Un-American Politicians and Corporations

Latest members of the group of politicians with dollar signs in their eyes. U.S. Rep. Scott Tipton (R), freshman from Colorado, is working for the welfare of Big Oil over the welfare of our environment by blocking efforts to combat climate change and promote renewable energy, taking funds away from land cleanups and conservation, and weakening the Environmental Protection Agency. His voting record clearly defines him as a protector of tax breaks for big oil.

Tipton joins Big Oil’s collection of politicians, along with his fellow Republican congressmen Cory Gardner and Doug Lamborn, who repeatedly vote against the environment simply to support a pro-polluter agenda.

This country needs oil. At least for now. This country also needs safe drinking water and breathable air. Congress must work on a balanced agenda of protecting business while protecting its citizens. They must not favor one over the other.

Subsidies to corporations that are raking in huge profits is unethical and unsustainable to this nation’s well-being.

One of the foundations of a moral and ethical society is that if you do the damage you clean up the mess.

Politicians, corporations and conservative media are so against any effort that appears to threaten their ability to make money that they will spend their precious dollars to combat all groups - who only want to help their fellow Americans not be poisoned - rather than work with these groups in an effort to keep everyone happy.

Their version of ‘share the wealth’ is to pay lawyers to prevent being held accountable for the environmental damage they have caused.

This is so very Un-American.

Climate Talks Remains Nothing But Talk

No surprise here. No agreement will ever be made between participants of the ongoing series of summits ostensibly designed to find a solution to the ever increasing threat of greenhouse gases.

Here are the results of the latest ‘talks’:

- Stall tactics continue to allow industrialized nations to pollute and rape less industrialized nations of their resources

- Oil rich nations continue to extract non-renewable fossil fuels from the earth

As long as industrialized natins continue to pay out funds to less industrialized nations under guidelines of the Green Climate Fund or other funding procedure, industrialized nations will feel they are ‘doing their part’ to protect us and no further progress will ever be made. As it stnads right now the combined pledge of $30 billion since last year’s Copenhagen Summit has not been met.

Until health becomes more important than money there will be no change.

If world leaders were truly concerned about the effects of greenhouse gases on our environment and our health they would come up with a lasting solution.

Slowing down the current rates of pollution by the meager rates agreed on thusfar amounts to nothing more than a token attempt to show the world ‘something’ is being done.

It is a sad fact that no real improvement in the human condition has ever been made until a tragic ‘accident’ takes place. And there is no reason to expect this behavior to change now.

The best that we who depend on our leaders to do something can hope for is that we can survive whatever nature has in store for us.

So keep your emergency survival supply levels current and hang on tight.

Can you say Disingenuous?Can you say Disingenuous? Or Insincere, snow-job, sham, hypocrite?

George W. Bush, environmentalist. Sort of leaves a foul taste on a truthful tongue.

European leaders, American governors, corporate executives, evangelical preachers, key lawmakers and environmentalists have been pressing Bush to lead what they see as a bid to save the planet for years.

And now that he is about to leave the White House he decides he wants to be remembered as an environmentalist.

As if this will counter seven years of wasteful environmentally unfriendly policy and practices.

He has refused to believe global warming is a serious threat and actively went about disregarding the Kyoto Protocol.

He considered climate change as nothing more than leftist political agenda. He disregarded scientific finds and even went so far as to have scientific reports re-written or stricken from review because they didn’t fit with his personal belief.

And now he wants to be known as an environmentalist.

His negotiators infuriated counterparts at this month's talks in Bali by resisting a mandatory cap on carbon emissions. And just hours after Bush signed a basically useless energy bill, the administration invalidated an effort by California and 17 other states to impose tougher tailpipe emission rules, hiding behind the excuse that it makes more sense to have a single national policy, which we know will never be drafted mush less passed.

And now he wants to be known as an environmentalist.

This is nothing more than another paint job, another imagined feather in his cap for another self-imagined “job well done”.

Of course, any policy he will try to get passed involving cutting gasoline consumption and greenhouse gases will be just drastic enough so that they wont pass and then he can say he tried but congress was against him.

This sudden show of consciousness is his top advisors focusing on reformulating his legacy and he isn’t fooling anyone except his own lapdogs.

Government Regulation versus Biodiversity

Just what does George Bush have against science? Now he wants to overhaul the Endangered Species Act in favor of any and all agencies that a federal agency would fund, build or authorize that might harm endangered wildlife and their habitat.

Let’s look at the possible reasons that he (or the highest bidding lobbyist) might have for overhauling an environmental strategy that worked so well for over 30 years.

1 He is utterly naïve in believing that civil and construction engineers know enough, and care enough, about wildlife and their habitat, that they alone can make responsible decisions affecting environmental safety and survival, even if it leads to increased costs for their projects.

2 Biodiversity is over rated and environmental protection is just a scheme to place a higher value on dumb animals than on mankind.

3 Mankind’s place in this world is to rule over all we survey. Wildlife is here to serve mankind and if they can’t survive along side us on their own then it just proves their lowly, subservient status beneath human kind.

4 Any money spent on protecting wildlife that does not directly lead to making more money for this administration’s supporters is a waste of time and effort because, well, see #2 and #3.

5 Environmentalist are using the plight of endangered species to hamper attempts by resource-profiteers to extract fossil fuel resources from the planet that will further pollute the land, air and water.

The Fish and Wildlife Service and National Fisheries Service are the experts in determining whether a project is likely to jeopardize any endangered species or habitat. And they have been doing a great job at it for roughly 35 years. Perhaps too good of a job, according to Bush and his gang of profiteers.

Conservative Republicans have tried unsuccessfully in congress to eliminate what they consider unnecessary laws to protect wildlife that only cause delays and cost increases on many infrastructure projects. The Department of Interior proposal, which does not require congressional approval, is aimed at ‘correcting’ the habit of federal action agencies have of ‘erring on the side of caution’ concerning wildlife habitat protection. In other words, civil engineers and project managers are tired of tip toeing around possible biodiversity destruction and want to get on with their projects without deferring to the edict of environmental policy.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said “We believe federal action agencies will err on the side of caution in making these determinations". This places immense faith in project managers to put the welfare of the environment over getting their project done and getting paid quickly so they can get on to the next project. this faith is obviously misplaced.

At stake here is nothing less than the continued health of biodiversity, struggling against an administration that places far more importance on making profit for its financial benefactors than on the healthy existence of this planet. The incessant need for humans to control the environment rather than to live with it is bringing us all closer to the point of strangulation.

The importance of biodiversity cannot be overstated. Diversity is the basic building block of a healthy, flourishing environment. Without it mankind will cease to exist.

The weakening of U.S. environmental policy is nothing more than a transparent attempt to allow oil companies to determine if their exploration and oil drilling practices will be harmful to wildlife. We know far too well what decision would be made if choosing between drilling to extract oil or saving the life of some animal that they couldn’t care less about.

Let’s Take That First Step

Being green is more than a state of mind or a catchy political platitude to throw around at parties to show your friends that you are ‘concerned’ abut the environment.

We have to get serious about first reversing the damage that this current short-sighted, corporate robber baron that we call President of the United States has done. Then we need to heal the scars that our drive to profitability has left on this planet.

This incessant need to live and drive in luxury (as if we think we deserve it) is exacting a very high toll on the environment and therefore our future.

Mankind has always arrogantly placed itself above nature with the idea that everything is here for our amusement and pleasure. Resources are finite. Wildlife represents an integral link in the chain of life that helps supports every other link in that chain. We have all heard horror stories and speculations of what would happen if that chain were to fall apart. Respect is what is needed. Now, more than ever we need to respect what nature has to offer us and what we must do to give back and this requires the same thoughtful consideration we would like to bestow upon ourselves.

We don’t need vehicles that have the ability reach speeds above national speed limits that deplete copious amounts of fuel. We do not have to get from one part of the world to another so fast that excess fuel is burned just for the ability to do so.

We will not go hungry if we don’t have out-of-season foods on our dinner table and our health is not dependent on eating animals. Wearing animal parts is not a status symbol.

Living simpler, learning to do without will help ease the pressures we are placing on the environment in the name of making our lives easier. Let’s learn to live with what we have as opposed to using what we have. Let’s turn our attentions to nurturing what is available to us and forego the corporate welfare that is slowly destroying us.

This idea of using what we have available to us is rooted in turning a profit on every thing we see and touch. It has gotten out of hand, it has become wasteful. Free markets properly value raw materials and encourages producers to eliminate waste and pollution, by reducing, reusing, and recycling. Corporate capitalists don’t want free markets, they want dependable profits, and their surest route to profits is to crush competition such as small businesses and local farmers that help anchor local economies and communities. These local merchants are being squashed by the big-box stores who funnel their profits to distant corporate headquarters effectively taking the life-blood out of the backbone of this country. Over 60% of these large corporations don’t pay taxes because they place their headquarters on foreign soil which leaves gaping holes in our inner-city neighborhoods across the country.

Teddy Roosevelt often said that America could only be destroyed by those individuals who hold the greatest wealth when they subvert our political institutions. Well ladies and gentlemen, that is exactly what is going on here today. George W. Bush and his corporate cronies now dominate our political landscape. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned the American people of falling under the control of the “military-industrial complex”. Abraham Lincoln lamented “I have the Confederacy before me and the bankers behind me, and for my country I fear the bankers most.” Franklin Roosevelt warned “the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism.”

The White House has learned a lot about fascism from the likes of Hitler’s sidekick, Hermann Goering, who once stated “the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for their lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.” They have devised a system of terror alert levels that keep us in constant apprehension, required for the people of the U.S. to believe we need to keep our leaders in place to protect us. And while we are kept worrying about our protection, Bush/Cheney have endorsed and subsidized corporations who destroy our public lands and waterways while they search for profit.

These corporations benefit from the largest federal subsidies in history, going to grazing, lumber, mining and agribusiness. We now have oil drilling taking place in our once pristine national forests. The protection of wildlife and flora has become secondary to corporate profit. The latest business receiving abundant federal subsidies is biofuel production despite its connection to increasing food prices and creating a food crisis around the planet which disproportionately affects the world’s poor.

We must hold ourselves responsible for the environment and hold our politicians accountable when they allow corporations to plunder our countryside. The first step in this endeavor is to embrace nature as a complex living organism, not as a thing that can and should be used for our benefit without giving back. We can live with nature comfortably without destroying the very thing we need for our survival. And corporate commercials touting their ‘greenness’ is just BS to keep you buying their products. Don’t be fooled by their crafty corporate-speak when they say they are green. They are using our tax dollars to pay for those well thought out commercials to pat themselves on their corporate-piggy-backs to make themselves look like one of us. They are not one of us.

Further reading:

Park Service Approves Oil Drilling in Florida Preserve

Bush Allows Oil Drilling on Pristine Texas Beach

U.S. Proposal Would Allow Oil Drilling Off Virginia

Whale Habitat Off Alaska Could Open to Drilling

U.S. Government ‘selling oil-drilling rights to polar bear habitat’

A New Environmentalism

We are constantly reminded by environmentalist that we all need to kick in and do our part to make this world a better place in which to live.

We see it in the blogs and websites we visit. We hear about it on radio and television, mainly on the Public Broadcasting stations. There are pockets of environmental activism groups sprouting up here an there but it just seems that there are still so many people who don’t believe their small part can make any real difference.

The underlying inhibiting factor to seeing more local activism is that people feel impotent with regard to politics and public affairs. The feel they have been pushed out of public life and that getting involved makes little difference in their community.

If people could be convinced that what they do would make a difference then they would do more. It is difficult to develop stewardship if it cannot be connected with personal responsibility. Without a clear connection between our actions and individual responsibility to the environment then all of the scenes of marine wildlife choking to death from ingesting our plastic throwaways or the many urgent calls from scientists to lessen our carbon footprint will go unheeded.

Throughout history, society has placed the power of caring for us and the environment in the hands of politicians and we have adopted the idea that it is their problem and therefore it is out of our hands, and with this attitude we have effectively taken ourselves out of the picture. Government models consequently take up the policy of ‘command and control’ through which laws and lawsuits are meant to shape our behavior.

While we cannot legislate responsibility or good judgment, individuals are beginning to recognize a common interest and a common purpose in becoming a more active and responsible citizen through recycling, water conservation, and fuel economy.

People and companies have made great strides in becoming more environmentally responsible. However, these efforts still fall short of what is needed for the long term health of this planet. While the ecosystem has some abilities to correct or heal itself, the limitations on the damage it can sustain are quickly approaching. It is vital that even more people begin to recognize the seriousness of these issues and start taking personal responsibility for what they are doing to the environment.

We can find plenty of sources to tell us what we need to do, and we need to herald the activities of the countless citizen groups and individuals that are participating in the environmental movement in hopes of igniting a more participatory spirit. We don’t need free-market environmentalism that depends entirely on the whims of the individual and the economy, we do need a participatory environmentalism that emphasizes community partnerships between local businesses, local governments, local individuals and stewards who are closest to the resources.

The old environmentalism has developed a loss of local control for citizens and local governments that often find themselves at odds with the Environmental Protection Agency and mired in politics instead of science. This has led to contradictions between what individual property owners believe is best for their own interests vs. what is in the best interest of the community.

Shortly after the creation of the EPA it soon became apparent that a centralized form of ecosystem management was flawed. Only when locals have a say in their own community and environmental civics can we see great strides in protection of our unique ecosystems.

Frank Lloyd Wright (1867-1959), the great American architect, practiced his own brand of environmental civics by insisting that homes conform with their natural settings.

Aldo Leopold (1887-1948), the great Wisconsin conservationist and author of A Sand County Almanac, believed that conservation is too important to be left to government alone; it is a realm for individual responsibility, good science and economic reality.

Like Leopold, I believe that if we don’t have committed, responsible citizenry then all the efforts in the public sphere will go for naught.

We cannot give up control of our local environments to the ‘one-rule-fits-all’ mentality of the federal or even state governments. Forming constructive partnerships is difficult and sometimes frustrating work but the effort to do so is essential.

To paraphrase Alfred Lord Tennyson’s poem In Memoriam 27 ’Tis better to have tried and failed than never to have tried at all’.

As always, comments are welcomed and encouraged.