Saving the Environment

Global Warming.

According to Al Gore, The Debate is Over. Well, I guess it probably is for Al. After failing in his bid for presidency, he found himself searching for another source of power and influence, and after a fairly limited debate with himself, settled on environmental issues to propel himself back into the limelight and power. While the debate for Al may be over, the real debate is far from over. It's interesting to note that over the last few years, the language has changed. What once were cries of man made global warming are now cries of man made global climate change. The number of scandals that have rocked the doomsayers is mind boggling, with everything from suddenly "lost" data to revelations of what can only be called junk science. Then to really stir up the stench of a conspiracy (by the warmers), the East Anglia Email hack spilled all the tawdry dirty laundry of this crowd into the spot light. You know, maybe Al is right, the debate is over. There is NO man made Climate change, just the random fluxes in temperature that the earth has been cycling through for a billion years or so.
But the really significant thing to take away from all this is to look at what the goal of all of this has been in the first place. How does Al Gore propose we save the planet? By government control of every aspect of human existence. Does that sound familiar? Yep, there it is again, good 'ol left wing liberalism, where it clearly understood that the government knows your needs better than you do, and if everyone would just let them run things, we'd all be alot better off. But if you take a close look at environmentalism in this country, you suddenly see gaping holes in the logic they use, and, more importantly, some of the disasters they have created.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is an example of liberal environmentalism gone insanely wrong. Passed in 1973, it has given the government and environmentalists sweeping confiscatory powers over landowners across the country. Visualize this scenario: You are a farmer with five hundred acres of land. You've been successful, and, looking to expand, you purchase another 500 acres not far from your original property. You assume a debt to make this purchase, realizing that the increased production will more than offset that debt. You spend a year cleaning up the acreage, with the intent of planting come spring. But come April, a man from the EPA comes knocking on your door. Environmentalists have examined your new land, and it appears to be habitat for the endangered kangaroo rat. You are now prohibited from tilling, planting, harvesting, modifying, draining, etc the land. It may be "your" land, but you no longer have a say in what happens with it. But what about the debt you assumed? Tuff. What about the labor invested already? Be glad we don't fine you for that encroachment. Well, since the EPA is controlling everything about it, they'll buy it from you at fair market value, so you don't loose your shirt, right? Nope, the EPA doesn't want to own it, they're just going to tell you what you can (or, more appropriately, can't) do with it. Realizing your predicament, you put the land back on the open market. But now, with the land under Endangered Species EPA control, what you paid $1000/acre is now worth about $10/acre. Who wants land you can't use?
This Gestapo like approach to the environment has led to a landowner reaction of known as the three 'S's'. If you see something on your property that may be "endangered," Shoot, Shovel, and Shut up. Was that a Spotted Wood Owl on your back 40? Kill it, and dispose of the evidence, quickly.
In Iain Murray's book, The Really Inconvenient Truths, he gives the following example of Endangered Species Act working at it's very finest. Benjamin Cone, of North Carolina, purchased about 8,000 acres of clear cut land. He and his family replanted the forest, and tended it, and over time, redeveloped the healthy, productive forest that had once stood on those 8,000 acres. He had a reason for doing this, of course. He was looking to create a constantly renewable resource for himself and his family, with timber production as a primary resource. Unfortunately, along with the hundreds of habitats that sprang up from this careful management, a habitat for an endangered woodpecker also sprang up. Suddenly, he was denied logging rights to his own property on over 1500 acres of prime timber. Could he sell it off? A real estate appraisal valued the land at $1.7 million without the woodpecker, but only $260,000 with the woodpecker and the accompanying land restrictions. Keep in mind, the woodpecker had moved into the habitat while it was being worked. Apparently, Mr. Cone's thinning, trimming, controlled burns, and selective logging had not prevented the bird from setting up housekeeping in the first place. Mr Cone's reaction to this? He clear cut all of his remaining forest, rather than risk it becoming inhabited by the woodpecker. Score one for the Endangered Species Act. Endangered woodpecker: looser.
OK, I've gotta run, this snoozer has run on too long already. Stay tuned, multiple installments are brewing and in the works.

Doc