Sunday, April 3, 2011

Observations From the Back Row - 4/3/11

By Rich Kozlovich

“De Omnibus Dubitandum” - Alas, the internet has cost them the trust of the people.

In 2007 the average number of google hits for a news search for “global warming” was around 20,000 stories. It then steadily declined until just before climategate it was around the 10,000+ news articles…….. I have kept a personal tab on the number of global warming stories and 6600 really now is the dross at the bottom of the barrel: eco-lunatics whose idea of a perfect world is one without anyone else in it; tired out-of-date journalists who still think it is fashionable to go on about “global warming”; young wet-behind-the-ears journalists who heard about climate “science” at school and still believe their teachers, and yes … the boring old sods who go on about global warming being an utter load of twaddle!

My Take - If the internet had been in existence in the 1970’s the Montreal Protocol would have been recognized and exposed for the junk science that it is, just as the Kyoto Accords has been. RK

Rep. Jim Costa introduced legislation on March 30 that would eliminate vital Endangered Species Act protections for imperiled fish and other wildlife in California's struggling Bay Delta ecosystem.

The following is a statement from Kim Delfino, California director for Defenders of Wildlife:

This legislation will only further destroy the Bay Delta, the hundreds of species that call it home, and the livelihoods of thousands of people who once made a living off its bounty……..Rep. Costa would like to blame the state's economic woes on essential environmental safeguards. But the high unemployment rate in the Central Valley is the result of a severe nationwide recession and a three-year drought in California, not the Endangered Species Act…... We need real solutions to ongoing resource challenges, not politically-motivated hyperbole.

My Take - One of the things that she fails to mention in this article is that this fight to save the delta smelt, which is as far as I can see isn’t much different than any other smelt other than it lives in the delta, has been going on for years, and for years they have diverted water from the farms of the Central Valley. She claims that “we” can restore the Bay Delta (which is code for eliminating anything that benefits mankind, and in spite of the claims in this article….they could care less about jobs and people, that is merely a red herring fallacy) and still provide enough water for the Delta and farmers, yet historically that hasn’t been the case; so by use of what magic is this to happen? It is the same of rhetoric that gives the impression of moderation and accommodation, but when the greenies have had their way they have destroyed enterprise and industry everywhere else in their world. Why should we believe it is different in California? We shouldn’t! The Endangered Species Act has done more to destroy farmers, ranchers and loggers and industry as a whole in the west than any economic downturn has ever done since the Great Depression, and the Dust Bowl drought of that time.

GOP-Sponsored Bill Would Bar Groups from Enforcing Our Nation's Environmental Laws - Natural Resources Defense Council (blog)

Yesterday, Senator Vitter (R-LA) and Congressman Bishop (R-UT) introduced 2 companion bills that, among other harmful policies, would prevent environmental non-profit organizations from recovering legal fees when they successfully sue under the Equal Access to Justice Act or the Endangered Species Act In February, Rep. Lummis (R-WY) introduced similar language in an amendment to H.R. 1(amendment no. 195).

This bill would bar environmental groups from recovering attorney’s fees in the vast majority of situations, thus hindering their ability to bring cases protecting our nation’s environmental laws—laws that ensure we have clean water to drink, clean air to breathe, and protected public lands on which to hunt and fish, among other benefits.

My Take - This is long overdue. The ESA has been a means of enriching activists groups, and in point of fact some of them exist only because of the funds they raise under this ridiculous provision. What about the poor defendant? Whether they win or lose, they have to pay up…. or capitulate, and that is what happens most of the time. They can’t afford the legal fees and end up giving up their property without compensation or recourse; although they can still own the property and pay taxes on it….they just can’t use it. This outrageous scheme is nothing more than a criminal shakedown by the environmental movement sanctioned by the federal government.

ESA Outrages, Part I
By Rich Kozlovich

Last week I told everyone that I would be running a section dealing with ESA outrages. Here is the first installment. I first want to make sure we had some historical background for what is to come.

Between 1962 and 1972 the U.S. Congress got all wrapped up in passing bills that couldn’t help but make the greenie heart beat fast and furious and take their breaths away.

• Wilderness Act, 1964
• Clean Water Act, 1965
• Endangered Species Act, 1966
• Clean Air Act, 1967
• Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, 1968
• Endangered Species Conservation Act, 1969
• Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act, 1971
• Marine Mammal Protection Act, 1972

Most of us would think that this would satisfy the most jaded greenie. They wanted more, and it was decided that the 1969 ESA was inadequate and in 1972 they “upgraded” ESA with some significant changes. Section 4 and Section 7 contained poisoned pills and no one realized it.

Section 4 required the Secretary of the Interior to list any species that was endangered or threatened and defined species as “fish or wildlife or plants” and further refined that definition as “any mammal, fish, bird, amphibian, reptile, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod or other invertebrate.” This will take on greater significance in coming weeks.

Section 7 “prohibited the “take” of any listed species. A “take” means to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, dill, trap, capture or collect” a listed species. Friends of the Earth stated that the degradation of a listed species habitat would fit the definition of a “take” under the bills.” Everyone seems to have been caught up in the warm and fuzzy feeling because the thinking was clearly fuzzy…no one hardly whispered an objection. One reason is that they were primarily thinking of what is called the “charismatic” species, such as bald eagles, bears, wolves, etc.

Shannon Peterson noted that; "Few at the time opposed the ESA because no one anticipated how it might interfere significantly with economic development or personal property interests. …..The timber industry, other natural resource industries, and private property groups declined to fight the law in 1973 because they failed to see how it might affect them." That lack of insight would come back to haunt every one of these groups, especially the timber industry.

ESA Outrages, Part II
The environmentalist’s victory regarding DDT gave them unprecedented power and influence, but the decision in TVA v. Hill gave them regulatory authority. Never before have individuals outside of the government been able to “not only advance, but to enforce, wildlife preservation without restraint.”

New Congress targets eco indulgences
U.S. subsidies to environmental causes have become expensive to maintain over the last 30 years. The U.S. government regulatory workforce has grown 16% in the first two years of President Obama. U.S. government services have increased by 41% from 2000 to 2008 in contrast to private sector services which grew by only 27% (The Economist, Jan. 8, 2011). Much of the regulatory and government environmental programs have only promoted gratuitous green symbolism, without any measurable long term environmental or economic benefit. These programs have also become a playground for eco-group litigation and propaganda.


###

No comments: