Tuesday, October 23, 2007

We see the direct consequences of environmentalists


Sometimes people have to connect too many dots to see all the harm liberal policies have on our society (i.e. welfare, handouts, the projects, drilling restrictions raising the cost of gas)...
But in California right now, you can see the direct effects right before your eyes...

Just last month, experts were calling on Congress to expedite forest thinning and other forest managment alternatives:
Wildfires thrive in hot, dry weather. But the conditions also contribute to the die-off of trees, which must compete for water in forests that have become unnaturally dense because of a century of misguided fire suppression. Once dead and brittle, the trees become more fuel for catastrophic fires.
The panelists testified that more resources are needed to keep up with necessary tree thinning and removal campaigns. One witness, University of Arizona Professor Thomas Swetnam, said even that won’t be enough to reverse the trend.
“I don’t think we can thin our way out of this,” Swetnam said.
He said more prominent use of intentionally set fires to mimic naturally occurring blazes has certain risks, but is less costly than mechanical thinning with hand crews and chainsaws.
Environmentalists blame global warming for the problem, but guess who’s standing in the way of a solution?
Litigious environmentalists:
The GAO examined 762 U.S. Forest Service (USFS) proposals to thin forests and prevent fires during the past two years. According to the study, slightly more than half the proposals were not subject to third-party appeal. Of those proposals subject to appeal, third parties challenged 59 percent.
Appeals were filed most often by anti-logging groups, including the Sierra Club, Alliance for Wild Rockies, and Forest Conservation Council. According to the GAO, 84 interest groups filed more than 400 appeals of Forest Service proposals. The appeals delayed efforts to treat 900,000 acres of forests and cost the federal government millions of dollars to address.
Forest Service officials estimate they spend nearly half their time, and $250 million each year, preparing for the appeals and procedural challenges launched by activists.
“The report demonstrates that the appeals needlessly delay federal efforts to prevent wildfires, and if the process is not streamlined, millions of acres will be lost this summer,” said Senate Energy Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-New Mexico).
“The American people will no longer tolerate management by wildfire,” Domenici added.
“This finding is nothing short of appalling, especially when you think of the catastrophic losses suffered in last year’s [2002] horrific fire season alone,” said House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo (R-California).
“These were not only losses of forest, endangered species, and wildlife habitat, they were losses of human life and family property,” Pombo said.
Same old, same old. Lawsuits have tied up the president’s Healthy Forests Initiative passed in 2003.
Prediction: Look to the Bush-bashing Left and the nutroots Democrats to mimic the Kossacks and blame the wildfires on the Iraq war–even as the environuts continue to litigate while the West burns.

3 comments:

PCD said...

Once again Bonehead Boxer is trying to make political hay out of a tragedy in SoCal, but she gets busted.

http://rovinsworld.blogspot.com/
2007/10/returning-to-cinders-
taming-beast-thats.html

The Game said...

I heard Reid talk about how this was the work of global warming...
I forgot, California never had brush fires before the invention of global warming...we never had wind...how can anyone believe this?

blamin said...

Don’t forget the countless lives ruined by the false ALAR scare, or the millions of lives lost due to overblown DDT hype!

Did you hear an “I’m sorry, we screwed up”, no I didn’t think so.

That’s right you can have falsities that resulted in crimes against mankind, and as long as so-called “environmentalist” perpetuated it it’s given a pass.

What a fckd up world we live in!!!

Remind me again why we should believe and base legislation on disputed theories.