BEWARE OF THE PERVASIVE POISON OF BIG GOVERNMENT

Here, in the seventh post in a series on Mitt Romney, we will talk about his attitude towards environmental issues (See 2012 PRESIDENTIAL PROS AND CONS: GENERAL OBSERVATIONS ON MITT ROMNEY for the first post and links to the remaining posts in this series.).

The Environment

In 2008, like other Republicans Romney offered a plan to “End Energy Dependence”. Romney wanted a national energy plan that involves subsidies and research. He mentions everything from ethanol subsidies to liquefied coal to offshore oil drilling to energy conservation. His justification?

“The United States must become energy independent. This does not mean no longer importing or using oil. It means making sure that our nation’s future will always be in our hands. Our decisions and destiny cannot be bound to the whims of oil-producing states.” (Governor Mitt Romney, Rising To A New Generation Of Global Challenges, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2007) (from here)

Romney’s acquiescence on alcohol subsidies, of course, makes his promises with regard to spending cuts a bit harder to take seriously.

In 2007, Grist.org provided a synopsis of Romney’s environmental proposals and his record as Governor of Massachusetts (here). Grist.org has since then grown more unhappy with Romney.

Where does Mitt Romney stand on climate change and energy issues? Brace yourself: He doesn’t have that flip-flopper reputation for nothing. (continued here)

That article goes on to observe that as recent as June 2011 Romney expressed concern over Climate Change (aka Global Warming). By October 2011, Romney swiveled around on his climate views. Thus, Romney’s “Believe In America” speaks to environmental issues in two sections. Romney offers an Energy Policy that he says would ensure that environmental laws properly account for cost in regulatory process. In particular, he supports and he offers a Regulatory Policy that he says would eliminate unnecessarily costly environmental regulations. In particular, Romney would eliminate “Amend Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from its purview.”

Here is how his regulatory reform proposals sound now.

Reform Environmental Regulation

As president, Mitt Romney will eliminate the regulations promulgated in pursuit of the Obama administration’s costly and ineffective anti-carbon agenda. Romney will also press Congress to reform our environmental laws to ensure that they allow for a proper assessment of their costs.

• Ensure that environmental laws properly account for cost in regulatory process
• Provide multi-year lead times before companies must come into compliance with onerous new environmental regulations

(from here)

In this campaign, Romney’s focus is jobs.  So he has either honed his message to please the most people, or he has flip-flopped.  Take your pick.

It appears that Romney’s most solid accomplishment as the governor of Massachusetts was signing a law to reduce mercury pollution (here).

With just over two weeks until Election Day, Senate races are really heating up, and few moreso than the matchup between Bryce Reeves and Edd Houck.

For many conservatives, incumbent Democratic Senator Edd Houck needs no introduction – and that’s not a good thing. He’s chair of the infamous Senate Committee on Education and Health, the committee where good bills go to die. You want to know why Virginia doesn’t have a credible charter school program, or why common sense pro-life bills seem to go nowhere? Look no farther than Ed & Health and its chairman, Edd Houck.

Houck has tried to increase the sales tax, the gas tax, communications taxes, and the vehicle sales tax. He wants to impose an internet sales tax. He voted for the “abuser fees” – then later claimed that he had no idea what he was voting for. He has tried to eliminate income tax deductions for senior citizens, championed increasing court fees, favors impact fees, and even wanted to impose a fee for riding a mountain bike on Department of Forestry land. Long story short, if there’s a tax or fee Edd Houck doesn’t think should be higher, I haven’t found it yet.

As committee chair, Houck actually sets a day to systematically address all of the human life initiatives — and then sees to it that they each go down to defeat.

Fortunately, Senator Houck has drawn a great challenger in Bryce Reeves, a former Army Ranger and police detective and a successful small business owner. Bryce knows that higher taxes aren’t the solution, and if elected, he will be a champion for limited government, fiscal responsibility, and common sense conservative values.

If you’ve seen Houck’s television ads, you know he’s getting desperate, and no wonder. If I had his record, I’d be worried, too.

(Recently, PolitiFact tore one of his ads to shreds, exposing Houck’s false claims. You’ll want to read the whole thing – and then you’ll probably want to contribute to Bryce Reeves.)

As we enter the final weeks before Election Day, I’m stepping up my efforts to elect conservative Senators across Virginia; you can learn more about it, and find my itinerary, on my website. With your support, we can elect solid conservatives like Bryce Reeves. Let’s make a difference – together!

Preserving Natural Beauty the RIGHT Way

When it comes to Virginia’s national forests, some people in Washington can’t see the forest for the trees.

Every few years, there’s an effort to have more of Virginia’s national forest land designated “wilderness area,” and this time around, the effort has backers within the Obama administration.

At first glance, nothing seems wrong with designating our national forest land as “wilderness area,” and locally, I know that many people support this effort out of the best of intentions. Unfortunately, the devil is in the details.

When land is designated as a federal wilderness area, it quickly becomes off limits. No vehicles are allowed in wilderness areas, for instance. If you love the scenic wonders of our Commonwealth, this ought to give you pause – especially if you’re one of those who regularly takes advantage of Virginia’s natural beauty. How many of the trailheads and campsites that you frequent are only accessible from forest service roads? Would we really want to shut these down?

Wilderness area is also essentially off limits for forest management. That means that they can’t take steps to reduce the risk of fire, or even act to put one out if it starts. They can’t engage in reforestation, remove unhealthy timber stands, or counter invasive species. All this is part of the mission of the U.S. Forest Service, and when the “wilderness area” label is slapped on a region, it goes out the window.

Back in 1988, a hands-off approach to naturally-caused fires backfired in Yellowstone National Parkand a third of the nation’s most famous national park went up in the conflagration. Foresters learned their lesson, and today’s forest management plans would never willingly allow a fire to get that out of control. Unless, of course, it started in a wilderness area, in which case the policy is to sit back and watch.

It’s worth noting that the George Washington National Forest is abutted by quite a few towns and countless homes, all of which would be placed at risk by such a policy.

The wilderness area designation also puts an end to all economic activity in a forest. But anyone who has spent any time in our forests knows that economic activity can be entirely consistent with forest management goals. Timber harvesting, for instance, employs many Virginians. It also helps create those all-important fire breaks and thins stands of trees that have grown unhealthily close together. That’s why the Forest Service often authorizes (and regulates) timber harvesting in our national forests.

Right now, some groups are proposing locking up 55,000 acres of forest land in the Shenandoah Valley, and they have supporters in Washington who want to adopt these policies. That’s irresponsible, especially when the proposed wilderness area is so close to cities and towns, unlike most of the wilderness area west of the Mississippi. It would destroy local jobs, place communities at risk, and even hurt the forests themselves.

The Shenandoah Valley is a remarkable place, and we all want to preserve the natural beauty of our mountains and forests. We do that already, with Shenandoah National Park, the George Washington National Forest, and other protected areas. Wilderness area designation isn’t preservation. It’s abdication.

With best regards,

Mark D. Obenshain
Virginia State Senator

Some people insist upon simple answers. People pollute the environment? People scare and kill the wildlife? What’s the simple answer to these problems? We eliminate people? Well, that is an answer, and it is simple, but shouldn’t we doubt the wisdom of any who suggest such an answer?

You say this is America. It cannot happen here. Have forgotten who it is you voted for? Our Utopian dreams of a perfect planet come at a cost.

From Phoebe’s, we have this disturbing video. Folks who are living off the grid, living the “green” lifestyle so many progressives want people to live , being told to either get off their land. Los Angeles County is using government agencies to enforce land use zoning laws in order to force these people from their own property. Sounds like Agenda 21 to me. Here’s one of the videos; <a href=”http://www.youtube.com/embed/yw3RiMdS7sE”> … Read More

Here is the video.

I suggest also visiting Living off the Grid is now a crime at PHOEBE’S DETENTION ROOM

via That Mr. G Guy’s Blog

UPDATE: Also check out Regulators Gone Wild: Two lessons in how to kill an economy and ruin enterprise at Hot Air.

 Windmill farms kill birds. Lots of ‘em. Most businesses (Exxon, Utility companies, come to mind) that kill migratory birds or protected species are forced to pay fines  But for some reason (ahem) The US Fish & Wildlife Service hasn’t asked windmill farms to cough up a cent. From Foxnews.com Energy in America: Dead Birds Unintended Consequence of Wind Power Development “California supports roughly 2,500 golden eagles. The state’s largest wind … Read More

via freedombytheway

Even where water is abundant, clean water is precious. In areas where water is scarce, we become desperate for it. Desperation, among other things, leads to innovation.

FORT WORTH, Texas — In parched West Texas, it’s often easier to drill for oil than to find new sources of water.

So after years of diminishing water supplies made even worse by the second-most severe drought in state history, some communities are resorting to a plan that might have seemed absurd a generation ago: turning sewage into drinking water.

Construction has begun on a $13 million water-reclamation plant thought to be the first in Texas. Officials have worked to dispel any fears that people will be drinking their neighbors’ urine, promising the system will yield clean, safe water. Some residents are prepared to put aside any squeamishness if it means having an abundant water supply. (continued here)

People will fight over many things. That includes water. So anything we can do to reduce shortages  constitutes a great accomplishment.

Here another reference that provides general information on the process: From toilets to tap: How we get tap water from sewage.