Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Friday, January 26, 2007
Mary Katharine Ham :: Townhall.com Columnist
The Forgotten Mammal
by Mary Katharine Ham
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Will the Dems' health care Christmas Present to America be an improvement or detriment to our health care system?


HamNation is a 5-minute Townhall video production hosted by Townhall's Mary Katharine Ham. Enjoy!

In Rosia Montana, Romania, George grew up in a one-bedroom apartment with seven other family members. Two thirds of the people in his village have no running water. They venture outside in brutal negative temperatures just to use the bathroom. Many of them, George included, hope a planned gold mine will bring jobs and a taste of modernity to a town long-ago abandoned by state-owned mines and gainful employment.

Almost 500 miles away, from her home in the prosperous, modern capital city of Bucharest, Belgian environmentalist Francoise Heidebroek says of Rosia Montana's poverty, "It is part of the charm of Rosia Montana and this lifestyle. You know, people will use their horse and cart instead of using a car. They are proud to have a horse."

In Fort Dauphin, Madagascar, a tiny harbor town in one of the poorest countries on Earth, Rasou Nirina Odette is waiting on a job in a new ilmenite mine planned for the area.

"I would use the money for school fees for the children and I would buy something at a low price and resell it at a higher price for a profit."

Many miles away from Fort Dauphin, in the regional capital of Tulear, World Wildlife Fund's Mark Fenn plans for a beachfront home and sails his catamaran. He has different priorities for the people of Fort Dauphin.

"In Madagascar, the indicators of quality of life are not housing. They're not nutrition, specifically. They're not health in a lot of cases. It's not education. A lot of children in Fort Dauphin do not go to school because the parents don't consider that to be important… People are economically disadvantaged, people have no jobs, but if I could put you with a family and you could count how many times in a day that that family smiles…then you tell me who is rich and who is poor," Fenn said.

In Pascua Lama, Chile, Eduardo Ayolo is one of 27,000 residents who have applied and trained for a job in a planned gold mine in his area.

"I'm not asking for much. Just a normal job," he said.

Another Pascua Lama resident said, "There are a lot of poor people who need opportunities to make their dreams come true."

Thousands of miles away in London, Roger Moody, an environmentalist active in blocking the Pascua Lama mine, explains his objections, despite never having visited Pascua Lama: "A large part of indigenous reality has to do with spiritual connection to the earth with specific plots of earth, with specific hills or mountain tops and so on."

The distance between the communities "defended" by environmentalists against development and the communities themselves is often large, both philosophically and literally. Filmmakers and journalists, Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney have made a documentary that highlights these environmental battles and the exaggerations, fibs, and sometimes outright lies that keep some of the world's poorest cultures from developing. "Mine Your Own Business" is an entertaining, moving and sometimes humorous look at a side of the environmental movement we don't often see—the dark side.

McAleer traveled to Rosia Montana, Romania several years ago to cover a story for the Financial Times—the story of Toronto-based mining company Gabriel Resources forcing people from their homes, planning an environmentally destructive mine, and ruining the pristine countryside of that remote Romanian village, all against the wishes of its residents. Only, when he got to Rosia Montana, he found a different story.

"I pretty much found that everything the environmentalists were saying was either false, exaggerated, or just a plain lie," McAleer said in a telephone interview Monday.

Residents told him they had sold their land for good money. Mining company representatives told him they planned to clean pollution left by now-deserted state-run mines that were built before environmental standards were in place and modernize housing and plumbing for residents. Locals told him the pristine rivers were actually running with cadmium and zinc.

Environmentalists claim that 80 percent of the people of Rosia Montana are opposed to the building of the mine. When McAleer and his wife toured the streets and homes of Rosia Montana, they found many who spoke in favor of it, and who wondered why so many outsiders were interested in stopping it (a letter signed by the people of Rosia Montana is here).

.

After their discoveries in Rosia Montana, McAleer and McElhinney recruited George, a 23-year-old unemployed miner, to travel with them to proposed mine sites in Madagascar and Chile to interview locals.

They also interviewed the environmentalists who oppose the mining projects. The results were revealing, condescending, and sometimes tinged with racism.

"They look at a mud village and they see something worth preserving. They think these people are poor and happy," McAleer said.

"They naively idealize a past that never existed. They don't know what it actually is to live in the past," McElhinney said. "We talked to mothers in Madagascar that don't want their children to die before they're 5. We want the people of Madagascar to enjoy their relatives into their 90s. That's what big business has done."

Many of the filmmakers' critics cite their ties to big business—the mining company proposing the Rosia Montana mine, in particular—as reason to discount the film. Gabriel Resources funded much of the film, but McAleer and McElhinney—both self-proclaimed, proud "European liberals"—said they only agreed to do the film if the mining company was given no editorial input whatsoever. Much to their surprise, Gabriel Resources agreed, and didn't see the film until the day it was finished. McAleer said it's the first film he's worked on that wasn't altered by the funders.

When asked why he agreed to the deal, Gabriel Resources representative Alan Hill said, "The project itself stands up. It's a damn good project," adding that the company had met all of the environmental standards required by the EU.

"Mine Your Own Business," has opened in New York and Washington, D.C., both times to objections and protests from Greenpeace and other environmental groups.

"We're just saying things that environmentalists don't like. Journalists have always given environmentalists an easy time," McAleer said. "They've never been questioned. So, when they get questioned, they get very upset, and that's when you get words like Neo-Nazis and pornography," both of which they say have been used by opponents to describe them and their work.

Outside the National Geographic theater, a small group of environmentalists gathered to protest the film, carrying signs condemning it as "corporate PR." One protestor, wrapped in a warm synthetic wool coat braved the 40-degree weather to protest the construction of the mine in Rosia Montana. A representative of NoDirtyGold.org, she said the mine will only contribute to the economy for a mere 20 years. She suggested "sustainable development" for George and his family such as subsistence farming and the promise of tourism for this remote community.

She compared the poverty in Third World countries to that of her own hometown in Colorado and economically-disadvantaged parts of Washington, D.C., explaining that the people of Rosia Montana can get other jobs and that they have clothes and shoes to wear.

"All you people talk about is jobs, jobs, jobs. There's more to the world than mining," she said while debating moviegoers.

Thousands of miles away in much colder climes and more dire economic conditions than either Colorado or Washington, D.C., George's sister Ella had this to say, from the film:

"I think the people who are against the mine, the project, they are rich people. They have money. They don't need a job. They don't need a job to live. They are not here like us. They are living there and they have a job, they have a house, they have anything. I know is beautiful here, but we can't live with that. We have to eat. We have need jobs and we have to work. We can't just live looking at the beautiful places here. It's not—it's not living like that."


There are environmental concerns associated with any type of mining or big development, the dangers of which businesses have learned to mitigate as mining practices and environmental regulation has evolved. There are water supplies and birds and rare breeds of squirrels to protect. But there are also people to think of. "Mine Your Own Business" tells their story.


Environmentalists would do well to pay attention. McAleer and McElhinney have given them the opportunity to do so while sitting on their couches, watching their HD TVs in developed Westernized cities, far from the people they're trying to protect. Just the way they like it.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Mary Katharine Ham is a contributor to Townhall Magazine.

Be the first to read Mary Katharine Ham's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Its all a lie
Everything I have seen from the envirowackos for the last 20 years has been a lie. You may think the term lie is a little strong but when they promulgate cr*p like this there is no way that they don't know that what they are promulgating is not the truth. Even that idiot Algore admits that his movie is an "exageration". How about an inconveniant lie Al.

its sad
when crazies take something important like our environment and take it way to far. Why do these people assume there are other jobs they do damage to people who are REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENT AND MAKE THEM ALL SEEM ANTI-CAPITALISTIC. Extremist always disturb me with their blind faith.

chr335
Good comment.

I saw "Mine Your Own Business"
in NYC last Friday. There was only one GP, EW, PC comment. This movie shows how the GP, EW, PC crowd, that has taken riches from the land, want to impose their will on the poor that have taken nothing and have nothing. This is much like the rich housing areas in California surrounded by undeveloped land to keep their own homes value high. Why someone in London should care about what they want to do in a mine in Madagascar is beyond me. But then the Greenpeace, Environmental Wacko's, and Politically Correct crowd have ALWAYS been a little "around the bend"!

Examples closer to home just as bad
For example, there is the occupied territory of New York also known as the Arondocks -- and the people kept in poverty so that New York City can have its park.

Worse is the proposal to do the same thing with most of upstate Maine. Maryanne Quimby and Berts Bees and all.

What we have in both cases - and in the cases that MCH cites here - are rich people who have a very good live wanting to deny others far less so that they can (a) enjoy the quaint impovershed locals and (b) often make money in the process....

Yep, big environmentalism is a very real thing. Look at the richest student organization on any college campus - it is the local PURG group. The flower children of the '60s might have lived in a 2nd hand VW bus but they have 100K lifestyles today...

We can argue that big business has a financial interest in whatever it advocates - and it does. But what no one is saying is that those who oppose big business (big environmentalism) not only have their own financial interest(s) in the fight but that theirs are perhaps more eggregious.

And don't even get me going about the whales and the Maine Lobstermen. Leading cause of death to whales is being hit by COAST GUARD boats but we are worried about lobster traps. Fishermen, naturally superstitious, aren't interested in harming whales and would be willing to accept reasonable approaches but big environmentalism just doesn't care. Hence many are adopting the attitude that whales are bad - much like some think about the spotted owl.

Gotta love how the Spotted Owl loves to nest in the new KMart signs. If a few of these alleged biologists actually spent some time in the lab, don't you think that they might have been able to build an artificial nest at least as attractive to Spotted Owls as KMart did????

And taking this to its logical extreme, if KMart goes bankrupt, does the government have to start subsidizing it to keep it open so as to keep the sign lit and the owls happy? Or would we have the bank holding the note forced to keep the store open (and to hire people to walk in and out of it) so that the ecosystem would remain in the exact same state?


The rule of unintended consequences


Even when the intent is good, it is wise to look what is likely to happen as a result of an action.

Ban DDT, less possible birth defects, more deaths from malaria and other insect borne disease.

Prevent annual flooding of an area by building dams= one really big flood if dam fails.

Bring in a rodent (nutria) to get rid of kudzu= a rodent overpopulation due to no natural predators for it.


my 2 cents
This seems to me to be the next level of the NIMBY syndrome

To Uncle Max
yes, its the NAMBYs. There are three levels of the inviro-wacko. That is the NIMBYs, NAMBYs, and NOPEs, NIMBY = not in my backyard (Kenennedy), NAMBY = not in anybody's back yard (most SF politicians), NOPE = nowhere on planet earth (most of the green party)

Pirate
Wayyyyyy too much shorthand in your post. It's not that I disagree with you, I would just like to know what you're TALKING about.

"Arondocks," do you mean Adirondacks? And if so, when you say "to keep their park," do you mean Central Park, or the Adirondacks, or what?

Upstate Maine: "Maryanne Quimby, Bert's Bees"... Huh? Can you explain these references?

Enviro-Nazis
I've been saying for years how phony, elitist, and non-captilism agenda driven the whole environmental movement is. Let's ponder a couple of instances.

I've heard people speak glowingly about the cleanup up of rivers and lakes in the rust belt. Many of them credit "environmentalism". What they mean by that term are draconian (and extra-constitutional)federal regulations. I believe it was indeed such regulations combined with the "union attitude" (highest possible wages for lowest possible effort) that made the re-tooling of the steel and related industries impossible and thus we now mostly import such a critical commodity. However, my point is, ask the ordinary working residents of Pittsburg and Cleveland which they would rather have, a $30 per hour job in a factory, or a $10 per hour data entry job. The latter, of course, includes the chance of water skiing in the now cleaner Monongahela River or Lake Erie, that is if they have the money to partake in such pleasures.

I was a witness to my second example. I was invited by a former mentor to a visit in San Antonio. She is one of the kindest and most gentle people that I know and my example does not really involve her. She is a professor of environmental law at the U. of Hawaii and there was an environmental law conference in town. Part of my visit included a dinner with her and several of her colleagues. Most were cordial, but one in particular was a stereotypical, angry, ultra-liberal. He was holding forth at length on the necessity of government to stop development along the migratory path of water fowl. Everyone listened to him politely and most nodded in agreement. I said nothing out of consideration for my friend, but all I could think of were the ordinary working people who wouldn't be able to afford their own home, with a backyard for their children to play in, schools and churches within walking distance; in short, the evil suburban dream of a large segment of our ordinary citizenry.

The attitude of Mr. Enviro-Law Professor is bad enough when applied to this country. I find astounding the level of arrogance manifest in such elitists when they try to impose their will on the third world poor because those poor are better off without the evils of civilization. I really have no polite answer for it.

If the sheeple of this country do not awake soon and reclaim their country, there will be nothing left for our children.

Who pays?
The environazis all agree that we must have these set-asides and protections, as long as they do not have to pay for it. We had a case a few years ago here in S.C (LUCAS v. SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) ). The enviro-Nazis were successful in getting a law passed that severely limited building on beach front property. In this particular case it prevented building at all and effectively rendered the property “worthless”. The state held that they could in effect do this under the principle of “noxious activity” which allows the state to prohibit certain activities for the benefit of the public. The Supremes reversed. Oh how the libtards weenies howled. They knew that if the state had to pay for a taking there would be a lot less takings. Their theory is that the owners of property should be the ones to pay for all their “feel-good” requirements. I say that not only is this pure hokem, but the average tax payer should have to pay for their ability to feel good either. If they desire to have set-asides and other such cr*p, then they should form a consortium and buy up all these precious lands and hold them off the market.

On the nail
Even in my native India, we have enviro-nuts--one of them a had-been model who managed to get elected ONCE (in 1989--due to multiple issues, including local dissatisfaction, with the then-icumbent candidate) to Parliament; prominent among her campaigns:
(1) don't kill stray dogs, catch and neuter (sounds like a good plan, but does she think the stray dogs are as dumb as she is?)
(2) don't use control measures against African garden snails (this species was what one might euphemistically term "accidental import"--in reality, invasive and pest; what is wrong with removing a non-native pest species?)
(3) farmers shouldn't cut firewood (and she doesn't bother to even see if they have any alternative fuel sources for cooking their meals, naturally).

Her constituency (despite of the illiteracy of a majority of voters) dropped her quicker than trash in 1991. It amazes me that Americans (most of whom have some literacy) can continue to believe similar nutcases.

Vic, Uncle Max
My favorite enviroliar acronym is BANANA: Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything.

It also fits nicely into the sentence "Environmentalists are BANANAs." :-)

Give them a taste...
I grew up in a western state with thousands of square miles of undeveloped wilderness. I've always thought it would be great to drive an environmentalist out into the desert or the mountains, and leave them, with nothing (not even the clothes on their back). If they want so desparately live in a "pristine" environment, without any development, they should really know what its like.

All too familiar with the wackos
Since my husband is an environmental scientist and presently works primarily in wetland mitigation, I get to view the wackos up close and in person all too often. I often go along with him to the night meetings so we can spend some time together (protecting the environment from the wackos requires long hours and lots of stress). Sometimes my husband just throws up his hands in frustration "All I want is to know just what the bleep the rules are so I can tell the client what he can do and what he can't. But they keep changing the dang rules!!!"

To which I replied -- you mean you haven't figured out yet that this has nothing to do with science or the environment? This is politics pure and simple and if the rules were too easy then everyone could play.

He can't tell who's rich and who's poor?
"...if I could put you with a family and you could count how many times in a day that that family smiles…then you tell me who is rich and who is poor."

I tried to buy a gallon of milk this morning. The stupid checkout lady would not accept my smiles as payment. So now I'm still rich (with smiles), but very thirsty.

recoveringlawyer
Not that I disagree with you in general, but you should not mourn the passing of the steel industry in Pittsburgh and Cleveland as part of your anti-green rant (which was otherwise flawless and very satisfying.)

While environmental rules and union stubbornness had some impact, the steel mills basically went under because of poor long-term planning. Post-WWII, when they were producing just about the only steel on the planet, they paid huge dividends instead of investing in updated technology and physical plant. Then, when the Japanese and German industries that WE HELPED REBUILD with current technology came online, US steel companies could not compete. It took 30+ years of trying to operate behind the 8-ball, but eventually US companies abandoned steel.

To inkling_revival
The combination of the Unions and all the Gov regulations are in fact what has shutdown the steel industry in the US. There are still a few steel companies (like Nucor) who operate in the South without the unions. They are still barely hanging on though because of the Regs AND this is with new technology.

Read "State of Fear"
MKH's article underscore's how spot-on Michael Creighton is in his depiction of wealthy liberal American Hollywood chuckleheads who, when flying over impoverished villages in the Solomon Islands, was poetic about how close to Man's original, pure, communal past they are. The hero points out that the people are starving, have no means of living and welcome any development that might lift them out of poverty.

Art imitates life or vice versa? These people are so arrogant, it's too frustrating to think about...

Environmentalists
I do believe that we have to protect our resources, but if the choice is between me getting to a place safer (by building a four lane highway) and the unmolested mating habits of a local butterfly -- I think that the butterflys can learn to mate thirty yards away on either side of the road... (based on a true story I heard about in college about 14 years ago...)

environmental whackos
Well said. And quite entertaining. Thanks.

Packrat
The answer to the nutria problem can be found at http://www.bradfordstreetpress.com/Nutria.pdf

I would offer similar solutions to the problems of spotted owl, red tree frogs, and flying squirrel.


To Redhead
I wonder if its like hunting beaver on the river (used to hunt them for bounty in Ga.). You had to shoot them in the shallows because they would sink. Also beaver were heavy and you could turn the boat over trying to pull them in. That doesn't look like a problem with these though at only 15 to 20 lbs.

Redhead
Love your solution.

Reminds me of the joke about the poor ole boy who was caught by the game warden shooting a whopping crane. The guy explained it was to feed his family. When he went before the judge, the judge said, " I've always wondered what whopping crane tasted like. I'll let you off if you tell me what it tastes like"
The ole boy says " well it taste a lot like bald eagle" IT'S A JOKE, FOLKS

Reminds me....
... a number of years back, the World Wildlife Fund got an extremely generous bequest of land on Martha's Vineyard. For what ever reason, the WWF decided to sell some of the land to other generous contibutors to the fund. So it turns out that people like David Letterman were offered very sweet deals (way under the value of the land) on parcels that were contiguous with conservation lands (no neighbors EVER). Very nice.
And the animal activists would like to see it that all animals be returned to their natural habitats. That includes zoo animals. So the only people able to see an elephant would be the "guardians of nature" and those wealthy or famous personages that might underwrite or publicize the grant work of the guardians. Paris Hilton would be able to see an elephant but your son or daughter never would.
Great piece, MKH, but the video took forever to load and I had to stop it, wait for it to load and then start it again.

Questions
Per year, how many daily-driven cars does it take to equal the greenhouse gas emissions produced by the jet-setting lifestyle of Brad Pitt and Anhoelina-lips?

Notice how many professors of "environmental studies" wear really big diamonds? Funny ain't it?

Sometimes I think, as popular as "protecting the pristine environs of the authentically poor and hopeless" is, some bright entrepreneur should move into one of these areas, and convince them to bill themselves as a "poverty preserve tourist themepark". All the eggheaded doo-gooders could fly in first class and get their jollies gawking at the utopian purity ans smiliness of it all. And meanwhile the locals could experience the joys of making money. No, wait, that won't work unless there is an adjacent hot-springs SPA and wine bar built first.

Oh and one other thing
That was a fantastic piece, Mary Katharine Ham. Well done. And, where can I get that "Capiltalism" shirt? I must have one.

Welcome to the National Wildlife Park
AKA Alaska, where 97 percent of the land is held by the federal government. Over one-third of our land (oh, correction, Priscilla Feral -- of PETA fame -- actually owns it) is locked up and we cannot drive a motorized vehicle over it or land a plane on it. Sure, we have oil, but we can't explore or drill for any more of it, though the geologists tell us we're sitting on vast reserves. So, tourism it is! Yeah, we can all make a nice living taking Priscilla for tours around the Great Empty and pointing out wolves for her. Maybe we could leave her for a few days near a wolfpack, so she can observe their behavior up close and personal. Her family would probably sue the entire state population if the wolves did what wolves do naturally and hunted and ate her, but ... might be worth it. Maybe the wolves would leave her alone long enough for the mosquitos to suck her dry. I mean, she wants a REAL Alaskan experience, so she wouldn't want to put any icky toxic chemicals on her skin. A mosquito might accidently drink some and die and that wouldn't be treating them very ethically. And, wait until she gets a look at what fruits and vegetables cost us! She probably wouldn't be interested in the price of market meat, being a vegetarian and all, and let's definitely not show her the moose we have in the freezer. And, by all means, children, ask her what is the source material for that lovely Columbia outerwear she's sporting! It's made out of ... what was that? speak up ... oil? You're kidding, right? How much hydrocarbon fuel is required to create the electricity to make the aluminum that the jet you flew here on is made of? That's oil, you know? How about the fuel spent flying to Alaska? And, now you want to take a ride across the wilderness? You want to do that in my Geo or would you like me to pull out the 4WD? Well, the 4WD might get you back from the wilderness. The Geo has an uncomfortable habit of getting stuck in the unpaved road near hungry wolf packs who find hunting humans from New Jersey to be easier than hunting moose. The Geo it is, then!

Yeah, Alaskans know what those hopeful miners feel like. Currently, we've got oil wealth on our side, but we can't really do much with it because we haven't got much land allowed for us to build anything and the environmental regs are strangling development, but hey, there's always tourism! And, man, those wolves are getting fat!

"T-O-T-A-L-L-Y N-U-T-S"
T-hey're O-nly T-rying to A-ssist the L-ittle 'L-osers' by Y-anking the N-oose U-nder T-heir S-miles

Packrat,

Nothin funny about eatin bald eagle, tastes mighty good, just like chicken, no different than whooping crane, that tastes good too.

Anybody have any problems with a poor person hunting and eating bald eagle? Or whooping crane? Let's hope not. Poor people got to live.

Humans come first, second, and last.



Enviro-whackos...
...are crybabies just like all the other non-normies who want the rest of us to do exactly what they tell us to do. I like AuroraWatcher's way of dealing with them. Too bad we can't just drop them in the middle of Alaska (I was about to say the top of Mt. McKinley, but I don't think helicopters can get that high--oh, but we could stick them on Mt. Augustine so they all get a taste of an active volcano up close and personal. That would take care of most of them permanently because a.) it's an island, b.) as far as I know, it's uninhabited, c.) there's not a lot in the way of food, water, shelter, or clothing. And maybe the next ashfall will bury them.

Yes, I'm being facetious (and mean), but these are the same people who delayed the Galileo mission because of their concerns about the RTG units, and who tried to stop the Cassini mission for the same reason. They've made it abundantly clear that they hate all of us--but fail to turn that mirror on themselves, since that's whom they really hate.

If you were to run the non-normie test (www.non-normie.com) on any of these people based on their spoken words, to say nothing of their actions, they'd all be at least flaming non-normies. With that kind of self-hatred driving them, they deserve to be locked up and the key thrown away (I would've said killed, but that's really what they want, so for punishment, they shouldn't be allowed to have it). They won't grow up until they have to face the cold, hard fact that life isn't fair and we normies and recovering non-normies don't exist for the sole purpose of taking care of them. Unfortunately, most of them have done very well at insulating themselves from that fate.

About the best we can do is keep telling to their faces that they're not rational and therefore we see no reason to listen to them. When they really start screaming, we should start laughing at them for acting like four-year-olds in a towering snit.

Meanwhile, new post on my blog for anyone interested.

Aurorawatcher
You are absolutely dead on. The are 93,000,000 acres of new National Park land in Alaska without a single road. It is being preserved for future generations to enjoy. Enjoy how? Back packing through wilderness while worrying about being consumed by North Americas largest and most vicious carnivore--the Grizzly. Or maybe getting lost, sleeping in a tent and freezing to death. Alaska is the most beautiful land God ever created but it has absolutely no access. The environmentalist discriminate against the aged and disabled by ensuring they will never be able to see God's creation. No roads, no lodges, no possibility to enjoy and more importantly the government has grabbed all the land, denying capitalistic development, ala Communism. Myth-buster: Animals do not walk through the woods wearing clothes and singing songs. Walt Disney be damned.

The only legitimate environmentalist
is the farmer who tends his fields and raises his livestock with the intention of passing it on to his heirs. All the rest are poesseurs.


The forgotten mammal
The basic premise of your article is incorrect. They haven’t forgotten the mammal “man”. This is in reality all about that mammal. The environmental movement is misanthropic and has always been so, going back to John Muir. They are only now becoming exposed for who and what they are.

The environmental movement takes in more money than the GNP sixty of the world’s nations. As a result they have acquired so much wealth and position they are not going to be easily ousted from their positions of power and influence.

For those of us who have fought this battle for years it is nice to see people with a national readership saying the things that we have been saying for years. Saying the truth and being laughed at by your own peers in your industry is unpleasant, but then again, who ever said that being an industries heterodox was supposed to be pleasant?

To paraphrase Col. John Boyd, "One day you will come to a fork in the road. And you're going to have to make a decision about what direction you want to go." If you go one direction you are popular. If you go another direction you can actually do something. "To be somebody or to do something. In life there is often a roll call. That's when you will have to make a decision. To be or to do? Which way will you go?"

Ham
I once sent a letter to the editor offering a solution to all the Canadian geese that are plaguing us at beachrs and golf courses with their dog size septic turds. I said we should shoot them and give them to the poor to eat. It didn't go over to well with the wackos. We can't be killin them warm fuzzy things.

theBaron
I liked the "State of Fear" novel. Lots of unteresting FACTS in his bibliography.

It was poetic the way one of the Hollywood knuckleheads helped feed the hungry, don't you think?

Absolutely Great
Someone has said what needs to be said. As a native resident of Wyoming, we are the target of these BANANAS all of the time.
They hauled truckloads of wolves in and pretended surprise when they immediately ate elk and livestock. Now they want to get out from under the tremendous cost so the three states impacted pay the entire bill, but they insist on having the right to dictate how we do it.
It is really pretty funny to see them burn hundreds or thousands of gallons of fuel to get here to protest drilling a gas or oil well. I really do bellieve an environmentalist is one who would demand the last 10 gallons of fuel left in the country to go protest the drilling of a well.
I think they suck all of the oxygen out of their brains while they're kissing the mirror every day.

HELP
Q. Where did the assumption come that homo sapiens is not indigenous to planet Earth?

Enviornmentalists
Why not let George Soros live in this village for a year to give him a taste of reality.
http://www.tratfor.com

already polluted
I do think there is validity to the idea that economic development is important and that it should be part of the equation when environmental protection is considered.

But how much is this economic development helping if it simply repeating the mistakes that have already been made? If this gold mine is made and it turns out to be yet another heavily polluting gold mine, the people in Rosia Montana will be paying a heavy price for this "economic opportunity" down the road.

I haven't seen the video, but to anyone who has, does it show how this NEW mine will not be like the OLD mines and will NOT pollute the environment? Yes, they mention new environmental regulations, but do these regulations have any teeth (we're talking about a former Soviet state where corruption persists) and does this company that wants to extract the gold have a good track record?

The river is already polluted with metals, will this persist or will it get improved? Is it possible that some of the environmental organizations know something about the track record of the current Romanian administration (or the mining company) that is not being included in Ms. Ham's article? I'm asking, not saying.

By the way, I took a look at the Rosia Montana resident petition. In some of the pages, particularly the signature page on the bottom in the middle, it looks like some of the names were written by the same hand. The signatures look less so, and this may indicate nothing more than the same peitition manager writing the names for the signees, but if the petition is legitimate, then the people behind it really should reconsider getting those signatures redone. It does look like something's amiss.

Who funded this movie?
After during a cursory Internet search, I'm also a little concerned that 80% of this film's funding reportedly came from the mining company that wants the gold there. Emphasis on the word "reportedly"; it may be no truer than Senator Obama having attended a radical Muslim school, but if it is true, then someone's got a bit of 'splainin to do.

A good question...

...to ask Democrat candidates for elective office in the future:

"Are you in the pockets of Big Environment?"

To tratfor
Haven't you heard, Soros has been convicted of insider trading in France. He'll get a better village. Too bad that prison in French Guianna is not still in service.

If the Bald Eagle...
...and the Whooping Crane taste just like chicken,why don't you just eat chicken?

Just asking.

To purplestater
Regardless of what YOU want, it apears that the locals want the mine. Why should YOU or any other "dogooder" have any say in what they do?

The War on Maine
> Upstate Maine: "Maryanne Quimby, Bert's
> Bees"... Huh? Can you explain these references?

Much of this is just below the political radar out of state - and the leftist takeover of the formerly conservative Bangor (ME) Daily News doesn't help but bits and pieces often come onto it - http://www.bangornews.com

There are two proposals -- to turn all of the offshore islands into wildlife preserves and to turn all of the paper company land north of Bangor into a National Park.

In both cases there are attempts to buy up the land from the existing landowners -- land to which the public has had access to for years -- and then to deny public access. Using public and quasi-public funds to purchase the land.

balance

There is hokum, misanthropy and excess in the environmental movement, to be sure, but name-calling against anyone attempting to protect an endangered species or to decontaminate a river doth not a cogent argument make. There is hypocrisy enough to go around on all sides of the argument.

It is a bit of an exaggeration to suggest that the mammal homo sapiens has been "forgotten." There are upwards of 6 billions of us at last count, the only large terrestrial animal that inhabits every continent except Antarctica in large numbers. With the exception of a few game parks in Africa, certain members of the deer family and the farm animals we domesticate, we are the only large warm-blooded animal now found in large numbers anywhere. It has taken only a few centuries to transform the world from scattered, nomadic bands of humans and a few dense settlements in river valleys surrounded by untrammeled acres hosting vast herds of wild animals, to massive human numbers everywhere hosting scattered remnants of other animals living in parks and zoos.

98% of all the old growth forests in the world have been obliterated; many so thoroughly that biologists can only estimate the original species composition by examining fossils or pollen grains in lake beds. If the last few 300+ foot redwoods and Sitka spruce should be felled, it's likely that we will have to wait for another Heaven and another Earth before such giants shall be seen again.

Anyone who considers these trends unalloyed improvements with no reason for pause has forgotten the second part of our Latin name, sapiens, "thinking."

The reasons people build steel mills, manufacture cars, build houses & plumb them, plow land, tame animals and weave fibers into cloth is so we can have a better private environment. People like to live in places with healthy trees in the yard and grass where children can play safely. They like to keep their bodies clean and wear togs that suit the weather. You can decry "wackos" all you want -- but who among you want to live in a subdivision where toxic ash rains down frequently? Where disease and vermin run rampant? Who wants a waterview of a dead lake? To swim and fish in toxic brew where the fish have died? Middle class Americans don't want that any more than the "wackos" want to live in mud hut villages full of noble savages.

You can't go "hunting" on a dairy pasture or a chicken farm, even though there's plenty of meat for the taking. Farmer Brown might get annoyed.
You need land where birds still fly and animals run free.

The questions of environmental management are really questions of suitable trade-offs. Environmentalists don't really want to repress people and cordon them into slums. They tend to look at the natural history of the planet, observe reversals of power over the last few centuries and fear that nothing significant will remain cordoned off from us. Considering the massive extinctions and near-extinctions people have engineered in the last few hundred years, I think it's a legitimate worry. I realize the Endangered Species Act, particularly in regard to minor species, has been used as a pretext for excessive regulation. The law is a clumsy instrument for many issues, particularly with an aesthetic or spiritual aspect. But it doesn't mean the principle of respecting a "balance of nature" is invalid.

A little less heat and more light on the subject might be in order. It isn't a credible argument that people are being forgotten.

correction
I should have said 98% of all the "temperate" old growth forests have been obliterated. Much boreal forest (with little species variation) and a fair chunk of tropical forest remain untouched. The remaining tropical forests comprise the most complex ecosystems and harbor at least half of all plant & animal species on earth. If they, like the old growth forests of giant trees, are obliterated, we shall never see such wonders again.

To Tomgee
That' a nice long post Tom. Can you give me the N2 content? There is enough of the other smelly stuff for my lawn. With the N2 it should be nice for geen grass.

Vic writes:
Vic writes:
< < Regardless of what YOU want, it apears that the locals want the mine. Why should YOU or any other "dogooder" have any say in what they do? > >

Vic, I did not say that this mine should not be built. I brought up pertinent questions about it. I think you may be confusing the raising of legitimate concerns with kneejerk opposition.

As for "any other 'dogooder'" having a say, I would ask if any environmental damage that comes from this mine will affect more than just "the locals" (not all of whom want it anyway).

Romania's rivers are already polluted in what is an example of tragedy of the times. Soviet-era mismanagement has wreaked considerable havoc on the area. My question is whether the political will is there in Romania for relevant groups to ensure that mine operator Gabriel Resources Ltd., which reportedly funded 80% of this documentary, will make good on its legal obligations of an environmentally sound mining operation, as well as its promises to clean up past environmental destruction.

I have not stated that the mine should not be made. If you read that into my post, then you should seriously rethink how well much you are automatically reading into the words of people who think differently from you.

I, for one, am in favor of many measures (e.g., emissions trading, nuclear development) that fringe environmentalists find appalling. As for this mine, if it can be satisfactorily demonstrated that the mine can be operated cleanly and that the promises Garbriel Resources Ltd. made can be fulfilled, I would be inclined to support such a venture, your interpretation of my words notwithstanding.

To purplestater
In everything you said you were implying that the mine builders were evil capitalist polluters. Look at the wording you used. I stand by every thing I said.

tragedy of the commons
Romania's rivers are already polluted in what is an example of tragedy of the times. -->

tragedy of the commons

By the way, the mine is reportedly to be an open-cast mine, the kind where rock or minerals are extracted from the earth by their removal from an open pit, not a tunnel dug into the earth.

Some other online materials show that over 2000 people would be involuntarily moved from their homes for the project. Not sure if that's true, but if it is, that certainly paints a different picture.

Again its irrelevant
You do not live there. If you would like to dictate what they do with the land then buy it yourself. Then you can save it.

BANANAs
I love that Environmentalists are bananas. :0



http://www.givemetheinfo.com/blog/blogger.html
Personal injury lawyer on a banana peel?

One point about forests

In southern New Mexico, there was a forest that the sawmills were forbidden from harvesting. I think it was about "old growth" or some such. The trees became infested with boring type insects, trees were dying, sawmills still could not harvest.
Result of all this: most of the forest is dead or dying. The sawmill is closed. Jobs were lost.

In parts of northern New Mexico, roads are prohibited in the forests. Removing deadwood is prohibited. Such deadwood makes great kindling. One thunderstorm equals forest fire with no way to get firefighting equipment to the fire (remember no roads).

Forest management ( planting and harvesting )makes so much more sense than blind protectionism.

Irrelevant?
vic wrote:
< < You do not live there. If you would like to dictate what they do with the land then buy it yourself. Then you can save it. > >

Funny you should mention that. One person who is the subject of this Toronto journal story...

http://www.thestar.com/Business/article/167658

... refers to a man who in fact does own 2000 acres there. He is trying to do something akin to what you told me to do. But here it describes Gabriel (the mining company) trying to push him and others off anyway:

"[Eugen] David insists there is a committed core of opponents who will not sell, whatever the offer. In that case, Gabriel Resources warns, it may ask the state to step in and move people out by force. But that could lead to years of legal wrangling."

Vic, according to a number of online reports, many people who do live there are opposed. Thousands are reportedly to be removed from their homes for this pit mine.

As well, the people who need the nearby rivers for their water supply, across Romania and apparently in Hungary, are largely against it. Even if they don't live right there in town, they have a direct personal stake in this.

Given that the mining company that wants to build the pit paid for the video Ms. Ham is writing about, it's probably no wonder that these things aren't adequately addressed.

To Packrat;
In Southern New Mexico there was a virgin forest that was the most magnificent of any ever seen. The environmental religious-libtards decided that it should be protected from the evil humino-virus upright walking creatures. They set out on their quest. With the aid of their friends in the media they made it cause celebre’.


First the roads for the foresters were banned and then even simple sight by any humino-virus was banned. Then came the lightning. The forest burned. The people burned. The only one who did not burn was the enviro-weenie who lived far away. When the fire was out and all were sad, the far away weenie said “it is the fault of all who lived there. If they had not lived to begin with, they would not have died”. In the end they received a grant from the government to do further studies.

To purplestater
If whoever owns the land is opposed to mining it, then I am in agrrement with them 100%. Will you agree?

I would tend to agree, Vic...
Eminent domain is always a touchy issue. It's one thing to require property for highways, waterways, etc., though the government shouldn't be able to run roughshod anytime it wants.

When the government is stepping in and taking people's land and homes to aid a private company, that should set off alarm bells.

Of course, just as I pointed out that a documentary about a mine that is 80% funded by the company that has the mining rights should be taken with a grain of salt, I will also say that I'm not entirely sure that the Toronto Star article (and others like it I found) are entirely accurate either. (Like, what if -- purely hypothetically -- Eugen David wants to prevent others from selling to the Gabriel mining company because HE wants to build a mine himself once Gabriel gives up its mining rights?)

Anyway, my original point is that there apparently is a lot of genuine opposition and it's not as clearcut as Ms. Ham would or the documentary makers would have us believe.

There is a bounty, alright!
Vic writes:
"I wonder if its like hunting beaver on the river (used to hunt them for bounty in Ga.)."

Yep. There is a bounty on nutria in Louisiana. I'm not sure if it's the state or local government that pays it, but I know it exists.

To purplestater
I will agree with you. I do not know what actually has happened at this place. I was not there, I have not been there, I will agree that probably the babe Ms. Ham has not been there. But will YOU agree to this. IF the people in the area wish to have the mine AND that no one is being robbed (5th amendment compensation) THEN they should be able to have the mine. Do You agree to this?

To sloopy
Almost missed your post. I have never hunted nutria. I don’t even know what they look like. I would like to see them to tell. To tell you the truth I haven’t been out on the river for over 30 years. It’s a shame because I loved it. I need to get back in to that kind of stuff.

If...
Vic, if no one outside the area is adversely affected, like if no one downwind or down river ends up feeling the effects of the pit mine operation, then I would agree.

However, a more thorough look than just this documentary points toward your "ifs" (the people in the area generally wish to have the mine; no one is being robbed) not necessarily being correct.

Close to home
As others have mentioned, you don't have to be 1500 miles away to be completely out of touch. In the 1980s I spent a summer living and doing volunteer work in an Appalachian town in Tennessee that had been decimated when their high-sulphure coal mines were shut down. I am a city child and freely admit it, and the people of the town had great fun teasing me once they realized I had a sense of humour and was teachable. I was also the only volunteer they had ever had who lived in the community. We were blessed with weekend warriors from North Carolina churches who came up to spend the day helping and who were well-meaning but clueless and who, unlike me, were both unable and unwilling to admit their assumptions and solutions were untenable and wrong. The townspeople were much more patient with them that I was, because they had heard it all before; they even amused themselves scaring the daylights out of some of the older hippydips as well as telling them tales about how their clothes were homespun when anybody could have seen they were polyester.

The one thing I came home with from that summer, besides calluses and the urge to make an Idol out of my modern bathroom, was the understanding that people living in poverty were not poor because they were stupid, and they were not some kind of theme park to be carefully preserved for the amusement of people from the City. (Some of our weekenders actually suggested that they become a Tourist Attraction now that they couldn't mine!) Because I was brought up by Depression Era parents who could squeeze a quarter til it begged for mercy, I know 'how to be poor' -- and I also know there's nothing picturesque about poverty.

Wouldn't you love to create a "reality show" in Manitoba and put a nice selection of Hollywierds (with their wives and children) and Greenies in a settlement with only those implements their pioneer forebears had and make them stay there for six months and survive? I think after three days they'd be sick, tired, dirty, hungry and cold. Send in half a dozen 'poor people' from Appalachia and within three days the place would be liveable.

But as I have said before, you can't learn without living.

Correction
We didn't HELP rebuild German and Japanese industry... we REBUILT it.

And people are NOT ALWAYS poor because they are stupid. Sometimes it's because they're lazy, foolish, honest, and/or bad-luck magnets.

We need to put the radical...
...environ's in the same catagory (or a similar catagory) as radical Islam. The must be viewed as the enemy and dealt with as such when they step too far out of line. Make room for them at Gitmo. DD
http://streetlevel.townhall.com

You all miss the point...
Environment and cultural saviors only want to protect and cultivate the crops of poor children and potential orphans so the Madonna and Bradgelina types can swoop in for a "super hero" harvest! Lighten up people. Stop progress!!
Oops, isn't that what liberals are trying to call themselves, "progressives"? Wouldn't that be a misnomer then?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.