The Purpose of This Bl;og

By and large, liberals are very decent, kind, and compassionate people who genuinely want what is best. This should be kept in mind as we explore the Law of Unintended Negative Consequences near invariably resulting from Leftist big-hearted solutions to societal problems.

Monday, April 1, 2013


I think it is fair to say that most people value clean water and air, open spaces, thriving flora and fauna, and rational use of natural resources. Millions of us regardless of political persuasion enjoy visiting national and state and local parks each year and sporting about in the great outdoors. In fact, within the Judeo-Christian tradition that is fundamental to the founding and development of the U.S. there is the biblical edict for man to subdue and have dominion over the earth and to dress it and keep it. (Gen 1:28; 2::15)

Many of us take this responsibility serious.

And, since liberals have been most passionate in advocating for these things, we owe them a debt of gratitude.

However, governmental environmentalism is one of those areas where the principle of "too much of a good thing is not good," and the law of unintended negative consequence (LUNC) raises its ugly head. What started out as a pragmatic approach for humans to live sustainably in a healthy and beautiful world, and where mankind and the earth were viewed as friends, has since, in the main, run a-muck towards eco-extremism, where even the very existence of man is viewed as a curse and enemy of the planet, if not also the universe. As John Hayward explains: "Another component of that shift in attitudes is the way humanity changes from wise steward of natural resources to planet-wrecking menace in the eyes of the environmental community.....environmentalism became anti-human.  They came to view humanity as a plague.  Its industries were regarded as toxic, unclean, almost Satanic."

I also like how Jerry Taylor sardonically puts it: "The political terrain on which the environmental debate is conducted today is defined almost entirely by the premises of the orthodox environmental community. They maintain that ecological resources are by definition public commons that must be centrally planned and stewarded by bureaucratic agents lest they be recklessly despoiled by industry. Moreover, central planners must have not only nearly complete veto power over private actions that might affect the environment; they also must be empowered to stipulate how much pollution is acceptable and exactly how each business is to go about controlling emissions and even, in some circumstances, how products are manufactured. The inescapable differences between millions of pollution sinks, environmental carrying capacities, and manufacturing processes are inevitably blurred and “averaged” in one-size-fits-all regulations that — while not always efficient or environmentally optimal — at least have the virtue of requiring fewer than a million regulators."

Ironically, in their zeal to save the environment, "green" advocates have often made the environment worse. According the here are some specific examples: government-mandated recycling "produces more pollution than making new paper, glass, and plastic! 13 of the top Superfund hazardous waste sites were once recycling center." Biofuels "actually have a bigger carbon footprint than simply using fossil fuel, because they require the clearing of land for agriculture, AND the farmers use fossil fuels to run their farm equipment." Hybrid car "batteries are so bad for the environment that you probably can’t drive one long enough to make up for the damage, before the battery goes bad and you need a new one, causing the problem all over again." Forest Fires:"Laws preventing the clearing of wood from “wild” areas, combined with efforts to prevent small forest fires, set up “tinderbox” situations, and are the reason the gigantic wildfires end up engulfing large areas." Styrofoam: "It requires more energy to make food wrappers out of recycled paper than it does to make them out of Styrofoam…so people who have pushed companies into doing so are creating a LARGER carbon footprint, and wasting more energy
What’s more, it requires more paper than Styrofoam, to do the same job, so that recycled paper/cups/whatever produce more trash. They also do not biodegrade, even though made of paper." And the list goes on (see linked web page above for additional examples and documentation).

[Update: 5/7/2017: Climate of Unintended Consequences: Biofuels]
[Update 8/19/2015: Clean Energy Job Act did Little but Enrich Consultants]

In the weeks to come, I will examine specific environmental causes like global warming, recycling, Agenda 21, green initiatives, population control, DDT, liberal energy policies, etc., but here I wish to list the LUNCs of environmentalism in general:

For an explanation as to why these Leftist energy LUNCs occur, please see: Gov: Wrong Tool for the Right Job - Strength in Number, Elitism and Specialization, and Cold Nanny as well as The Politics of Compassion, Emotions, Ignorance, Denial, Blame-Shifting, and Victimization


Federal Budget FY 2013, environmental expenditures:
To see just how bloated government environmentalism has become, here are the 2013 budget expenditures for several key environment-related federal departments or agencies:  EPA $8.13 Billion; Dept of Energy $28.4 billion; Dept. of Interior $$11.7 billion.  In addition:

Costly and deleterious expansion of government (power and land grabs):

Abuse of power and potential totalitarianism: 

Fraud, Hoax, Scam, and waste of tax dollars:

Doesn't work, and is harmful to the environment and humans:

Self-admitted failure:

At odds with the economy, bad for the poor, infringe on civil rights:,8599,1847409,00.html

Corruption and junking up of science:
There is a simple formula to explain how environmentalism has corrupted and junked-up science: 1) liberal philosophies, like environmentalism, governs the mainstream media, 2) the mainstream media helps set public opinion, 3) public opinion sets politics, 4) politics sets governmental funding, 5) government funding helps set scientific agendas, 6) scientific agendas set which scientific theories get monitized, published, and credibalized, and 8)  Scientists conform to the agenda, or perish. In short, in order to keep from perishing, many scientists have paid their meal-tickets by echoing back to liberals and the public what they want to hear, regardless whether it defies good science or not. Call it: systemic confirmation bias. Here's the evidence:

Well-funded propaganda, obfuscation, and mis-information:


Unethical, Anti-human, Elitist, quasi-religious:

No comments:

Post a Comment