The Environment:  Who's Against It?

All those who are against the environment, dare to raise your hand. All those who are against improving your economic condition and that of your neighbors, dare to raise your hand.

We didn’t think so.

Single-issue voting is a dangerous undertaking. We have to look at the bigger picture without abandoning what is important to us. Proper priorities are rarely wrapped up in a single issue.

Our point is that governing is making choices, frequently from compromises and tradeoffs.  There isn't enough money to do all things all citizens want done.  Responsible government makes informed choices, and we're all for that.

So, we all agree: the environment needs protecting and the environment needs cleaning up. Any political disagreements seem to hinge on how much needs doing, how much humans are capable of doing, what the unintended consequences are, and what we can afford to do.

Republicans often get chastised for not caring about the environment, but that's simply not true. We think there is ample evidence that most government approaches fail to achieve the stated goals–at great cost–and divert attention away from more effective approaches. A noted example from history: the wolves in Yellowstone Park. They were completely removed, but after 70 years, the consequences were so great that they are in the process of being restored.  Ecologists admit that there is something called a "trophic" effect, which is defined as a cascading of changes in an ecosystem that take place when an important part is removed.  One could expect the same when important parts are added or otherwise changed, as well.  No one predicted that aspen trees, willows, and cottonwoods would virtually disappear due to the absence of wolves.  You can look it up.

In other words, we humans just don't know everything.  Our good intentions don't always result in good outcomes.  Consider, for example, putting out forest fires started by lightning.  We know now that replenishment of forests occurs best through natural processes, and man's interference causes devastating consequences that man is incapable of correcting on a broad scale.

So, when humans say they have the answer, and the answer entails inserting an unproven theory into nature's scheme, we are skeptical.

That's the basis of our viewpoint regarding so-called "Global Warming," as well.  First, we acknowledge that the theories are flawed, with some of them intentionally corrupt.  In the short period of the majority of the debate, certainly short on a historical scale, the earth has been shown not to be warming at all.  Short time frames have no value in making such judgments, and the scientific community should be the first to admonish us for jumping to conclusions.  In contrast, some of them are the first to jump to whatever conclusion gains them additional funding.

We fear that far too many people of all stripes attempt to panic taxpayers and well-meaning citizens to make their pet projects a budget priority.  We prefer a deliberative approach where the hazards of unintended consequences result in cautious actions that can be rescinded with little harm done, as opposed to throwing money at the sun and asking it not to heat up our planet any longer.

Carbon dioxide is a trace gas comprising about 0.038% of the earth's atmosphere.  Higher percentages have been shown to dramatically increase yields of crops and other vegetation (including rain forests).  There is no credible evidence that increased carbon dioxide is the cause of warming of the earth (which has now spontaneously reversed, even with continuing human activity).  Why should we embark on a life-changing, economically challenging, potentially harmful program when there is no known benefit?  No one would, of course, if they were thinking clearly.

The environment, like medical care, is an emotional issue.  It's one of the easiest subjects to use to cause panic and knee-jerk reactions by both government and well-intentioned laymen.  But, just as everyone recognizes that the sales pitches that trumpet "One Day Only" and "Make Your Decision in the Next Ten Minutes" should raise red flags and require greater scrutiny, anytime urgency is demanded, and there isn't enough time to look deeply at the issue, we recommend slowing down.

Such an approach would be good for the environment, and we'd be all for that.