I have been corrected on my use of "best science" and my poor analogy of
"flat earth" vs. "Sphere". I used "best science" as ridicule. I should perhaps
said "most desired science at the time". It is well to remember that the first
"Earth Day" was organized in response to the "coming ice age", within 30 years,
this fear has been supplanted by "global warming". Both views supported, in
turn, by the "best science".
Being on this list, environmentalism as it effects our hobby, rises to
prominence. I have been stabbed more deeply in other areas. As I mentioned in
my
prior message, I am more concerned by the Luddite/communistic/religous furor
that
adheres to "environmentalists". While the chief proponents may be pure, I
suspect that they are tools. I note that one of the primary effects of the
Kyoto
Accords is to transfer industry from developed nations to undeveloped nations.
The undeveloped nations do not have stringent environmental standards and
nothing in the accords requires their adoption. The result is hazardous
industries such as chrome plating are being transferred to under-developed
countries.
The motivation, I suspect, is the transfer of wealth.
I admit to prejudice. My home has been in my family for several generations.
The property has been subject to numerous condemnations and takings. Highway,
streets, power lines, etc. We have always been paid, reasonably, if not
handsomely. Most recently, I have had 3 acres condemned as wetlands. Market
value
would be about $200,000.00. Despite my having been told that there is no known
way in which I can now make use of the property, I am told this is not a
compensable taking. When I complain of this, I am chastised for not being
willing to
surrender the property for the "greater good". As though highways and power
lines were not a "greater good". This is where I begin to determine a
Luddite/communistic/religous fervor among the proponents.
I admit that there are competing interests on all sides and that perhaps some
government intervention is required. Anyone who has visited a European
sidewalk cafe, amidst all of the diesel vehicles, will rapidly express a desire
for
cleaner air. My problem arises when the consent of the governed is not sought
in a meaningful way. One also desires a sense of proportion. Our roadsters may
be polluting vehicles. But, how much regulatory effort should be expended
against 1968 vehicles? Truly, in the grand scheme of things, how much
environmental damage can they produce? Ignoring the possibility of bureaucratic
malice
and hidden agendas, the only possibility is that the bureaucratic mentality
requires that "fairness" can only be obtained when "everyone is treated the
same".
This prevents the necessity of taking responsibility for judgment in a
"non-judgmental" world. This is a powerful motivation for a "career-oriented"
individual in any large organization, and effects the operation of government.
"The
nail which sticks up, gets hammered down".
Tom Faust
|