Radical Environmentalists a Worse Threat Than Climate Change?

(TNS) —

California has a major drought, and that’s resulted in bad stuff brought to us not by the usual suspect, global warming, but by radical environmentalists worsening the consequences.

Some of them have gone beyond that misdeed. In efforts to intervene with warming, they have also been cracking down on free scientific speech and have it in mind to play games with our entire nation’s economic sustenance.

Let’s start with California, an arid state that has forever known droughts. It used to deal with its water needs through crucial projects, but decided not to a while back and is now faced with serious sacrifice, as knowledgeable analyses point out.

Urban areas are being legally compelled to reduce overall water usage by a fourth, and, in line with the kind of thinking that got the state into this mess, some climate alarmists insist that greenhouse gas effects are responsible. They need to talk matters over with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a federal agency that found in a scientifically reputable study that the drought’s cause has instead been natural weather patterns.

What is just as important to keep in mind as that conclusion is that hardship does not have to result if appropriate water-providing steps are taken, such as the building of reservoirs. That’s been long prevented in California by federal and state rules inspired by environmentalists. Then there’s the rescue potential of a nearby ocean if more desalinization plants were being developed, something made more expensive than normal by various greenie obstructions.

Yes, it is true that the lack of adequate steps to supply water trace as well to nonenvironmental political vacuities, but do not discount enviro-imperiousness. That’s something that also strutted to the limelight in Washington not long ago when a Democratic member of the House decided to investigate scientists whose views on warming he did not like.

Managing to infuriate the American Meteorological Association, which accused him of sending a “chilling” message, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), queried universities about funding received by professors who were more or less warming skeptics, although one was not. Grijalva was questioning their integrity, as the association said. He in effect suggested they were on the take.

Some senators did much the same, sending their inquiries to energy companies, think tanks and the like, and here is what needs to be said: They and this representative are anti-democratic, bullying, free-speech enemies who have no idea of what science is about — lots of back and forth about theories, analysis and evidence — and not much understanding of the climate dispute, either.

There happen to be all kinds of legitimate questions about the extent of the warming danger emanating from more than just a handful of the informed, and even more questions about presumptuously proposed governmental solutions that could do far more harm than good.

Consider, for instance, the harm some worried onlookers are said to expect from President Barack Obama’s so-far incomplete Clean Power Plan under which the Environmental Protection Agency would force states to write laws reducing national carbon emissions to the tune of 30 percent by 2030.

Goodbye coal, goodbye as many as 800,000 jobs, hello far steeper utility bills, hello to a much flimsier economy and hello to a less stout grid system.

Laurence Tribe, a liberal Harvard law processor who usually pats Obama on the back but is now arguing in court for those challenging him, says the whole notion is unbelievably unconstitutional. Instead of executing the law, the executive through such a move would be making laws by exercising authority it has not been legally granted, he says.

The California fix, the congressional intimidation and the Obama plan are just a hint of the financial devastation and shrinkage of freedom that could come the world’s way if the extremists get their way. There are far more sensible answers even if their fears are correct, and the debate about that is far from over.

To Read The Full Story

Are you already a subscriber?
Click to log in!