Gabriella Hoffman
It’s undeniable that most, if not all, Americans
want to preserve and protect the environment.
No one truly wants to live in squalor or
breathe in dirty air. No one truly intends to
destroy nature or kill all wildlife. No one truly
desires to harm the planet.
Modern-day environmentalism is perceived as
a benign, “hip” cause. All the celebrities are
doing it, so it must be great—right? On the
surface “going green” seems harmless. We’re
told that “going green” will absolve us for our
supposed transgressions against the
environment. Certainly Mother Earth will
forgive us for developing our beautiful planet
while creating opportunities for prosperity and
social advancement!
What could possibly be wrong with the green
lifestyle?
Green on the outside yet red on the inside,
modern-day environmentalism is an anti-life,
anti-fun, and anti-progress movement. Peel
away the “protect the planet” façade to
discover its eco-socialist core. Heritage
Foundation’s Stephen Moore beautifully
summarizes the goal of today’s
environmentalist movement:
The dirty little secret of the modern
environmental movement is that it has become
a luxury good for the uber-rich. Its policies—
from carbon taxes, to renewable energy
standards, to crushing regulations on coal
plants—would impose high costs on the people
who can least afford to pay the green tab.
Support offshore drilling or commercial
fishing? Shamu and other marine life will be
killed off ! Reject the idea of “climate change”
and its alleged anthropogenic nature?
Apparently, it’s grounds for being arrested .
Like eating Krispy Kreme Donuts? Forget it—
their company is largely responsible for
deforestation . Think the world isn’t
overpopulated? Wrong—population control is
needed to reduce poverty.
In February 2014, Greenpeace co-founder
Patrick Moore—a Canadian ecologist and
business consultant who served as a member
of the group from 1971-86— testified before the
Senate Environmental and Public Works
Committee. He noted how the Left hijacked
environmentalism and said, “After 15 years in
the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace
took a sharp turn to the political left, and
began to adopt policies that I could not accept
from my scientific perspective. Climate change
was not an issue when I abandoned
Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.”
The largest enabler of eco-socialism is the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which
is more affectionately known as the
Employment Prevention Agency. Born out of
executive order signed into law by President
Richard Nixon on December 20, 1970, the EPA
was originally created to promote conservation
and protect the health of Americans. Today,
that is not the case. When it’s not instructing
employees to stop defecating in hallways,
spending millions on conferences , or tinkering
with lost emails, the EPA is engaged in a full-
fledged war on jobs, oil, fishing, and hunting,
among many things.
Heartland Institute’s Jay Lehr, who
encouraged the creation of the EPA , notes the
department’s radical shift from its original
purpose:
Activist groups realized the agency could be
used to alter our government by coming down
heavily on all human activities regardless of
their impact on the environment. From
approximately 1981 onward, EPA rules and
regulations became less about science-based
environmental protection and more about
advancing extraneous ideological agendas.
In August 2010, the Center for Biological
Diversity and four other organizations
petitioned the EPA to ban all lead in fishing
tackle and ammunition under the Toxic
Substances Control Act (TSCA), because lead is
supposedly evil. Groups like Keep America
Fishing and National Shooting Sports
Foundation immediately voiced concern and
pressured the EPA to not pursue a ban on lead
tackle and ammunition. Why?
Environmentalist groups resorted to
fearmongering and lied about lead’s effects. A
November 2008 study from the U.S. Centers for
Disease concluded that “some individuals who
eat a great deal of wild game may have lower
blood lead levels than some other individuals
who eat little or no wild game but who have
other sources of lead exposure.” Had
corresponding legislation been considered,
industries beyond hunting and fishing —namely
law enforcement, military, and target shooting
—would have been adversely affected.
Additionally, the EPA has repeatedly tried to
label water as a pollutant . They were
successfully defeated in January 2013 when a
case filed by the Virginia Department and
Transportation and Fairfax County sued the
EPA for overstepping its bounds in trying to
regulate stormwater that flows into Fairfax
County’s Accotink Creek.
What can be done to curb the tide of eco-
socialism without hurting the environment?
First and foremost, the EPA should be
abolished or at least overhauled. It has too
much wrest over our lives and doesn’t have
small business interests in mind. Secondly,
alternative views on “climate change” need to
be encouraged and welcomed. Studies confirm
that the “climate change” theory is largely
exaggerated and that change in climate can’t
be solely attributed to humans . Thirdly,
sustainable conservation through fishing and
hunting should also be discussed. Those of us
who fish and hunt desire to conserve our
surroundings. Whenever we invest in licenses,
gear, guns, or supplies, proceeds help support
conservation efforts.
Radical environmentalism is a consequence of
big government policies. Rather than helping
the environment, government is harming the
environment with its burdensome tax code, its
restrictive policies, and its embrace of
Marxism. Instead, free-market
environmentalism is the best alternative. Why?
It suggests private property rights, free
enterprise, and limited government solutions
best preserve and help protect the
environment.
Green is the new red, and it must be crushed.
No comments:
Post a Comment