Sorry I guess that turned into a rant..
Good rant...it was logical and heartfelt.
No sane person wants to drink polluted water or breathe dirty air but there is always some compromise to be made, and that's what the enviro-terrorists simply will not do.
As you point out, we cannot enjoy the comforts and conveniences of the 21st century without some trade-off in some areas of the environment. It's a simple case of cost/benefit and since no one wants to destroy our natural resources (despite what the ultra-liberal enviromentalists claim), we have to decide how and what we'll tolerate to have ever-cleaner water and air.
Sometimes, getting the air or water 99% clean can cost fifty times what it takes to get it 98% clean. The question: is it worth it to get that 1% difference if we already have 98%? Usually the answer is no, if you are rational about it. Enviro-whackos are not rational when they demand everything in the environment be 100% pure, no matter the cost in terms of money, jobs and yes, even 'lifestyle'.
You are correct to find fault with this take-no-prisioners attitude that defies rational argument - against all evidence.
Clean and pure is great and America has made huge strides in environmentalism, especially with automobile emmissions, as we all know.
On the other hand, unreasonable restrictions on building new power plants - as evidenced by the energy crisis in California - can have consequences that the enviro-whackos don't wish to discuss and the politicians that helped keep California in the no-new-plants and no-rise-in-energy prices state that it maintained for years, are now offering the feeble excuse of 'Power Company greed' as the reason for the crisis. Really? Strange, only California companies had this 'greed'?
What about the other 50 states? The fact that the companies are going bankrupt is also rather odd, since they 'gouged' customers because of all this (California-only) 'greed'.
Please. Corrupt politicians got elected by demonizing power companies and capping the price they could charge customers for electric power, even though the companies were paying more and more for the powewr they had to buy from other states, due to the simple fact that they were never allowed, by law, to build new plants to produce the power needed for the state. Customers thought it was great electric costs were so low and the politicians took the credit. The environmental whackos were thrilled that no ant or chipmunk was ever disturbed by the building of a power plant that would benefit humans instead of snakes and woodchucks.
Now, it's all falling apart and the fingers of blame are pointing everywhere but at the politicians and environmental kooks who got what they wanted and now wish to blame others when it goes bad and the consequences of the actions they demanded (no new plants) is manifested in high electric bills and serious shortages of power. It's sad and worse, was preventable. The cry for 'Washington' to 'help' (give California tax money) is falling on deaf ears, and for good reason.
Why should my tax dollars go to bail out a state that, for years, happily elected and relected governors and local leaders who promised and delivered on 'no new power plants...no rise in your utility rates' and now, have to deal with the results of that short-sighted dand irresponsible public policy that the residents applauded and accepted...until the lights went out?
No thanks.
When powerful environmental activists get to the point that the policies they promote (and are passed by the politicians) endanger the health and safety of the residents of a large state, as they have in California, it's high time to reconsider these policies and take a very hard look at those who promoted them and still claim the high moral ground, even as the lights dim and everyone suffers.
|