The Sky Will Be Falling!

It’s already started.

The Arizona Republic is running a story this morning that the departure of Governor Napolitano will create climate change in Arizona – “Governor change could shift state’s climate policies”

If Gov. Janet Napolitano heads to Washington to serve in President-elect Barack Obama’s Cabinet, it could portend a major shift in policy for one of her biggest local priorities: climate change.

Environmental groups, elected officials and other political watchers say that a new Republican administration, under the helm of now-Secretary of State Jan Brewer, would likely significantly reduce Arizona’s involvement in the Western Climate Initiative.

Granted, Secretary of State Brewer has not issued any recent policy statements regarding her current office’s role in climate change but that’s because the Arizona SOS has very little to do with messing with the weather.

So why would The Republic take yet another hit at the presumed replacement of Governor Napolitano assuming that Brewer does not care about the environment?

It should be obvious:

  • Brewer is a Republican
  • The Legislature is controlled by Republicans
  • The Republic promotes a liberal, secular worldview
  • The Legislature and Governor will control the agenda
  • The State of Arizona will have to make budget cuts

The article then runs to Sandy Bahr, the lobbyist for the Arizona Chapter of the Sierra Club to grab a few fear-fraught quotes:

I think probably the greatest disappointment is that if she is leaving early, some of the things she’s done will be undone in no time.

The Republic then writes:

Over the past six years, Napolitano has worked with – and, in many cases, done battle with – legislators and industry on a host of environmental initiatives, including:

  • Forest Restoration
  • Clean Air
  • Reduced Tailpipe Emissions

Nevermind the fact that Napolitano needed Republicans to help pass the legislation in the first place.

The Republican-controlled Maricopa County Board of Supervisors even took the initiative to promote a county-wide policy one under Bring Back Blue in 2007 and “Running Out of Air” in 2008.

Greening of EvangelicalsWhat I don’t appreciate is the overt bias by The Republic that Republicans could care less about the environment or that Democrats hold the title of “Protectors of the Environment.”

Even more disturbing is the way The Republic promotes the notion that the State of Arizona will be making a dramatic shift in environmental policy – on in which we resemble a 3rd world nation.

The fact is that Republicans and yes, even conservatives, do care deeply about the environment. There is even a movement amongst Evangelicals which advocates for good stewardship of the environment (“The Greening of Evangelicals.”)

But let’s also get one thing straight here, no one political party holds a monopoly on the environment. Republicans breathe the same air, drink the same water and enjoy the same outdoors that Democrats do.

I also believe that Republicans offer better solutions to taking care of the environment that maximizes personal freedom and minimizes government control.


Comments

  1. How many days in a row has the Republic run at least one major article bashing Jan Brewer? Yesterday, she was going to cut all school funding. Today, we are all going to die of heat stroke becuase Jan Brewer is going to cut funding to the Western Climate Initiative. Tomorrow, maybe, no one will be able to afford a turkey for Thanksgiving in 2009 because of Jan Brewer.

  2. Global warming is the greatest scam in post-WWII political history.

    That said, conservation is a deeply held belief by most Republicans and Americans. We believe the need to conserve the environment for mankind’s current and future needs.

    Environmentalism is a political movement. It seeks to control human activty using the excuse to save the trees and lizards.

  3. Nick S,

    “That said, conservation is a deeply held belief by most Republicans…”

    Thank you for brightening this grey Arizona Wednesday with laughter.

  4. DSW:

    Thank you for speaking out about Evangelicals and the environment. Since a young age, my Sunday School teachers and pastors spoke about things like “Earth Day” as the beginnings of a global plan to brainwash us all into a Mother Earth, Goddess, pagan type of worship that would bring about the “End Times”. If the media said we were running out of oil – don’t believe them! God will just make more! God wouldn’t allow Detroit to still make cars if He didn’t intend us to drive them.

    I could never understand how the Evangelical churches I’ve attended cried tears of gratitude and awe during the telling of the Creation Story yet always made fun of (from the pulpit) any publicized endeavor to have “good stewardship” (as you say) of God’s beautiful creations.

    I remember the pastor celebrating and cheering on the large crown in my (former) church, when the Taliban destroyed the 7th Century A.D. Bamiyan Buddhas outcroppings along the Silk Road. My Evangelicals gave a rousing, shouting standing ovation over this news and prayed that we would destroy that entire part of the world and have it razed. Everything should be razed but Israel. Never mind the millions of deaths and the destruction of sacred places that fill the places of the Old Testament.

    Here is what the media reported in 2001:

    On Feb. 26, 2001, the Taliban’s supreme leader, Mullah Mohammad Omar, declared that “these idols have been gods of the infidels” and ordered them destroyed. By early March, the statues were rubble.

    My Evangelical church leaders and members declared the same thing! Praise God they are gone!

    And we wonder where WE have gone wrong. These same pews were filled with over 1,000 registered Republicans. That was only one church. These ideals still permeate the GOP – especially the “Christian grassroots activist” arm of the GOP. There is no room for reason or logic there. Have a question? You’re an infidel.

    In Evangelical circles, if you speak out against something like this, you’re accused of being a heretic, “causing dissension” and harboring a “World View” – instead of “God’s View”, which means the Devil has gotten a hold of you. Believe me when I say, I’ve seen and heard it all.

    This kind stuff is preached in 1,000s of churches across the US every Sunday. It’s infectious. The movement towards a more green Evangelical will have a long, long, long, long, long, long dusty, polluted, hot road ahead.

  5. Sorry Nick.

    I was typing this out while you made my case for me.

  6. Inside Out,

    I agree with you regarding the destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas by the Taliban. But I didn’t hear anything within my Evangelical circles applauding the act. It is also my observation that some of the worse run governments are the biggest contributors to environmental harm: Eastern Europe, India, China, Indonesia, etc. The preservationists (vs. conservationists) are the very ones who criticize US policies while ignoring “worst polluters” abroad.

  7. DSW,

    Excellent point on the “worst polluters”. I agree.

    My in-laws house had yellow stained ceilings from years of nicotine filled smoke rising. It seems logical that our atmosphere would act as a similar ceiling to the millions of pound of pollutants spewed from millions of smoke stacks worldwide. That 2nd grade level logical observation shouldn’t be seen by Evangelicals or conservatives as some “tree hugging, liberal agenda” observation!

    Maybe my Evangelical circles are a little more radical or fundamentalist in nature than yours. However, most Evangelicals I know would NEVER admit that those types of things go on. That’s 1/2 of the problem. There is a wall of silence where the logical brains of Evangelicals crosses path with their Faith. I’m not surprised you didn’t “hear” about it.

    Thanks for bringing it up. It needs to be talked about – without fear of condemnation from our fellow believers.

  8. My last sentence should’ve read:

    Thanks for bringing it up. It needs to be talked about – without fear of condemnation from our fellow believers or Republicans.

  9. DSW,

    ” It is also my observation that some of the worse run governments are the biggest contributors to environmental harm: Eastern Europe, India, China, Indonesia, etc. The preservationists (vs. conservationists) are the very ones who criticize US policies while ignoring “worst polluters” abroad.”

    You need to do your homework. Groups like Greenpeace, Sea Shepherd, WWF, etc. are constantly going after these countries (ESPECIALLY China and especially after the recent extinction of the baiji – the first marine mammal to go extinct since the 50s, a direct result of China’s industrial policies).

    But the environmental movement isn’t grading on a curve. The fact that China gets an F minus doesn’t make our C plus awesome. Everything compared to China is going to be exponentially better.

  10. Klute — the environmental groups do give passing mention to the worst destroyers of the environment, but only when they can’t be ignored. What China and the former Soviet Union have done is beyond despicable. But you don’t see half the scrutiny to the anti-american countries as you do towards the US.

    Greenpeace and WWF are political groups. There main concern is going after capitalism and replacing it with a government-run economy.

    The enviro movement took off in the 1990s. Why? Because the collapse of communism exposed the failures of a government run economy. But the socialists didn’t say “hey, we were wrong. Free markets and democracy are the best.” They became environmentalists. Hence the description of “green on the outside, red on the inside.”

  11. Klute,

    Name me one organization that has been more consistantly green and conservationally minded and involved a larger percentage of the American population for a longer period of time than the Boy Scouts of America.

    The Boy Scouts have done more for the environment that all of the Sierra Club like groups added together.

    How do liberals treat the Boy Scouts? Remind me.

  12. Nick S,

    You have no idea what the hell you’re talking about. Greenpeace’s “economic” agenda is to stop the world’s environment from being polluted. I mean, the Netherlands – pretty socialist, right?:

    Nov. 17, 2008: THE HAGUE — Dutch police on Saturday arrested more than 80 Greenpeace activists, many of whom had chained themselves to structures and machinery at the site of a new coal-fired power station in Rotterdam.

    Mexico, a developing nation, right?

    Aug. 3 2007: MEXICO CITY — Mexican police have arrested two lumberjacks accused of murdering an anti-logging activist, authorities said on Thursday, following criticism from environmental group Greenpeace of official foot-dragging.

    Russia, pretty hardcore to get arrested there, right?

    Nov. 21, 2006:

    Moscow police have arrested five Greenpeace activists for unauthorized picketing in the city center. The incident occurred at 10:00 near the State Duma building. The ecological activists had planned to stage a protest action against amendments to the Urban Construction Code, including the cancellation of ecological studies.

    I’m going to guess there aren’t as much focus on these types of events (and keep in mind, this is just what I was able to come with by typing “greenpeace” and “arrest” into Google) BECAUSE WE DON’T LIVE IN CHINA. Also, our system of democracy allows for more protests than China’s authoritarian regime (which, again, not grading on a curve).

    “They became environmentalists. Hence the description of ‘green on the outside, red on the inside.'”

    I’m curious, when you regurgitate this stuff you hear from Limbaugh, does it taste better going down or up?

  13. framer,

    Hey, I’m a fan of the Boy Scouts (was a scout – made it to Assistant Scout Leader, but not past Tenderfoot before I dropped out). Boy Scouts aren’t liberal or conservative. Are you asking me if I’m losing sleep because they’re banning homosexuals from being scoutmasters or athiests from joining? No.

    But this:

    “The Boy Scouts have done more for the environment that all of the Sierra Club like groups added together.”

    Please. It’s groups like Geenpeace, Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, etc. who get things done, like lobbying for environmental protections, who preserve lands by purchasing them or through direct action. I’m not dismissing the Boy Scouts spreading of awareness, but to say they’ve done more than every environmental group is gross hyperbole.

  14. And to all:

    I especially love (and give) to the Nature Conservancy because they buy land and put it aside and there isn’t a damn thing you can do about it.

    And also Sea Shepherd (watch Whale Wars on Animal Planet!) because their direct action enforces laws that that world governments will not.

  15. Klute:

    Given your expressed love of conservation efforts, I’m guessing you love hunting and the shooting sports, yes? After all, the Pittman-Robertson funds generated by the excise taxes these sportsmen pay provide more conservation funding than any other single source in the entire country, including any group like Greenpeace and the like. Even though the media never mentions it.

    Or is hunting and shooting too “Republican”, and thus only deserving of laughter at the thought that someone other than a left-wing liberal might be concerned about the environment too?

  16. Klute – nice try, but obscuring the point won’t work. So a bunch of white, middle class leftists protest in a western country. The worst they get is a night or two in jail, complete with cable TV and 3 hot meals.

    Why aren’t they protesting the true devastation in China or Iran?

    Moral cowardice.

    Just like all those lefties in America who complain about losising their “civil liberties”, but never having to worry about a knock on their door at midnight.

  17. Nick,

    The fact that you wish to remain willfully ignorant is not my problem (well, I suppose it is my problem since you probably meet the minimum requirements to vote, but I guess there’s nothing I can do about that). I know what the environmental movement is doing in China, Russia, Iran (hey, there’s a strawman we haven’t seen yet!).

    But you said:

    “Because the collapse of communism exposed the failures of a government run economy.”

    In “backing up” your claim that the environmental movement doesn’t go after government run/socialist economies. But they do, vociferously. So, you’ll just have to come up with a whole argument, I guess.

    Ha! I kid. When have facts ever meant anything to the Limbaugh-wing of the GOP?

  18. Dave K,

    “Given your expressed love of conservation efforts, I’m guessing you love hunting and the shooting sports, yes?”

    Not really. When I shoot, it’s target shooting on the range. While I’ve no problem with eating meat, I do confess I’ve not the stomach for hunting.

    Fishing’s another story, but I’ve never caught a fish big enough that it needed to be shot with a gun. If you’re ever in South Florida, I recommend the Capt. Bob driftboat out of Riviera Beach. Good man, good fishing.

    “After all, the Pittman-Robertson funds generated by the excise taxes these sportsmen pay provide more conservation funding than any other single source in the entire country, including any group like Greenpeace and the like.”

    I’m well aware of licensing fees, etc. I’m also well aware of the amount of lead in the water from spent shells and bullets. It’s more or less a usage fee. And let’s be fair, it’s not as if hunters are giving this money out of the goodness of their hearts – they’re forced to by the big bad guv’mint (spit) – Which manages the land and sets limits so they’re not out hunting whitetail and whitetail only.

    I’m not trying to be cynical here. I do understand that many hunters do have a respect for the land – but that respect is as it pertains to them. Greenpeace, Nature Conservancy, etc. work so that land and resources are left as natural and with as little human interference as possible.

    “and thus only deserving of laughter at the thought that someone other than a left-wing liberal might be concerned about the environment too?”

    Because the problem I have with “right-wing” environmentalists is that the land must be preserved – when it’s “cost effective”, doesn’t interfere with our own plans, and more importantly, when there’s something in it for us. Rightwingers always ask “Where are all these environmental calamities that the lefties said were going to happen! They didn’t! Haw-haw-haw! Have some more Gore-tex and Alfalfa sprouts hippie!”. They didn’t happen because there’s a segement of humanity that is out there constantly trying to stave them off – and (as demonstrated here) they earn nothing by contempt from most people.

    I want to hear a right-winger say “You know what? Let’s preserve this land just for the sake of preserving it”. Or “hey – maybe we should do something to preserve this species because we’re the ones who’re causing its extinction”.

    Then I’ll be convinced that the legend of the Republican environmentalist is more than just a myth.

  19. There is one important item where the Democrats outdo the Republicans by miles and that is they know that the first thing they need to do ANT and EVERY issue is to come out of the gate with some horror story that if the potential voter doesn’t fall in lock step behind the Dems, they will die horrible deaths, starve to death; lose social security; get hit by a truck and not be covered; slowly burn to death while suffocating from lack of oxygen (and more, always more). In fact, I suspect that if we were able to track back on DNA, we would find these guys were the ones who wrote all of the predictions of doom and gloom for the last 2000 years or more.

    I have begun to lose faith that the average person has any sense at all that they are so easily conned.

  20. “And let’s be fair, it’s not as if hunters are giving this money out of the goodness of their hearts – they’re forced to by the big bad guv’mint (spit) – Which manages the land and sets limits so they’re not out hunting whitetail and whitetail only.”

    Kind of limited worldview, don’t you think? After all, if the big bad “gun lobby” is able to block all of these “sensible gun laws”, as the media claims, don’t you think they’d be able to ditch Pitmann-Robertson, if there was a will to do so? If hunters and sportsmen really, honestly felt “forced” into paying the freight for conservation, don’t you think they’d be screaming and yeling for the “gun lobby” to do something about it? They seem strangely silent on the subject …

    Which brings me to the apparent point of the rest of your response. You seem, as most leftists do, to feel that “proper” environmentalism consists of “preserving” the environment as it might have been were there no humans around to “spoil it”, as if we were not a part of this world.

    I know it may be hard for you all to grasp this, but we humans are indeed a part of this world and its environment, and it makes no sense to try to pretend as if we aren’t. All of the peripheral issues aside, that’s what it boils down to. Whether or not you believe that profit is evil, whether or not you believe that human use should be part of the plan for the land, none of that comes into play until that basic fact is accepted.

    If it isn’t, none of the rest matters.

    I’ve dealt with some of these “enviro-nuts” (slur intended), and I’ve seen how they operate. There is no reasoning with them, and there is no compromise. They do not believe that people have any place “disturbing the natural state of things”, and that belief is fundamentally incompatible with the beliefs of the majority of our population. This is why they have to moderate these beliefs when they present themselves to the majority. If they told most people how they really feel, everyone would see them as nuts.

    By calling themselves “responsible stewards of the environment”, they come off sounding pretty good. How good would they sound if they said, “We’re the folks who don’t want people to have access to public lands”?

  21. I dont usually reply to posts but I will in this case. 🙂

Leave a Reply