large corporation is not to be trusted" [...]
[...]Orts urges the champions of green initiatives to adopt an equally long view [as big business(!)].
"People need to have a broad perspective," he says. "Just because you take action in one area that might be green doesn't mean that in some other area it's not going to cut another way."
(Excerpt) Read more at liveearth.msn.com ...
"The total cost of legal fees to try to work out when to clean up what is just ridiculously high compared to the money spent actually cleaning it up."
More than 85% to legal fees, etc.
More evidence that liberalism kills people.
No "unintended consequence" there. Greenies think humans are are a plague on the earth. Less humans is a good thing to them.
We see the “unintended consequences” of overzealous environmental regulation a lot. No individual, small family farmer or business can afford the cost of permits and California Environmental Quality Act analysis. So the farms and ranches and timberlands get folded under the big corporate owners who have staffs of biologists, hydrologists, silvaculturalists and attorneys.
The other common alternative result is that the lands are taken out of agriculture/timberland altogether and developed. This certainly is not a better result for the environment.
Why would they care? That's part of the plan. Make someone pay and pay and pay.
No one seems to understand that leftist causes are giant ponzi schemes designed to make lawyers rich. The useful idiots scream and whine and the attorneys sit back and collect the fees while the politicians collect the donations.
At the least it is criminal activity. Marxism is only an ideology to the idiots. To the elite it is a tool to make money.
So how do you get away with it? First things first. Shut down the Justice department so you cannot be investigated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.