'sustainable Development' The Evil Facing America

[Tombstone]

http://www.newswithviews.com/DeWeese/tom13.htm

What do you think of this article?

The author's contention is that these sustainable development policies are a complete transformation of American society; away from the rule of law; away from the ideals of property ownership, free enterprise, free travel and even free association.

[gmc]

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/index.php?id=144

It's a peculiarly american slant on things. You need a balance, rampant capitalism is just as bad as rampant communism. If for example people combine to stop a large company clear cutting a forest that surrounds them is that local democracy in action or a bunch of left wing treehuggers that should butt out of something that does not concern them. Or if they find a local factory is polluting the water table why should you let them?

I live in a country that was completely stripped of its forests now we have land that is only fit for grouse moors where there used to be vast temperate forests. Thanks to government intervention the woodlands are coming back. (they set up a foresdtry commision buying land off some of the landowners) and they are now beginning to plant native carietis as opposed to spruce for timber where nothing else goes. A few years ago they were talking about privatising the forestry commission but stopped because of the intense opposition because nobody wants to give the bastards the chance to do it again.

The American Heritage Rivers Initiative was born that way. So were roadless policies designed to stop logging in national forests. National parks have become core biosphere reserves designed to shut out any human activity. And the buffer zones around them are designed to shut off existing human activity, allowing the core to continually grow like a cancer tumor.


If it hadn't been for the likes of the sierra club and early environmentalists then you would have no national parks at all. You need to ask who runs the country people or big companies. The dust bowl disasters were al lesson in what can happen if you don't think about what you do to the environment. You can't replace what you destroy.

[anastrophe]

plazul wrote: You can't turn over a rock without affecting the ecosystem so we do have to have a balance between "sustainable development" and preserving the economic environment.



I rely on good, apolitical, science to guide our planning and development. The junk science that the Bush Administration uses to advance their destructive agenda is almost criminal. They've been exposed as frauds but they keep promoting their lies as scientifically sound policy.
problem: the left is just as guilty of promulgating junk science and promoting those lies as scientifically sound policy.



for example, just look at invasion biology, the notion that 'foreign' species are destroying 'local' species, which has *no basis in any science at all*, and which is being used to bulldoze and clearcut natural areas because some soft-headed liberal decided that a plant was an invader (usually translating to "this plant is ugly and i don't want to look at it").



note: i'm not a disinterested party in this - my brother wrote a devastating critique of invasion biology. you can get it at amazon, of course! :yahoo_big



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 07-8104127

[gmc]

It's not as simple as them or us, the environment or developement, good or bad. Though They would like you to believe this.


Very true. The debate seems to get polarised very quickly with epithets being used rather than rational debate from both sides.