Why The Left Is Wrong on the Environment
5 reasons why liberal Red Green and Blue commentators are wrong about the Republican’s record on the environment, and another 7 reasons why the Democrats have failed.
One look at it [Red Green and Blue] and it was clear that you suffer from the misconception that only liberals care about greenness therefore, we won’t mind your obvious political bias and childish slaps at people like me…
…..I’ve been a Republican since 1992 and can’t think of a single Republican I know that is anything less than concerned about this planet….
….Web sites like yours perpetuate the lie that Republicans have not been friendly to the environment.
Our reader goes on to provide 5 reasons why liberals, particularly those that write for Red Green and Blue, are wrong:
- The bipartisan effort of Congressman Wally Herger and Dianne Feinstein in far northern California was passed in 1998 and signed by Clinton. This program has the full support of the Bush Administration, which has made healthy forests a priority from his first days in office. Environmental extremists including the Sierra Club have fought such measures, issuing denigrating statements about the efforts. Environmentalist policies that have kept the forests unhealthy resulted in untold losses in California wildfires last summer and in other years.
- Drilling for oil in ANWR has consistently been stopped, mostly by liberals, and backed, mostly by conservatives and, regardless of party, the majority of residents of Alaska. Liberals look at the goal of drilling in ANWR as an environmental black eye for conservatives, even as we continue to import oil. But at tremendous cost to themselves, oil companies have improved their technology to the point that the impact of extraction on the environment is a tiny fraction of what it once was. And of course, the caribou population which liberals claim would be damaged grew geometrically after the construction of the Alaskan pipeline which gave them a source of warmth. It’s clear that no amount of technological improvement is enough for liberals to drop their partisanship.
- In northern California and across the country, the bee population is being decimated by disease (Colony Collapse Disorder). I don’t consider this a partisan issue, but the leaders of the state beekeepers association and the major bee farms in far northern California are almost all Republicans. They are leading the way to fixing the problem by working with U.C. Davis to increase research and provide specimens to fight the disease and rejuvenate the bee population. They have also proposed legislation to stiffen the penalties for hive destruction and theft. If you are not bothered by this, you should know that pollination affects 1/3 of our nation’s food supply, including ice cream.
- Also in California, the head of a local water district spent hours explaining to me how local Republican legislators have tried to preserve our water supply. Grassroots watershed groups, mostly conservative farmers, donate untold amounts of time trying to preserve and protect the waterways. Are they all Republicans? Of course not. But drive down the main road that is dotted with family farms and in recent days, you see steam of McCain/Palin signs displayed near the road, and only a rare Obama/Biden sign.
- The 1990 Clean Air Amendments were signed by President George H.W. Bush that has undeniably resulted in significantly reduced air pollution, especially the acid rain control program. In its first phase, it reduced annual sulphur dioxide emissions by 50 percent bellowed allowable levels. Industries have been almost 100 percent compliant. In 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Clear Skies Initiative (with a Republican Congress) which, even media liberals called the most significant step this country has taken to reduce power plant emissions and reduce air pollution.
And another 7 good reasons why liberals have failed on the environment:
- In 2006, Ted Kennedy opposed the building of an environmentally friendly wind farm (CapeWind Project), about six miles from the coast of the Kennedy compound. At the time it was thought he opposed it because the windmills could be seen from the Kennedy compound, but research showed it was Robert Kennedy Jr. (huge proponent of alternative energy sources) because it would be in the path of the Kennedy family’s favourite yachting and sailing area.
- Al Gore, responsible for the Global Warming fiasco, uses twice as much energy in his home in one month as the average family uses in an entire year. His spokesperson, Kalee Kreider did not dispute the facts as reported. Barbra Streisand - self-appointed diva of the left - has similarly shameful statistics. She lectured us on such niceties as only running our dishwashers when they are full and drying clothes on the clothesline… the lecture was delivered from her 10,000 square foot oceanfront home, with no clothesline.
- Gore pushed the Kyoto Treaty when he and Clinton were in the White House, but Clinton refused to sign it. Only Romania signed it at that point.
- Pennsylvania Democrats went after Republican Senator Rick Santorum, and one of the points they made was that he waited four years to get his dog neutered. Hello? No mention of how Clinton’s dog was hit and killed because it was running loose on the street near Hillary’s New York mansion. No mention of those pictures of Lyndon Johnson picking his dogs up, by their ears, several feet off the ground.
- When Clinton was filmed dedicating the Grand Escalante Staircase National Monument in Utah, he ordered that thousands of trees that obscured the picture be destroyed.
- Environment extremists blocked the thinning of forests and the construction of roads into the forests for the purpose of clearing out dead and dying timber, which would have removed fuel that feeds wildfires. Because of their constant interference, they are responsible for the wildfires that swept California last summer.
- Liberals have consistently blocked drilling in ANWR (claiming it takes ten years or more to get refined oil, yet dismissing the fact that they’ve been blocking drilling for at least 13 years), but on seeing the effect on gas prices in recent months, they rethought their opposition to drilling. Of course, they do not take responsibility, but blame Bush. They have even floated a theory that Bush is hoarding oil underground at his Texas ranch.
And a final closing remark:
I’m deeply sorry that you cannot see past your own political weaknesses. You’ve turned what could be a great forum for disseminating information into a childish rant.
What do you think?
Image credit: Chris Gin at Flickr under a Creative Commons license
I really like this post as this is the first time I am on this site and was about to leave a little disenchanted with the seeming liberal lean. As a conservative-practically-libertarian-mostly-republican voter who was raised in a home with a well for water and a septic tank, I learned from a young age the importance of conservation–since both water and sewage disposal capacity were relatively scarce resources. Plus, the stuff we put into or onto the ground would end up in our water.
That is the problem with Gore’s hypocrisy and with most environmentalists that have the bully pulpit of celebrity or whatever: they have no REAL cost to themselves personally and so there is only a financial cost that is easily paid and therefore consumption is not restrained. My Dad used to yell and pound on the walls after the shower was on for 4 minutes and until we turned it off. That is a REAL cost!
It is somewhat like an editorial I read in the late ’80’s while living in upstate NY on the Amish and the nuclear threat. Basically the editorial started out with bit about the real cost of eating a head of lettuce in upstate NY in the middle of winter. We don’t understand the REAL cost of eating a head of lettuce anytime like the Amish do, since few of us grow lettuce. When you add to that the fact that in winter, the tractor on the farm in California, fuel it consumes, the plane or train to carry it to New York and fuel they consume etc on through the supply chain have to be added into the equation, you can begin to fathom why a head of lettuce at $1.00 is significantly underpriced. The REAL cost is not factored in at all at that price.
As to Eric’s comments on the culture war and divisive politics, remember that Obama’s rhetoric is all we have to go on since his record is decidedly partisan. I am willing to take a wait-and-see approach and am watching with anticipation the choices he will make for cabinet positions and other appointments.
The fact that conservatives in Great Britain are environmentalists is reason for hope.
It is just in the US that the Republican party is so aligned with and so much more heavily funded by Big Oil.
As the editor of RG&B, I feel like I should reply to the anonymous reader’s long-winded rant with two simple points I would like to make.
1. You write: “One look at it [Red Green and Blue] and it was clear that you suffer from the misconception that only liberals care about greenness therefore, we won’t mind your obvious political bias and childish slaps at people like me…”
In your “one look” at RG&B did you happen to notice that we value and welcome participation from conservatives. Not only that, but we have carved out ENTIRE NICHE based on that philosophy. In case you missed it, your “article” was published under a heading on the front page called “From the Right.” Did your “one look” happen to notice that? The beauty of the blog platform is that bias is OK. Especially when you are up front about it, and that is what we strive to do (hence the “From the Left” and “From the Right” categories. We also have a “Center” category which strives to be more newsy. Please let me know if you ever find an article in either the center or right categories that you find is loaded with liberal bias and I will be happy to take a deeper look at it.
2. Cherry-picking instances of positive Republican action on the environment and negative Democratic actions doesn’t do much for advancing the discussion. There will always be outliers and to say that “liberals” are this and “conservatives” are that, will usually be over-generalizations.
I spent 35 years with USEPA the last 20 as a senior executive. Democratic administrations routinely supported environmental protection and Republican administrations didn’t. It is just that simple. Republicans unfortunately have become the party of anti-science environmentally illiterate people. Their refusal to understand the implications of climate change is typical of their willful ignorance.
Many of this writer’s claims are provably wrong.
Some of them are wild claims that need proof. I don’t believe everything I read on blogs and neither should anyone else. Claims such as Clinton destroyed thousands of trees need to be sourced. I don’t believe it without proof from a good source.
Bees are being saved by Republicans? That’s a joke, right?
Climate change should not be a political issue at all. This should be a scientific issue that the world acts on as quickly as possible. It should have nothing to do with politics or idealogy. Climate change is real, it’s happening, and it has to be acted upon. So say the scientists, not the politicians. We should not be listening to what the “left” or the “right” says, we should be listening to what science says. Our other option is to leave it in the hands of partisans who think this is a political issue, and find ourselves going extinct in 50 years. It won’t take long if we pass the point of no return when the feedback loop has started. The problem with this issue is that there really IS a point where it can’t be stopped if its let go too long. The stakes are too high for that to happen. It’s not just animals who will be threatened, it’s US.
“And of course, the caribou population which liberals claim would be damaged grew geometrically after the construction of the Alaskan pipeline” Geometrically…. really… geometrically… they grew in octagons and obtuse triangles? interesting and all the rest of that crap it appears you made up too. Like Gore using a lot of electricity. It’s true, but the typical Tennessee home uses more than 10% more energy already than typical homes because the summers are so hot there. Second his home is over 10,000 square feet (way more than triple a typical American home) and he also hosts work and meeting functions, so it would be more attuned to business usage which is higher. And the last fact is that he was remodeling his home. Power tools, lights, all power tools use - gasp - power. I won’t even mention the uselessness of the roadless conservation that wasn’t even in effect in CA wildfires (since i live here and know those areas had roads and weren’t protected) thanks for playing
Yo!
its monia and i think we NEED to save our environment because some of us what too and others dont so GET OUT there and recyle NOWW!!!
Jack, your lack of understanding of the mathematic distinction between arithmetic growth and geometric growth or your willful distortion of its use here betrays your lack of sincerity.