POST SCRIPTS

Tina, I'm begining to question if it really is the greenies?

Something doesn't add up here; how could such a small minority of people have so great an influence over so many elected people?

Who are these green radicals, who do they own in Congress and how did they do it? I recall locally we had 1 (one) person in the Green party..that is not exactly a force to be reckoned with.

When it comes to inviromental issues the stock answer from our Republican representatives is to blame lack of progress in key areas of drilling and refining on inviromentalists, but whenever I look all I find are state and federdal regulations blocking us.

Local case in point, vernal pools, snail darters and fairy shrimp, these are protected things around Chico. Our own state regulations blocked development of certain lots in areas of north Chico because tire tracks left in the mud the year before became declared "vernal pools" when the rains came the following season.

The lesson learned here was you better not leave pot holes or tire tracks on your property because they will become declared as vernal pools for some protected species by the state inspector. Again its our own government.

Are our legislators really saying they are too inept or lazy to write sensible legislation or too fearful of being labled as an anti-invironmentist?

I think we have too many career minded politicians that are just overly forcused on being re-elected by not daring to offend anyone. This makes them timid about speaking out against abusrd green laws and regulations within our government were there is some personal risk involved...better to tell the voter, "It's those darn greens blocking progress!"

You ask some important questions, Jack. I'll do my best to respond.

"how could such a small minority of people have so great an influence over so many elected people?"

The green movement roots are in conservation. Americans favor good stewardship. We love our national parks and support the notion of setting aside certain areas for preservation so that we and future genrations can enjoy these beautiful areas. It didn't take the mind of Einstein to see that recycling was a good idea or that cleaning up rivers and lakes made perfect sense. By the time the BIG green movement came along they already had a willing captive audience; a big group of people who had already climbed aboard and had given money and participated. They had the advantage that these good folks were not only engaged but were feeling good about making a difference. BIG green has been able to move in and set up shop on a solid well-established foundation.

BIG green isn't satisfied with enrollment as a tactic as old conservationist did. Big green has a political and corporate end game. The politics is socialist in nature and the corporate is, ironically, pure unadulterated greed. What else could you call an entity that produces nothing and profits from trades made between so called "polluters" and "lesser-polluters," ie the carbon credit scheme of Al Gore?

"Who are these green radicals, who do they own in Congress and how did they do it? I recall locally we had 1 person in the Green party..that is not exactly a force to be reckoned with."

I don't worry about people who merely care about the planet except to the degree that they allow themselves to be duped. Unfortunately, a great many have been duped and that is enough to create political pressure. Our elected leaders, as we know are sometimes (often?) a bunch of crooks making deals and taking bribes but in this case they may just be responding to what they percieve to be the will of the people. Whatever the motivation unless and until they get a loud and clear earful from an opposing side, they will continue to go with the "consensus" opinion.

"When it comes to inviromental issues the stock answer from our Republican representatives is to blame lack of progress in key areas of drilling and refining on inviromentalists, but whenever I look all I find are state and federdal regulations blocking us."

What (and who) was the driving force behind the regulations? It always comes back to the will of the people...the problem is the great "silent majority" is usually asleep at the wheel waking only when gas tops $4.00 a gallon. Yes we blame the greens but the responsibility is also our own. My purpose is not to "blame" so much as counter. The claims they make need to be countered so that the political process can work.

"Our own state regulations blocked development of certain lots in areas of north Chico because tire tracks left in the mud the year before became declared "vernal pools" when the rains came the following season.

A fine example of what we are discussing.

"Are our legislators really saying they are too inept or lazy to write sensible legislation or too fearful of being labled as an anti-invironmentist?"

YES.

"I think we have too many career minded politicians that are just overly forcused on being re-elected by not daring to offend anyone..."

I agree. I also know that human nature being what it is we can count on it always being so. If we can let go of the need to change them and instead focus our attention on being the greater influence, we can bring some sanity back to the process. I'm not counting on it happening but I am passionate about putting it out there.

Bottom line for me: I love the world we've been given and all of the people in it. I want life to work for everyone. I wish both health and prosperity to all. I believe America is a beacon, that "shining city on a hill", and unless we take our government process seriously we will soon become just another third world country struggling against dictatorship in disguise.

BIG green wants to go there. They love the idea of global law and global enforcement and they will gladly use our emotional desires to be smart conservationists to achieve this greater aim.

The environment is a means to an end...or two.

One of the co-founders of Green Peace actually has a very interesting take on this question.

Why I Left Greenpeace
By PATRICK MOORE
April 22, 2008

In 1971 an environmental and antiwar ethic was taking root in Canada, and I chose to participate. As I completed a Ph.D. in ecology, I combined my science background with the strong media skills of my colleagues. In keeping with our pacifist views, we started Greenpeace.

But I later learned that the environmental movement is not always guided by science. As we celebrate Earth Day today, this is a good lesson to keep in mind.

At first, many of the causes we championed, such as opposition to nuclear testing and protection of whales, stemmed from our scientific knowledge of nuclear physics and marine biology. But after six years as one of five directors of Greenpeace International, I observed that none of my fellow directors had any formal science education. They were either political activists or environmental entrepreneurs. Ultimately, a trend toward abandoning scientific objectivity in favor of political agendas forced me to leave Greenpeace in 1986.

The breaking point was a Greenpeace decision to support a world-wide ban on chlorine. Science shows that adding chlorine to drinking water was the biggest advance in the history of public health, virtually eradicating water-borne diseases such as cholera. And the majority of our pharmaceuticals are based on chlorine chemistry. Simply put, chlorine is essential for our health.

My former colleagues ignored science and supported the ban, forcing my departure. Despite science concluding no known health risks – and ample benefits – from chlorine in drinking water, Greenpeace and other environmental groups have opposed its use for more than 20 years.

Opposition to the use of chemicals such as chlorine is part of a broader hostility to the use of industrial chemicals. Rachel Carson's 1962 book, "Silent Spring," had a significant impact on many pioneers of the green movement. The book raised concerns, many rooted in science, about the risks and negative environmental impact associated with the overuse of chemicals. But the initial healthy skepticism hardened into a mindset that treats virtually all industrial use of chemicals with suspicion.

Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas. Its antichlorination campaign failed, only to be followed by a campaign against polyvinyl chloride.

Greenpeace now has a new target called phthalates (pronounced thal-ates). These are chemical compounds that make plastics flexible. They are found in everything from hospital equipment such as IV bags and tubes, to children's toys and shower curtains. They are among the most practical chemical compounds in existence.

Phthalates are the new bogeyman. These chemicals make easy targets since they are hard to understand and difficult to pronounce. Commonly used phthalates, such as diisononyl phthalate (DINP), have been used in everyday products for decades with no evidence of human harm. DINP is the primary plasticizer used in toys. It has been tested by multiple government and independent evaluators, and found to be safe.

Despite this, a political campaign that rejects science is pressuring companies and the public to reject the use of DINP. Retailers such as Wal-Mart and Toys "R" Us are switching to phthalate-free products to avoid public pressure.

It may be tempting to take this path of least resistance, but at what cost? None of the potential replacement chemicals have been tested and found safe to the degree that DINP has. The Consumer Product Safety Commission recently cautioned, "If DINP is to be replaced in children's products . . . the potential risks of substitutes must be considered. Weaker or more brittle plastics might break and result in a choking hazard. Other plasticizers might not be as well studied as DINP."

The hysteria over DINP began in Europe and Israel, both of which instituted bans. Yet earlier this year, Israel realized the error of putting politics before science, and reinstated DINP.

The European Union banned the use of phthalates in toys prior to completion of a comprehensive risk assessment on DINP. That assessment ultimately concluded that the use of DINP in infant toys poses no measurable risk.

The antiphthalate activists are running a campaign of fear to implement their political agenda. They have seen success in California, with a state ban on the use of phthalates in infant products, and are pushing for a national ban. This fear campaign merely distracts the public from real environmental threats.

We all have a responsibility to be environmental stewards. But that stewardship requires that science, not political agendas, drive our public policy.

Mr. Moore, co-founder and former leader of Greenpeace, is chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies.

Great find Nick! I was aware that Moore had left Greenpeace but was unaware of the other information contained in his article. Thanks.

DDT is another example of great harm done to humanity in the name of environental protection.

I was made aware of a less harmful example of green hysteria by a furniture store owner who informed me that the reason cushions on chairs and couches break down so quickly is because materials that were once used have been banned. Our parents couches lasted for years...the covering material might have become worn and faded but the shape of the cushions remained the same. We pay a lot more for an inferior product these days. :-(

Here's another example of the meddling nature of the greens:

WASHINGTON — When the Washington Nationals’ season opened in March, the team unveiled a stadium any environmentalist could love — the country’s first certified green major professional sports stadium, with energy-conserving lights and water-conserving plumbing. Now, the team is the focus of protests from environmentalists who say their issue is not with the stadium, but with the Nationals’ advertising relationship with the oil giant ExxonMobil.

Not their business!