Politicizing The Green Debate

IBD Editorials ^ | July 5, 2011 | REP. FRED UPTON

[Kaslin]

There's a troubling irony in today's vigorous debate about environmental policy. Some of the most vocal groups clamoring for a cleaner planet are also the ones stalling progress toward that same goal.

A closer look at contemporary interest-group politics reveals why this is the case.

Republicans and Democrats both desire cleaner air and water. As policymakers we debate the best way to achieve these goals, balancing environmental progress with economic costs.

We consider and weigh multiple objectives: grow jobs, expand the economy and protect the planet. While not always agreeing on the means, we share the same aspirations.

But some environmental groups have narrower purposes. All private lobbying organizations do. After all, that's why they are called "special interests."

And these special interests are operating in an increasingly competitive lobbying realm in Washington — a world where getting on the agenda often requires hefty financial resources and clever political strategies.

These realities not only shape their tactics, but also slow real progress toward cleaner air and water. Today's environmental lobby produces gridlock and hardened positions in Congress rather than common ground. That's because they frame issues in extreme terms to capture attention in an increasingly competitive policy and media environment.

Given the sluggish pace of the economic recovery, stubbornly high unemployment, today's massive federal debt crisis and the ongoing controversy about health care, it's difficult for the environmental lobby to get attention. Moreover, today's fragmented media culture of blogs, online publications and cable news only adds to the environmental lobby's woes.

[nerdwithagun]

This article is way to nice of tree worshipers

[Carry_Okie]

Republicans and Democrats both desire cleaner air and water.

Even if that wasn't the original background condition? Millions of bison trampling stream banks had its consequences you know. Combine that with ashes in the runoff from Indian burning. It fed nitrate and potassium into the riparian habitat that formed the nutritional basis of the aquatic food chain, particularly important in estuaries where so many marine species spawn and rear.

"Clean air" has the same problems, particularly as regards the importance of burning in stimulating post disturbance forbs which serve as the prime source of food for browsing animals and managing decadent woody vegetation back down to safer levels.

Both "clean air" and "clean water" as political causes have done massive damage to the vitality, variety, and productivity of wild lands. IOW, Republicans and Democrats are idiot poseurs, but then, we already knew that.

[a fool in paradise]

“Everybody would like cleaner air and water...”

The dangers posed to air, water, and “climate” have been wildly exaggerated by the Left for 40+ years.

Activist/Actor Ted Danson has come forward to say that he HAD to (lie) use hyperbolic claims in the 1980s telling the public that the oceans would be dead in 20 years so they would pay attention.

Now they are claiming that gasohol, electric cars, and fluorescent light bulbs will “save” us from “hot summers” and “88 Katrinas a year!”.

They are also willing to permit nations that don't have the dependencies on oil to ramp up usage (China and India) and pollute in other manners. This isn't about "clean air", it's about making the West "pay" for achieving a higher standard of living.

[Impy]

They don’t care much about REAL environmental concerns. They’re real desire is to spread socialism as the solution to the mythical “climate change” problem. Green is red.

[Josephat]

They’re watermelons.