dr_wu002
Well-known member
These anecdotes, in general are nice, and I support them purely from an emotional standpoint: I like nature, I'd like to see it protected. And if we as fellow citizens can't protect nature on our own, I guess the next worst thing is for the government (Federal, State, Local) to protect it from us.
This is a hiking website and I'm guessing most people really dig nature here. But I'm willing to bet that probably a majority of the people around the country would not or do not support these measures for a variety of reasons. They could argue that saving a particular plant or animal from extinction or a river from poisoning stands in the way of job growth, resources for human consumption (coal, oil) which keeps prices high, higher taxes to fund these measures and manage these areas etc. Also, ownership, private property, land use etc are all now and have been in America hot button topics. One thing I took from watching an episode or two of Ken Burn's National Parks thing is how important in the 1800's the concept of private property, land use, resources was even compared to now.... the thought of having an "overreaching federal government" that would in a sense seize these lands from public consumption and set them aside for conservation and (limited) recreation -- kind of a given now -- was more abhorrent then to a lot more people.
In these cases of cleaning up rivers, saving animals etc you can probably successfully argue that higher taxes, some loss of growth etc occur to be able to do this stuff. Others would claim that view to be short-sited and that in the long term by using sustainable methods, keeping things cleaner, protecting the environment we end up saving in the long term. I'm not an economist but I am interested in how this all works. My heart loves the environment and all the animals and crap like that and the mind part of me wants to see that whatever measures are put in place to protect it are intelligent and reasonably economic as well.
-Dr. Wu
This is a hiking website and I'm guessing most people really dig nature here. But I'm willing to bet that probably a majority of the people around the country would not or do not support these measures for a variety of reasons. They could argue that saving a particular plant or animal from extinction or a river from poisoning stands in the way of job growth, resources for human consumption (coal, oil) which keeps prices high, higher taxes to fund these measures and manage these areas etc. Also, ownership, private property, land use etc are all now and have been in America hot button topics. One thing I took from watching an episode or two of Ken Burn's National Parks thing is how important in the 1800's the concept of private property, land use, resources was even compared to now.... the thought of having an "overreaching federal government" that would in a sense seize these lands from public consumption and set them aside for conservation and (limited) recreation -- kind of a given now -- was more abhorrent then to a lot more people.
In these cases of cleaning up rivers, saving animals etc you can probably successfully argue that higher taxes, some loss of growth etc occur to be able to do this stuff. Others would claim that view to be short-sited and that in the long term by using sustainable methods, keeping things cleaner, protecting the environment we end up saving in the long term. I'm not an economist but I am interested in how this all works. My heart loves the environment and all the animals and crap like that and the mind part of me wants to see that whatever measures are put in place to protect it are intelligent and reasonably economic as well.
-Dr. Wu
Last edited: