• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • A Debate We're Not Allowed to Have

    Environmentalists are being fundamentally dishonest when they sell there carbon reduction plans as “market friendly” cap and trade solutions, and not the massive energy taxes that they really are. But at least the eviros are participating in the democratic process when they try and legislate. The same can not be side of environmentalist efforts to control the economy through the federal courts.

    Hugh Hewitt has been doing a fantastic job documenting the scope of what environmentalists are planning to do with the Interior Department’s listing of the polar bear as “threatened” pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, including linking to this article:

    This month’s listing of the polar bear as a threatened species was the biggest victory in the 19-year history of Tucson’s Center for Biological Diversity.

    The center’s blueprint for saving the polar bear is ambitious and complex. It includes:

    • Challenging offshore oil and gas leasing in Alaska within six months.
    • Launching a large-scale challenge to the licensing of coal-fired power plants around the country sometime after that.
    • Finally, challenging large-scale, local government development plans in major cities.

    These efforts would be in the name of reducing greenhouse gases that many scientists are now linked to the breakup of the Arctic-area sea ice on which polar bears live.

    What the article fails to mention, is that a web of environmental groups has already stopped new offshore oil and gas production in Alaska and is already using local laws to stop the creation of all new carbon power plants nation wide. In other words, the polar bear regulation allows them to skip ahead to phase three: “challenging large-scale, local government development plans in major cities.”

    We have already suggested that, tongue-in-cheek, that libertarians beat the enviros to the punch and use the polar bear listing to shut down the entire federal government, but Hewitt has more realistic and less fatalistic plans:

    The best move for the energy industry is to bring actions now challenging the smallest emission of greenhouse gases facilitated by federal permit. The causal connection between a large emitter and a tiny emitter are functionally the same –non-existent– but public perception allows the former to be more easily burdened than the latter. Since the law allows anyone to bring suit, large emitters ought to be attempting to force small emitters to carry part of the burden now rather than waiting to get tagged by the activists in the order the activists would prefer.

    Posted in Energy [slideshow_deploy]

    4 Responses to A Debate We're Not Allowed to Have

    1. Charlie Butler, ND says:

      Why don't all of us conservatives get together and use the liberals own game against them. Let's start our own lawsuits against them for the lies and misleadings they are using to hurt our businesses. The policies and lack of driling because of permits and regulations are running up the cost of fuel and forcing my small business too make cuts. Enough is enough, we need our day in court. That is, if we can find a non-activist judge that will base their findings on the law instead of their feelings.

    2. Dave Allen, IN says:

      I wholeheartedly agree. It is high time the republicans go on the offensive against these repressive socialist politicians. On Tuesday if became evident what the democrats want to do when Maxine Waters told the chairman of Exxon that "this liberal wants to SOCIALIZE the oil companies", if that wasn't a wake up, nothing was. I am sure that our comatose politicians will just let it pass. Well, this is one conservative that will not let the Liberals socialize this country.

    3. William N. Doremus / says:

      I agree with Charlie Butler of ND. We have been too long subservient to the environmentalist wackos. Other nations are drilling or allowing to be drilled for oil even off our shores. Why should we be dependent whe we could use our own? It is a very dangerous as well as costly practice. We should hold those responsible for this mess to pay dearly!!!!! Bill Doremus/NJ

    4. Malea McPherson, Col says:

      I also agree with Charlie from ND. It is high time that we started beating them at their own game. We conservatives sit back and say they will never get this passed or they will never make that law. Well, they did and they have! We are fighting socialism. We need to be as vocal as the wacko liberals are. I will not be ashamed to speak up anymore. I still believe that we outnumber the liberals but are to busy going about our lives to speak up. Our lives are going to change for the worse if we don't speak up now and get involved!

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.