How the fanatic extremism of the few poses grave dangers to us all
Russ Walker, the Director of Oregon FreedomWorks has just released a new study, examining the dangers of the radical environmental movement. Here is a summery of the study highlighting the most important parts. I encourage you to pass this study around. Truth will prevail.
Energy is Necessary
Recently, energy shortfalls in Pakistan resulted in widespread rioting and massive injuries.[1] Many recall the infamous news footage of the 1997 New York City blackout that led to mass public hysteria and more than $61 million in property damage.[2] More recently, huge swaths of the Western United States suffered brownouts during the hottest summer months that engendered fears of a repeat of the New York debacle yet on a potentially massively larger scale.[3] In 2003, 15,000 people died in France and another 5,000 throughout Western Europe when temperatures hit 104 degrees.[4]
The reason?
This was at least in part due to too many people unable to afford air conditioning because of the high cost of energy resulting from excessive energy regulations, high energy taxes, and barriers to energy development. That’s the path down which the radical environmentalists are leading the rest of us who want sensible energy and environmental policies.
The primary problem with the radical fringe environmentalist obstructionists is that their efforts, if left unchecked, result in potentially devastating energy shortages, significantly increased prices (not just for energy, but for all goods) and a legal system crushed by the weight of frivolous lawsuits. The economic costs of energy shortfalls are manifest in higher home heating and cooling bills, in skyrocketing gasoline prices, higher costs of all goods that require energy to produce—which is to say almost all goods, and families left unable to meet their obligations.
What energy projects have radical environmentalists blocked?
A proposed $400 million plant project in Southern Oregon that would use the earth’s own retained heat to power more than 100,000 homes with 100 percent renewable, emission free power was blocked by a radical offshoot of the Sierra Club using the legal system to, in its own words, “halt exploration”.
FW Enviro book.indd
Conclusion
Education and renewed dedication to the development and delivery of all energy are reasonable goals, and are goals that are supported by a broad majority of the public —the silent majority is too often drowned out by the media-grabbing radical fringe.
[1] Power Politics: The Violence of Energy Security, All Things Pakistan, April 16, 2008.
[2] After 20 Years, New Yorkers Recall Night the Lights Went Out, CNN, July 12, 1997.
[3] Rolling Blackouts Again Hit California, Los Angeles Times, January 18, 2001.
[4] Frances largest undertaker says 15,000 died in heat, USA TODAY, September 9, 2003; Heat Wave UK and Europe, Hazard Research Center, July 8, 2003 – February 20, 2004, http://www.benfieldhrc.org/activities/cat_reports/cat_report4/pages/uk_heat.htm.
[5]Volunteer Opportunities, www.oregon.sierraclub.org/groups/juniper, Sept. 28, 2008.
[6]Save Our Wild Salmon, Northwest Salmon Are A National Treasure, www.wildsalmon.com/actioncenter; see also The Battle Over The Columbia, Fisherman’s News, Oct. 1997.
[7]www.oregonwild.org; http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/P2008/press_111308.shtml
[8] Surfrider Files Motion On Proposed Wave Park, www.surfrider.org, Aug. 28, 2007.
[9]Windmills vs Squirrels?, FoxNews.com, July 6, 2001.
Energy is Necessary
Recently, energy shortfalls in Pakistan resulted in widespread rioting and massive injuries.[1] Many recall the infamous news footage of the 1997 New York City blackout that led to mass public hysteria and more than $61 million in property damage.[2] More recently, huge swaths of the Western United States suffered brownouts during the hottest summer months that engendered fears of a repeat of the New York debacle yet on a potentially massively larger scale.[3] In 2003, 15,000 people died in France and another 5,000 throughout Western Europe when temperatures hit 104 degrees.[4]
The reason?
This was at least in part due to too many people unable to afford air conditioning because of the high cost of energy resulting from excessive energy regulations, high energy taxes, and barriers to energy development. That’s the path down which the radical environmentalists are leading the rest of us who want sensible energy and environmental policies.
The primary problem with the radical fringe environmentalist obstructionists is that their efforts, if left unchecked, result in potentially devastating energy shortages, significantly increased prices (not just for energy, but for all goods) and a legal system crushed by the weight of frivolous lawsuits. The economic costs of energy shortfalls are manifest in higher home heating and cooling bills, in skyrocketing gasoline prices, higher costs of all goods that require energy to produce—which is to say almost all goods, and families left unable to meet their obligations.
What energy projects have radical environmentalists blocked?
A proposed $400 million plant project in Southern Oregon that would use the earth’s own retained heat to power more than 100,000 homes with 100 percent renewable, emission free power was blocked by a radical offshoot of the Sierra Club using the legal system to, in its own words, “halt exploration”.
Hydroelectric: Continued provision of this 100 percent renewable energy source is being hamstrung by fish-rights activists who, disavowing any compromise, instead advocate removing—literally blowing up—the dams on the Snake River. Similar obstruction risks compromising the hydroelectric power generated from the Klamath River.[5]
Wave Power: A project proposed near Florence to harness the immense, zero emission, 100 percent renewable power of the sea and that would initially power 15,000 homes and be expanded to power more than 100,000 Oregon homes was blocked in court by a fringe element wanting to protect surfers’ ability to surf in the area.[6]
Wind Power: The $1.3 billion proposed Shepherds Flat (wind farm) Project, also in Oregon
No energy project satisfies the radical fringe. These radicals loudly denounce “big oil” and profess the need for clean, renewable, sustainable, affordable energy—at least when the media is listening. They champion alternative energy sources to the media yet then abuse the legal system to seek to block the very projects that would help create those very energy sources they say are so necessary. If this fails, they employ violence or fear of violence to terrorize proponents of new energy sources. They launch attacks on hydro power for destroying river habitat, solar power for impacting the desert and geothermal power for toxic discharge.[8] Sometimes they resort to both terrorism and legal assaults to thwart alternative energy solutions.[9]
Conclusion
Education and renewed dedication to the development and delivery of all energy are reasonable goals, and are goals that are supported by a broad majority of the public —the silent majority is too often drowned out by the media-grabbing radical fringe.
[1] Power Politics: The Violence of Energy Security, All Things Pakistan, April 16, 2008.
[2] After 20 Years, New Yorkers Recall Night the Lights Went Out, CNN, July 12, 1997.
[3] Rolling Blackouts Again Hit California, Los Angeles Times, January 18, 2001.
[4] Frances largest undertaker says 15,000 died in heat, USA TODAY, September 9, 2003; Heat Wave UK and Europe, Hazard Research Center, July 8, 2003 – February 20, 2004, http://www.benfieldhrc.org/activities/cat_reports/cat_report4/pages/uk_heat.htm.
[5]Volunteer Opportunities, www.oregon.sierraclub.org/groups/juniper, Sept. 28, 2008.
[6]Save Our Wild Salmon, Northwest Salmon Are A National Treasure, www.wildsalmon.com/actioncenter; see also The Battle Over The Columbia, Fisherman’s News, Oct. 1997.
[7]www.oregonwild.org; http://governor.oregon.gov/Gov/P2008/press_111308.shtml
[8] Surfrider Files Motion On Proposed Wave Park, www.surfrider.org, Aug. 28, 2007.
[9]Windmills vs Squirrels?, FoxNews.com, July 6, 2001.
0 comments:
Post a Comment