Archive for the ‘Environment’ Category

Animas River Response Reveals the Environmentalist Left’s Dangerous Hypocrisy

Thursday, August 20th, 2015

Originally published at Every Joe

The double-standards that run rampant on the left are revealing themselves yet again; this time around an issue that liberals love to pretend they have a monopoly on: the environment. This latest bout of hypocrisy surrounds the fact that just weeks ago, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released approximately three million gallons of acidic waste into a Colorado river, underestimated the environmental and economic impact of their mistake, and even failed to alert affected state government officials and the public about the dangerous situation a timely fashion.

But you probably haven’t seen photographs of this now-hazardous river plastered across the front pages of newspapers ad nauseam the way you did the BP gulf coast oil spill. To the extent that the polluted Animas River has been on TV, it’s as a side note; in contrast for example, to the airtime the Exxon-Valdez oil spill in Alaska received. Yes, those spills were bigger scale-wise. That doesn’t change the fact however, that the coverage and accountability disparity when it comes to corporate versus government pollution sheds an unflattering light on the left and their sympathetic media allies. Still, the responsibility and competency problems are much bigger than just that.

As Governor Susanna Martinez of New Mexico (which was one of the states impacted by the EPA’s recent negligence) said, “This was caused by the EPA, and the EPA should demand the same of itself as it would of a private business responsible for such a spill, particularly when it comes to making information available to the public and state and local officials.” As critics and impacted groups have noted, the EPA’s disastrous post-incident response has been nothing short of outrageous, if not outright dangerous.

“EPA compounded its gross negligence by failing to inform city and state officials or residents and recreationists on the river for a full 24 hours after the event,” reported The American Spectator’s H. Sterling Burnett. “That’s 24 hours farmers were irrigating with tainted water, cities were pumping dirty water for municipal uses, and kayakers and anglers were literally standing or floating in the toxic brew. Some mayors of cities first learned of the danger from news reports, not the EPA itself.”

Despite the harm caused to affected persons, most Americans are at best, tangentially aware of the Animas River and the toxins that have turned a previously usable body of water into a bright orange disaster. And as far as the environmentalist left is concerned, that ignorance of this serious situation is by design. In fact, the President of the United States himself wants you to ignore the EPA’s egregious mistake, for which interestingly enough, they aren’t being held accountable by his administration. But it’s all for the sake of “progress,” of course.

The most recent emails sent out by Obama’s grassroots outfit provide a strong clue as to the reasoning behind White House officials’ tight lips. Maligning anyone who would dare question the wisdom of giving the unaccountable and apparently incompetent EPA even more power in the wake of this incident as “science deniers,” Obama’s Organizing For Action sent out a characteristically condescending call-to-action meredays after the EPA tainted a beautiful river with several million gallons of toxic sludge:

“Friend –

You don’t have to be a policy expert to make a difference on climate change. All it takes is a willingness to fight back — especially against deniers that willfully ignore the science.

Now that the Clean Power Plan is finalized, it’s the states’ turn to take action, and state leaders need your support to keep the momentum going.

Stand with leaders that are taking action in the fight against climate change — add your name.

States all over the country are already acting to meet their clean power goals. Nevada is helping lead the nationwide solar boom — between 2013 and 2014, the number of solar jobs in Nevada grew by 146 percent. Iowa, Kansas, and South Dakota each get at least a fifth of their power from clean wind energy. New York is part of a nine-state partnership that has created jobs and boosted the regional economy, all while cutting consumers’ utility bills by hundreds of millions of dollars and cutting carbon pollution by 40 percent.

That kind of leadership is needed in the weeks to come, during the hard push to meet the EPA’s goals — and OFA volunteers are stepping up in support.

Say you’ll stand with strong leadership on climate change:

https://my.barackobama.com/Support-the-Clean-Power-Plan

Thanks,

Jack Shapiro

National Issues Campaign Manager

Organizing for Action”

Well. That explains the sound of chirping crickets emanating from Pennsylvania Avenue. The White House is too busy trying to ram its latest EPA-led economically damaging centralized scheme down our throats to bother pursuing what should be government’s basic function: holding all entities, including its own agencies, accountable for endangering the health and livelihood of American citizens.

If OFA and the environmental left had even a shred of credibility, they would be calling for investigations and mass firings. Instead, they’re twiddling their thumbs at best, and mostly engaging in outright excuse-making. As Burnett wrote at The American Spectator: “If a private company had caused this disaster, federal and state officials would already be talking about criminal investigations, and civil suits would be filed claiming billions in damages. Heads would be rolling. By contrast, although EPA may transfer some of the people who supervised the disastrous operation, it’s likely few, if any, of its employees will be fired or forced to resign.”

And disappointingly but unsurprisingly, the usual suspects are running defense for an EPA that should be investigated and reorganized, not praised and expanded. The Washington Times compiled an illuminating roundup of reactions to the Animas River tragedy from environmental organizations invested in centralizing government power as a means to their ends. No one should be shocked by their double standards, but we should certainly call them on it.

Courtesy of the Washington Times’ Valerie Richardson:

“Said Colorado state Rep. Joe Salazar, a Democrat, on Twitter: ‘Focus of #AnimasRiver contamination should be on mining companies and their mining practices, not EPA, yes?’

The Sierra Club Rocky Mountain chapter posted a link to an article titled ‘9 things you need to know about the Animas River spill.’ The list includes ‘The EPA messed up, but they’re not the root cause’ and ‘This isn’t the first time this has happened, nor is it the worst.’

‘Blaming the EPA for #AnimasRiver spill is like blaming a doctor for the disease,’ Conservation Colorado said in a Wednesday tweet.”

Really? These groups want us to believe that the “mining companies and their practices” are at the root of this problem when the Gold King Mine stopped its operations in 1923 and somehow, no damage was caused since until EPA employees unplugged a sufficiently blockaded source of pollution?

This is of course not to say that companies ought to have the right to pollute. They don’t. And they should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law in accordance with a respect for property rights. But environmental groups ought to take their ideological blinders off and recognize the dangerous double standard they’re enabling when they make excuses for the EPA’s negligence.

To the extent that the EPA isn’t being held accountable as a private company in the same situation would, conservatives are bolstered in our argument that strong definitions of property rights and a small watchdog-sized government to enforce them are pro-environment policies. When government holds too much centralized power, there’s a built-in disincentive to pursue internal accountability measures. This ultimately hurts victims of their negligence the most.

In the wake of this tragedy, the EPA and its allies could sure use a wake-up call. If the Navajo Nation, which has been severely impacted by this pollution, follows through on their threat to sue, the EPA sure will have earned it. As Jonathan Lockwood of the free market advocacy group Advancing Colorado said:

“This environmental disaster is just one more example of why people do not trust the job-killing EPA and we have every right to question why our hard-earned money is going to such an incompetent and mismanaged government agency. This is now a multi-state issue, and people have every right to be absolutely outraged with the EPA, and the officials who continue to provide support and cover for this agency.”

Clearly, it’s more than past time to hold the government to the same standards they hold us to.

America’s Free Market Energy Future

Thursday, June 16th, 2011

Originally published at RLC.org

Liberty Republicans, given our belief that wealth creating market based initiatives are superior to those subsidized by taxpayers via government, are often accused of opposing green energy and other so called pro-environment schemes. Many on the left seem to believe that if you’re for the pro-growth policy of letting investors and entrepreneurs hash it out in the private sector without government interference, it in turn means you must have no regard for the environment.

As a libertarian who is very much pro-environment and extremely interested in alternative energy and ecological stewardship, I of course reject that premise. I’d contend that part of the problem with our energy and environmental policies are the fact that as government gets bigger, elected officials don’t hesitate to jump into bed with giant corporations, in turn, yielding a firestorm of status quo protection behind closed doors. Yet in the meantime, to coddle various constituencies, while the aforementioned cronyism disguised as capitalism distorts the market, politicians offer shallow “green” initiatives subsidized by redistributing our money, all while suppressing legitimate alternatives that could potentially compete in the market.

For example, the 2006 documentary, Who Killed The Electric Car?, points out the fact that the oil industry, through its lobbying group Western States Petroleum Association, financed campaigns to suppress the EV1 car in the marketplace, and worked closely with the federal government to see that its needs were met. If an electric car cannot compete in the market on its own, or without the aid of a legislative mandate (as in California), then it should fail. But if legitimate greener alternatives are being suppressed by corporatism, that’s highly problematic. Frankly, I have a hard time imagining that more intervention from the federal government of the United States, the world’s most powerful monopoly, will solve the problem of giant corporate interests, who are friends to DC politicians, suppressing market competition.

(more…)