Posted on 08/22/2011 8:41:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
In reaching to remain relevant, the environmental movement has had to change tactics.
Back in the seventies, when America looked like China does today, environmental issues needed attention. But then we cleaned up the air and water. The skies and rivers went from brown to blue. As Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore explains, in order to stay relevant, environmentalists had to find new issues.
For most of the last decade global warming has been their cause, and carbon—or burning fossil fuels—was vilified as the cause. This gave way to a whole new industry: green. Green energy would replace fossil fuels. Wind and solar would replace coal as the source fuel for electricity and ethanol, or other fuels generated from biomass, would replace liquid fuels. Green energy would provide new “green” jobs. The world would be a beautiful place.
This all sounded nice. It felt good.
But that was before data began to be show how much more all of this was going to cost and the urgent need to save the planet passed. The polar bears were not drowning. The measurements were found to be falsified. Consensus science didn’t work. The seas did not rise and the world seemed to adapt to whatever the various changes have been. There was a “newfound hostility to climate policy.” Suddenly, we did not want to spend so much on “feel good.”
Obama’s cap and trade campaign promise died. Ethanol is on the budget chopping block. Switching to wind and solar is not proving to be as easy as expected. Environmentalists admitted defeat.
But, wait! They have organizations set up, offices with leases, and employees who need to be paid. They can’t just pack up. A new approach was needed.
Enter public health.
Last month when Mayor Bloomberg gave $50 million to the Sierra Club’s campaign to shut down coal plants, he stated: “Coal is a self-inflicted public health risk.” The discussion has changed to something every mother can get behind.
Along with this, we see television ads attacking the emissions from coal-fueled power plants, not for their CO2 emissions, not for their impact on climate change, but for the health risks. The American Lung Association and the EPA must be in cahoots on this campaign—the EPA has given the ALA nearly $30 million in taxpayer dollars.
According to the National Institutes for Health’s Data Fact Sheet on Asthma Statics, “The prevalence of asthma has been increasing since the early 1980s.” If the prevalence of asthma has been increasing as America’s air has been getting cleaner and cleaner, perhaps adding new and expensive regulations on behalf of public health isn’t really about public health. In fact, a recent study done by Kendle M. Maslowski and Charles R. Mackay published in the Nature Immunology indicates that we may have cleaned up the air so much that the body doesn’t have the chance to build up immunities.
While only a small percentage of the population suffer from asthma, and the science is questionable as to whether or not pushing the law of diminishing returns will help, the Obama administration talks about rolling back regulations while pushing the EPA to enact harsh new regulations that will eliminate the best economic asset America has: comparatively cheap energy.
Specifically in question here is the EPA’s new ozone regulations—with a final decision expected in the next couple of weeks. But there is more than just ozone, there is the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, BART and MACT—all of which are expected to shut down a large percentage of existing coal-fueled power plants because the cost to retro fit is just too high. Many units have already shut down throughout the country.
With these “public-health” aimed regulations added on top of one another, it is amazing that Americans are living longer and longer. If all of these regulations are really about health, why are they being rammed through by the Environmental Protection Agency—not the Department of Health?
As Congress continues to threaten to defund the EPA, perhaps, like the environmentalists, they have had to reinvent themselves to stay relevant—but in doing so, they are raising the price of energy and everything else, including food and clothing and all other basic necessities as they, too, are energy dependent.
If they can so easily switch from climate change to public health, you have to wonder if climate change was ever the issue and if public health is the real concern now. Why is it that the powers that be are so set on raising the cost of energy—through whatever means seems publicly viable?
The obvious answer is something not palatable to most Americans. Which brings up the next question: What can we do to stop them?
At a recent a meeting with Karl Rove, I asked: “Given the current administration, what can the public do to change the energy policy in America?”
In short, his answer was, keep reminding people how important energy is. November 2012 is coming.
If Americans are to continue to have the freedoms we have, energy has to be a part of the discussion and Americans need to understand the real benefits to cost-effective energy. Together we can change the energy/environment discussion.
This was a obvious fantasy from day one .... there wasn’t any vocal push back by Republicans regarding this
In the vacuum....insanity set in
bump
karl rove’s position was unexplained.
*************************************
Teddy Roosevelt proclaimed: the new nationalism rightly maintains that every man holds his property subject to the general right of the community to regulate its use to whatever degree the public welfare may require it.
It’s funny. Just 2 years ago human activity was killing the planet along with all the furry creatures and apocalypse was nigh. Now the ruse has gone from we must decrease the population to a sudden concern about the health of the population. Humanity must now be saved, not destroyed.
It’s all about power and control.
There is no NEED for them to “stay relevant”. The driving need is for them to STAY EMPLOYED. The American people listened to and realized the need for a cleaning up of many environmental problem within the country. We agreed and did our own part and..in American fashion, the problem was faced, worked on and solved.
What a catastrophe that was. The loss of jobs couldn’t be allowed so the NEED was for NEW crusades. Again and again, problems were worked on...mercury, carcinogens, auto exhaust, the list is long. When goals were met, the requirement were pushed further and further afield.
Today, ENVIRONMENTALISM is its own self sustaining industry, costing the country and its people millions of dollars is onerous regulations, regulations mandated by people who live in terror that they will run out of things to condemn, thus losing their well funded employment, just as thousands of citizens have lost their employment.
Enough..enuf..sufficient..cut it out.
A distilled essence of Progressivism. Of course, if one's individual ownership of property is subject to an unlimited right of others to regulate its use, then the very concept of "ownership" is rendered meaningless.
At best - one becomes a mere custodian, subject to the instant whims of a nameless and collective group of others, yet still responsible for the property whose potential uses one does not have the power to decide upon. At worst - one becomes their servant.
yep. that’s right.
why the stupid people that advocate such can’t figure it out,
i don’t know.
i like these college kids that are trying to get their peers to share their grade points.
now that’s a learning moment for libs.
When they can tax something you OWN(property) Then you are paying rent to the gov’t to OWN IT... AND you didn’t really own it after all...The gov’t does..
You buy them books.. THEY EAT THE PAGES...
And what they want to do with that power is not pretty. Their hidden underlying motive is to reduce their painful leftist feelings of envy by forcing everyone into a Cuban lifestyle of minimal activity. They will force us into smaller homes, smaller cars, smaller families, and force us to watch their ministry of truth brainwashing on smaller TVs. They will have achieved their planned utopia only when we have reached bottom and nobody has anything left to envy.
I add my thoughts to support your post. The lobby industry that receives grant money from our tax dollar and special favors through the action of politicians, is driven by the big stick of the EPA. It is the kickbacks to the politician that encourages corrupt cronyism, the legislation of regulations and the growing of Bigger Government. With money flowing into campaign coffers to buy special favors and grant money, it encourages more regulation that raises the stakes for more kickbacks. We have regulations that no longer deal with the real world. Instead, all that matters is the politician’s investment fund drawn out of his campaign War Chest.
Wrong, it is a well thought out plan to bring America to Her knees.
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.