NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/environm/5749

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-25 | 22.9 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!samsung!balrog!glinda.ctron.com!smith
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: talk.environment
Subject: Re: Ca. Green Platform, Ecology Section (was Re: Gas Tax?)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Jan 93 18:15:48 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Reply-To: [e-mail] ()
Organization: Cabletron Systems INc.
Lines: 523
Nntp-Posting-Host: glinda
Originator: smith@glinda

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (John J. Ladasky II) writes:

>The Green Party calls for measures to protect and conserve our
>water supply:

I notice they don't call for a moratorium on building new housing in
deserts, but then, they _are_ the _California_ Green Party.  Deserts
have such good weather, don't they?

>+ We should authorize desalinization processes only if they are
>powered by renewable energy resources.

Heaven forbid we should employ nukers for that.  Nice, safe, easy,
constant load application, no complex load management, no spikes or
low demand periods, just pump out the power and make fresh water.
Of course, this would leave the "renewable" resources for making
electrical power for homes, where electric cars are guaranteed to
make spikes higher and valleys lower as they are phased in.

>+ The U.S. should legislate the reduction of its carbon dioxide
>emissions to 35% of 1990 levels by the year 2005.

I suppose we're lucky you didn't grab the hat size when you picked that
figure.

>+ We should cooperate with the rest of the world in reducing the
>use of fossil fuels by large scale conservation and by converting
>to safe, renewable energy sources.

"Safe, renewable energy resources", the code words for wind, even where
there isn't enough to run a turbine, and solar, which is just too diffuse
for more than single-family dwelling heating.  Oh, I forgot, single-family
dwellings aren't green.  We couldn't possibly try to encourage a wholesale
conversion of gasoline to biomass-produced alcohol though.  That might
encourage people to drive cars without guilt and cars are Bad Things no
matter _how_ they are powered or _how_ clean they are.

>+  Deforestation must be halted. Global warming is aggravated by
>deforestation since plant life, primarily forests, breaks up CO2
>through photosynthesis.  We must undertake domestic and
>international reforestation programs to help preserve the
>atmosphere.

By military force, if necessary?  How far are we going to go?  The US
cutting of old-growth timber is a tiny, fingernail fragment compared to
the slash-and-burn going on in the Amazon, or the industrial-strength
denuding of the Philipeans by the Japanese.

>The Green Party demands that the oceans be protected:

I notice that Libertarians "believe" and Democrats "want", but that
Greens "demand".  Interesting choice of words around here.

>+ The U.S. Government should sign the Laws of the Sea Treaty which
>establishes the global sharing of ocean resources.

Translation: we are required to give away anything worth real money
to nations that didn't lift a finger to help get it.

>+ We should establish environmental standards for ocean-going vessels.

Taking care to make sure it drives pleasure-boaters into extinction while
continuing to exempt foreign or military vessels that are the major source
of such pollution.

>Vast forests once covered most land.

Except that the forest cover of the US is greater now than at any point in
its (western) inhabited history.  Vermont Life had some very interesting
before and after photos illustrating this very obviously, NH Stonehenge
has similar evidence, just naming the New England examples.

Also no call for replacing wood pulp with hemp, I see.

>The governments of many countries are selling off their rain
>forest land to cattle growers for the production of cheap beef,
>most of which is exported to First World countries such as the
>U.S.

Funny how the almost complete success of the American Beef Lobby at killing
all foreign competition in this country is just glossed over.

>The Green Party demands that our forests be protected:
                 ^^^^^^^

>+ We must overhaul California and U.S. Forest Service rules to
>protect our forests and use them wisely.

Motherhood and apple pie are always carefully mixed in with the fire-and-
brimstone, I notice.  I guess it makes creating radicals a lot easier.

>+ We must ban the harvest of Ancient Forests.

Interesting how they've suddenly got a name.  Can someone show me a map
labelled "Ancient Forests" in some state?  No longer just old-growth
timber.  I guess it still sounded too commercial with that word "timber".

>+ We must ban the export of raw logs and other minimally processed
>forest practices, (i.e., pulp, chips, carts, slabs, etc.) which
>cost American jobs.

Yes, by all means keep them here and run up our prices even more with
protectionism.

>+ We should offer subsidies to local watershed-based mills which
>maximize employment opportunities through value-adding
>processing, demonstrated sustainability, and worker control.

God, this kills me.  Marxism in its purest form, carefully buried so no
one will notice who they are sleeping with.  Communes were all "local",
were supposed to have "demonstrated sustainability", and were _supposed_
to embody "worker control" - as soon as the State withered away.  Suuure.

>+ We should grow and use hemp as a plentiful and renewable
>resource for the manufacture of paper and other forest products.

Ah, here it is!  _Two_ sections on forests, a bit disorganised, aren't
we?  Well, I guess the True Believers don't need to read it, and the
Evil Industrialist's won't bother, so who cares?  Why am _I_ reading it?

>+ We should protect significant archaeological, historical and
>cultural sites.

With armed guards, if needed?

>+ We should support the rights of indigenous rain forest people to
>their ecologically sound use of rain forests, such as rubber
>extraction, nut gathering and the gathering of medicinal herbs.

But we shouldn't support the rights of indigenous rain forest people
to burn it and expand their cropland, though, huh?  Rights are OK as
long as they don't conflict with The Party Line?  More Marxism.

>We should end the importation of rain forest beef.

Yes, beef isn't expensive enough.  There's way too much protein in
poor children's diets already.

>+ We should forgive the debts of Third World countries that need
>help in halting the destruction of their rain forest lands. (See
>also "Third World Debt" plank)

Now that we've given them all our money and they _still_ haven't managed
to build their little socialist utopias we should just write it off.  So
what if it costs us a few banks and runs up our taxes to compensate?

>+ We should develop labels that identify ecologically sound forest
>products.  This would help consumers to support ecologically
>sound forestry.

"So look for...the Union label."

>+ We must maintain and restore values such as the protection of
>wildlife habitats, fisheries, biodiversity, scenery and
>recreation.

But only of Green-approved hikers and bicyclists.  Death to the 4-wheelers!

>We must accept responsibility for the effect local
>actions have on the global economy and ecology.

"_You_ must accept responsibility for damaging the environment, so now
_you_'ll have to do it _my_ way."

>Ecological wisdom demands that we practice a sustainable
>agriculture that conserves water, soil and energy and results in
>a minimum of pollution.

I'm starting to get used to the organization.  The restatements add bulk,
so the whole document looks more impressive, and there's more room for
Marxist claptrap.

>The system has resulted in [...]
>a decline
>in the nutritional quality of our food.

America, which feeds half the world and has severe obesity problems in
its population.  Uh-huh.

>+ We should encourage small-scale family farms, polyculture crops
>and regional food supplies.  We should discourage large-scale
>agribusiness and the transportation of food over long distances
>to its markets.

"We need to make food more expensive."

>We should end
>genetic engineering in agriculture and the release of genetically
>engineered organisms into the environment.

I knew the Luddites had an oar in this.  Of course, the development of
nitrogen-fixing corn and wheat would eliminate chemical fertilizers in
one fell swoop, but we can't have that, it might help "agribusiness".
Besides, genetic engineering is Science and Science is Evil.  Everybody
knows that.  I call these people "Rifkinites".  You know how I feel about
"Rifkinites?"  They should be put up against a wall and bludgeoned to
death with chipped flint axes.

>+ We should place pollution fees on fertilizers and use the
>revenue from these taxes to clean up pollution from the use of
>fertilizers.

Who says perpetual motion isn't possible?  Oops.  "Science is Evil"
"Science is Evil".  Sorry.

>EPA
>standards for the control of toxins are inadequate, poorly
>enforced, and allow for the export of known toxins to other
>countries.  The identification and clean-up of toxic sites, even
>critical superfund sites, are severely inadequate.

Therefore, we need even more gov't and even more beaucracy and even more
taxes to allow making the EPA even bigger and less efficient.  How much
non-recycled paper is the EPA responsible for every year?

>The Green Party demands an aggressive policy to control and
>counter toxins:

Aggression is, of course, implicit in any form of Marxism.  "We will
bury you!"

>In the case of military sties, at least 50% of the clean-up costs
>should be borne by the companies that supplied the toxins, with
>government funds from the military budget to be used for the
>balance.

Of course, we'll increase the military budget to compensate.  As if this
was going to punish anyone but the taxpayer.

>+ We must set and enforce stringent standards through a
>revitalized EPA.  We must not let businesses influence or hinder
>the EPA's work.

"The EPA is above the law."  Better interpretation: "The EPA is above
the Constitution."  Right up there with the DEA, I imagine.

>(toxic racism)
>violates the principles of the Environmental Justice movement.

Oh, goody, we've invented a new crime!  And we can accuse people of it
regardless of intent, since it's one of those very convenient statistical
crimes.  The Environmental Justice movement?  What kind of non-sequiter
is that?

>                    Nuclear Contamination

Oh, boy, here's where we cut off our noses just to spite our faces.

>Historically, nuclear fission was developed for military
>purposes, first in the second world war and then during the cold
>war.  Nuclear power was a spin-off useful in providing materials
>for building nuclear weapons

This also describes, turbines, rockets, computers, networks, many medical
advances, and a whole host of other technologies.  Of course, we're only
against _nuclear_ power.

>In fact, nuclear power is neither cheap nor safe.

Once again, carefully avoiding mentioning how safe the alternatives are.
People are already stirred up about nukes, they don't care that eliminating
nukes means more coal plants that pollute the air and release far more
radiation than nukers do, in fact they deny that this is the case, waving
that magical wand of "conservation", as if they could eliminate four cen-
turies worth of low-tech uninsulated dwellings and a century worth of
primitive machinery just by wishing it all away.  The same idiot logic
that leads them to embrace electric cars when even a fool could see that
vehicle air pollution is now caused by old cars that are not being retired
because new cars are too expensive already.

>The mining, use and disposal of nuclear materials, (all parts of
>the cycle), pose enormous dangers for people and animals, air,
>water and soil.  Some radioactive contamination, like that around
>Chernobyl, will remain in the environment for millennia.

Of course, it will only be dangerous for a few decades, but I see we can
just dance around that.  What a step!  Just bee-yoo-tee-ful footwork...

>+ We should curtail the medical profession's overuse of
>radioactive isotopes in its diagnostic and treatment procedures.

Of course.  Medicine is too advanced for Luddites already.

>+ We should recycle medical radioactive materials rather than dump them.

But breeder reactors don't count as "recycling".

>+ We should stop all irradiation of food products.

Yeah.  That might reduce the refrigeration requirements and therefore
_conserve_energy_.

>The Green Party demands a radical change in our energy policies:

Demand, demand, demand.  Never "let's negotiate as much of a win-win
situation as best we can, and we'd like to...".  No compromise, no neg-
otiation.  Someone must win, someone must loose.  Of course, in the end,
the _environment_ loses, because normal people look at all this crap and
see the econazis for the nutcases they really are, and vote them down
nine times out of ten.  Heaven forbid we should try to reason out a
reasonable compromise all-around.

>+ Through subsidies and incentives, we should encourage the
>development of such renewable energy sources as passive and
>active solar energy, biomass, ocean, wind and small scale hydro
>energy sources.

"Small scale hydro"?  We've given up on the small streams that are the
spawning grounds for many species of fish?  Are you really retracting
the demand for eliminating big dams?  Are you really going to advocate
"ocean" power - presumable tidal and currents - without an impact study
to determine what drawing a few gigawatts from such sources will do to the
patterns of ocean currents?  Are you going to tell us again about solar
power, even though solar cells have not yet reached break-even when the
cost of producing them - a process that produces toxic waste I might add -
is added in?  Or are we just talking about heating small dwellings, the
anathema of the econazi movement since it implies low population densities
that cannot be served by mass transport?

>+ We should establish high energy efficiency standards for
>lighting and home appliances.

That's good for another - what? - maybe 0.5% of current use?  Of course,
we can make refrigerators and dishwashers a lot more expensive so the
older ones will remain in service longer, thereby delaying the time
when we will see any savings - never mind.  You didn't understand with
cars and you won't with toasters.

>+ We should enact legislation at the State level to encourage
>decentralized public ownership and democratic control of our
>energy system.  We should emphasize planning to achieve the
>lowest overall cost.

Anyone recall "the tragedy of the commons?"  I didn't think so.

>               Transportation

Here we go again...

>A major source of atmospheric pollution is the fossil fueled car
>which releases massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the air.

We have to harp on this, since it no longer emits statistically significant
amounts of anything else, and if they switch to biomass alcohol we will still
be against them, but we'll have a reason even more brain-damaged than this one.

>The Green Party demands that we develop alternatives:

More demands.  This is sounding more like a hostage note than a political
platform.

>+ We should encourage the choice of human powered transportation,
>including bicycles.  We should establish bicycle lanes.  We
>should provide free transportation of bicycles on public transit.
>We should provide free public storage lockers for bicycles and
>free showers for cyclists wherever possible.

The cyclists are a lobby unto themselves.

>+ We should establish multi-zoning in communities so that people
>can live within walking distance of their work and provide
>incentives for them to do so.

Are we going to buy the houses of people who'd like to move there in a
housing market slump?  Or are we just going to send them right into
"low income" and let the crack dealers take over management right away?

>+ We should locate services like stores, restaurants and laundries
>so that most people can easily access them on foot or by bicycle.

"We" are going to locate these services?  Using whose money, might I ask?
And who's going to run them?  You?  And what about the people running
these "services" already, we going to buy them out or just subsidize the
competition and kill 'em off?  Move them?  You're going to destroy the
value of the property they are in, who's going to pay for it?  Hint, it
won't be the American taxpayer, no matter _how_ high the taxes go, but
running the gov't into the ground and letting it self-destruct in the
bond market might not be a bad idea.  Certainly it would focus people's
attention on things besides the Green Party Platform.

>+ We should emphasize affordable mass transit systems.  They could
>be partly subsidized with revenues from taxes on non-efficient
>vehicles and on gasoline.  Mass-transit should be more economical
>to use than private vehicles.

"If it doesn't fit, get a bigger hammer."

>+ We should discourage unnecessary auto use by eliminating free
>parking in non-residential areas that are well served by public
>transportation.

Of course, it will also discourage NECESSARY auto use, but looses in
productivity don't show up until tax time...

>+ We should levy a substantially increased tax on gasoline that
>would more accurately reflect its true cost - that is the costs
>of the undesirable affects on the environmental and society (See
>also the "Economic Measurement" plank). These tax increases
>should be incremental with the availability of high mileage cars.
>Some compensatory provision should be made for the impact on low
>income drivers.

"Tax the rich".  Of course, the entire middle-class is "rich".  Someday
the middle class will realize that and stop being such suckers for
this line.

>+ We should maintain variable toll fees that would be lower for
>cars containing more than two people.  Similarly, we should
>establish variable parking fees based on the number of passengers
>per vehicle.

Anything to make it harder and more inconvenient and more expensive.
We have GOT to get that GNP down at any cost!

>+ We should require businesses of 100 or more employees to help
>their employees to achieve a minimum base ridership per vehicle
>(for example, 1.5 to 2.5).

I`ll gladly carry .5 Green Party members per day in my car.  You load
and make sure it's only a half.

>The Green Party demands that we preserve agricultural and
>wilderness lands:

Demand, demand, demand, demand, demand, demand...

>+ We should encourage high density communities as one way to
>prevent urban sprawl into agricultural and wilderness areas.

Yeah, TAX them rural bastards!  They should live in the crime and
filth with the rest of us!  It's more efficient!

>+ An increase in the population density of cities should be
>preceded by appropriate infrastructure developments to facilitate
>public transit travel, shopping, recycling and other functions as
>much as possible.

"Clean out the crack dealers as much as possible, or even econazi's won't
live there."

>+ Schools and places of employment should be located within easy
>walking or bicycle commuting distances from residences, or along
>mass transit lines.

Of course, we aren't going to buy anyone's old house, so we'll have to
TAX 'em out of it...

>+ We should eliminate predator control on public lands and
>reintroduce native predators where they would contribute to a
>viable ecosystem.

I'll be REAL interested to see wolves return to Long Island.  I just _love_
the idea of those tax-and-spend liberal environmentalist socialist yahoos
watching Bambi being dragged down in their backyard.

>American consumption of large amounts of animal products causes
>much of our society's cancer, heart disease and other
>degenerative diseases.  In the interests of the environment,
>health and non-violence, we encourage individuals to adopt a
>vegetarian, or even strict vegetarian ("vegan") lifestyle.

"Vegan" meaning "from Vega", person not from this world, or who acts like it.

>Throughout history, humanity has exploited other animal species
>with enormous brutality.  We have rationalized this through the
>belief that the rest of creation has been placed here only for
>our benefit.

Of course, it is important to indoctrinate people this way, or they would
refuse to through out the baby with the bathwater.  Unless we can get people
to toss out _all_ of western thought - including the very notion of individual
rights and property rights - they will not accept socialism, the heart and
soul of what the Green Party is really for.  "Econazi" is not just made up
to put these people down, is a short and very logical and appropriate label
for people who really do have the National Socialist Party Platform at heart.
Replace "racial purity" with "protection of the environment" and the journey
to the Dark Side is complete.

>+ We must immediately end the abuse of animals, including farm
>animals, and strengthen our enforcement of existing laws.

In other words, having destroyed "agribusiness" we are also going to nail
the small family farm, too.

>+ State and municipal governments should subsidize spay and neuter
>clinics to combat the ever worsening pet overpopulation problem
>which results in the killing of millions of animals every year.
>Where unwanted companion animals are being killed in shelters, we
>advocate mandatory spay and neuter laws.

This is interesting.  It sounds like animal shelters will not be permitted
to euthanize unadoptable animals or animals for which they have no room.
Perhaps we should finance them with a tax on Green Party members.

>+ We should ban the exploitation of animals in entertainment and
>sports, such as dog and horse racing, dog and cock fighting, fox
>hunting, hare coursing, rodeos, circuses and other such
>spectacles.

Once again, we have to get rid of the baby as well as the bathwater.
If you evil bastards go after an institution as old and well-loved
as the Ringling Bros. Barnum and Bailey Combined Shows, I'll make
some of you jump through flaming hoops.  Circuses and other such
shows live and die with their animals, they are abused only in the
sense that a die-hard econazi with an axe to grind would mean it.
"Other such spectacles" indeed.  Every time I think there might be
some grounds for common cause, as with fox hunting ("the pursuit of
the inedible by the unspeakable") or coursing, I get hit in the face
with something that reminds me that these people want to utterly
destroy nearly every feature of the world I grew up in and came to
love.  They don't want to improve it, or evolve it, they want to
control it, and crack the whip over my ass.  "Anything which is not
forbidden is required".  I'll fight you tooth and nail.

Larry Smith ([e-mail])  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.
--
Larry Smith ([e-mail])  No, I don't speak for Cabletron.  Need you ask?
-
Liberty is not the freedom to do whatever we want,
it is the freedom to do whatever we are able.