Liberals don't care about the environment. The core of environmentalism is a hatred for mankind. - Ann Coulter

This article is a good starting point for what I want to discuss. The cost of liberal environmental policies. Those who push environmental regulation policies on the government and the people too often forget what the cost of their policy will have. My capstone class at BYU was taught by a very nice, older gentleman, whose only fault was that he was a liberal. During one particular debate a classmate told a story. In California (sorry I don't remember the specific area) many residents liked to try and prevent their houses from being burnt down so they cut down trees around their house. Some liberal policies were enacted and these residents could cut their trees down only so far from their house, definitely not as far as they would like. The reason was that there were some endangered birds living in the area so they did not want to ruin their habitate. Well a fire came and burnt all the houses down and come to find out the bird was not going extinct. It was just living south of the border. My teacher blew it off saying it was extreme example but I would like to disagree.

I have nothing against helping to protect nature. I love it and we should not completely destroy it nor should cruelty to animals be taken lightly. What I have a problem with is people who have more sympathy for animals than they do for another human being. And that is why I want to discuss liberal environmental policies.

To start off this short discussion,I want to ask whether the federal government enact environmental policies that clearly affect only a few states or should it be left up to the state? I personally believe it should be left up to the state. We elect our representatives and can prevent them from taking office again if they enact a ridiculous policy. State and local officials also know the cost and benefits of a specific policy better than a politician from another state who just wants to save the environment. Local officials are less likely to put the people second as the people's vote is how they get elected. This is only part of the solution to the problems discussed, as some states will still get screwed, but at least it keeps the federal government out of our lives and out of our pockets.

A more recent example of the effects of environmental policy which I originally heard about on the radio is another one dealing with water. Fresno California is having a war between environmentalist and local farmers. Farmers are being forced out of business because someone wants to save some fish. And we wonder why California is going bankrupt. It all started in 1993 when the Delta Smelt was listed as a threatened species under the Federal Endangered Species act. Then in 2007 a California Federal Judge imposed limits on water pumps supplying the Central Valley with water for agricultural and residential purposes. They are loosing upwards of 40,000 jobs from this incident alone, all thanks to a Federal Act. Please note the quote from Lloyd Carter. The first time I heard it I about died I was so shocked. For someone to have the gal to say that no matter what their opinion on illegal immigration is, just blows me away. And conservatives are called racist? Plus, whether someone is illegal or not has nothing to do with this water situation and from what I hear the fish aren't exactly indigenous to the area either. Some Republican's very recently released this on the matter.

Next, this whole cap and trade scheme that is being discussed by the feds has been around for a while and the results never looked good. I have only heard negative reviews of the proposed cap-trade scheme. The fact that there is a high chance of a negative effect, job loss with little environmental gain, means they need to be careful about what they are doing before they go down this road. But hey look there is something, even if its minuscule, that we can do. Or we can just laugh.

Now for global warming (read the editorial too). I am still not convinced it is not a scheme. Especially when Al Gore is at the head of it. I will bet you that in the next twenty years we will see a "global cooling" again. Whatever the liberals can do to cause mass hysteria and scare people into voting for their policies.

I will never understand how people can become such extreme environmentalists, how people can choose to make the life of an animal more comfortable than the life of another human (Any good PETA stories anyone? They always make me cringe). But it is not my job to figure them out. I do feel that some of these people are not extreme environmentalists, do not care for animals more, but have been duped into believing that they need to and have to help by enacting policies that will end up hurting the economy and hurting the citizens of the United States of America. And then there are the politicians that use environmental policy as a means of power and votes. But though they all have different reasons for their actions, their actions are all the same and we need to do what we can to prevent them from taking office and being successful. We are having an economic crisis now, and the more and more I learn about policies like these, I am not surprised. For once the Federal Government needs to stop wasting our money on environmental policies like those discussed above and let the people choose.

One last random but interesting thing: here is an example of why we need privatization in some things.