From DDT, to nuclear power, to fossil-fuel development, to genetically improved crops, the green movement has used the pretext of nonexistent or grossly exaggerated environmental hazards to block enterprises that would be of enormous benefit to people. However, when faced with a real and catastrophic threat to the wild they have taken the other side — precisely because allowing the necessary protective measures would not constrain human liberty, but expand it, in however limited a way, and this would undermine the central purpose of the “environmentalist” exercise.
To those seeking environmental pretexts for enhanced control over society, all changes to nature effected by humans, no matter how beneficial, must be portrayed as criminal. Thus global warming and carbon dioxide emissions are denounced, despite the fact that they lengthen the growing season, increase rainfall, and accelerate plant growth. Thus no actions may be taken to save the forests.
By the light of a burning wildness the truth may be perceived. The purpose of the green prosecution is not to protect nature, but to put shackles on humankind.
Which reminded me of this post by Rivrdog:
There is no better example of the destructive nature of radical environmentalism than these fires. The "lock it up and keep everyone out" policy of the radical enviro-whackos has done three things that specifically prohibit fighting these fires on the ground, where all fires must eventually be controlled.
First, a healthy forest has immature trees thinned down to the proper ratio of trees per acreage, and that is easy enough to do. Second, a healthy forest has forest roads cut into it, but the enviro-whackos are anti-road, and where they have sway, the roads are not kept up if there were any, and never built if there weren't any. Sometimes, roads are deliberately removed under these damaging policies. Third, dangerous insect infestations in the trees are combated in a healthy forest, because bugs like bark beetles kill trees, and make perfect tinder to keep a fire going.
Under present policy, the forests that are set aside as "Wilderness" are nothing more than forest conflagrations waiting to happen. When these conflagrations happen, the first impulse of the Government is to not fight them. "Let it burn, it's more natural that way" has become the enviro-whacko cry heard with the start of every fire.
One issue is ALWAYS lied about by the enviros. They say that using the forests as timber supply is "raping" the forests, but the reverse is true: designating wilderness is raping the forests, because they are then doomed to death by fire.
Which made me remember one of the first big essays that I ever wrote:
So what's the point of all of this? We can no longer allow the eco-movement to continue dictating how our forests are used. We are creating a mess of our national forests, and simply moving the logging out of country. We need sane forest management, not extremist policy. We need to take back the land that environmentalists want to place out of reach. Until we make our voices heard, our forests will continue going to waste.
Interesting stuff, thanks for posting.
ReplyDeleteWhat it will take is a complete purge of the Dept of the Interior. Bush2 had 8 years to do it, but all he "purged" were the top 2 and some of the third level of the Clintoon brasshats. The Clintonian forest-closers at all levels below were left in place, and now they run the Dept of the Interior.
ReplyDeleteBasically, when we next have a real President who is interested in Forest Management, as opposed to forest mis-management, a simple rule needs to be written that proper forest management will be the way the entire Department works. Any excursions from proven multiple-use management policy will result in the dismissal of the individual Interior employee, whether that employee manages entire National Forests or counts moose droppings.