Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

Last week, CNN delayed for a few hours the scheduled Tuesday night broadcast debut of its much-hyped documentary series "Planet in Peril" due to live coverage of the tragic wildfires that have displaced more than 500,000 people in Southern California. But that didn't keep CNN "golden boy" reporter Anderson Cooper from using the tragedy to tout the program he starred in as much as he could.

Cooper constantly claimed during the week that the fires provided further confirmation of the documentary's prediction of an eco-catastrophe. Cooper said that higher temperature due to global warming may have been a factor. It was a "timely documentary," Cooper said last Tuesday on CNN's "Larry King Live", because "California certainly seems to be in peril."

But ironically, much of the reason California is in peril is due not to climate change, but to the very environmental policies championed by Cooper's documentary and our new Nobel laureate, Al Gore. While, in its statement praising Gore, the Nobel Committee said that global warming may "threaten the living conditions of much of mankind," the current wildfires show that the more immediate threat to man comes from the champions of the gnatcatcher, kangaroo rat, and the Delhi Sands Flower-Loving fly.

Environmental mandates have made fire safety for humans take a back seat to the well-being of the aforementioned California creatures, as well as that of every bug and rat lucky enough to be listed as an "endangered species" under federal and state law. For over a decade, environmentalists have hamstrung Californians in their efforts to clear the dry brush that is providing the fuel for this massive fire. If any of these endangered or even "threatened" species are found in shrubs or bushes on public or private property, it becomes very difficult to give this vegetation even the slightest haircut. This is true even if city codes require firebreaks to be built.

An example of the legal strait jacket that homewoners faced in the areas hit by the fires is the "brush management guide" on the City of San Diego web site. The confusing instructions state that vegetation within 100 feet of homes in canyon areas "must be thinned and pruned regularly." But then, the same sentence goes on to state that this must be achieved "without harming native plants, soil or habitats."

Then in fine print at the bottom of the page, the real kicker comes in:

"Brush management is not allowed in coastal sage scrub during the California gnatcatcher nesting season, from March 1st through August 15th. This small bird only lives in coastal sage scrub and is listed as a threatened species by the federal government. Any harm to this bird could result in fines and penalties."

Coastal sage scrub is a low plant ubiquitous near coastal California that grows like a weed under almost any condition. And since gnatcatcher nesting season lasts almost six months, there could be much buildup of sage scrub that becomes hard for homeowners to control. Especially since the maintenance rules severely restrict the use of mechanical brush-clearing devices even when gnat nesting season is over.

The tragedy is that this shows that not much has changed even after previous warnings from experts that environmental rules were on a collision course with fire safety in California and many other places, because they prevented the removal of "excess fuel" for fires from dense stands of trees and vegetation. Southern California homes were lost in 1993 after the federal Fish and Wildlife Service told homeowners that mechanical clearing of brush would likely violate the Endangered Species Act. The reason: it could alter the habitat of a newly-listed endangered species called the Stephens kangaroo rat.

Some exemptions were made, and clarifications were issued, but landowners still face the lingering risk that the simple act of building a firebreak can send them down the river if an endangered species is anywhere near their property. California's Blue Ribbon Fire Commission, which had been created after wildfires in 2003 by then-Governor Gray Davis and whose members included Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., as well as state legislators of both parties, concluded that "habitat preservation and environmental protection have often conflicted with sound fire safe planning."

But did this bipartisan finding or any of the documented harms to fire safety from environmental rules make it into CNN's exploration of possible causes of the current fires? Not a gnatcatcher's chance. Instead, climate "expert" Cooper told viewers Wednesday night that the wildfires were "symptoms of a planet in peril. Fire, drought, deforestation; it's all connected."

Yet the data show that temperature for areas hit by the fire was well within average ranges, and came nowhere near the record highs. On Monday the 23rd, for instance the high temperature in Escondido was 84 degrees, and the high in Santa Ana was 87 degrees. According to temperature statistics from the National Weather Service, the mean high in both cities for that date is 79 degrees. What's more, the record high for that date is 102 degrees in Escondido (in 1929) and 103 degrees in Santa Ana (in 1965). So tell us again, Anderson, how global warming is to blame, when the weather where the fires struck was not nearly as hot as it was more than 40 years ago and almost 80 years ago!

What about those harsh Santa Ana winds? Well, they are pretty strong. Here's one writer's description: "It was one of those hot dry Santa Anas that come down through the mountain passes and curl your hair and make your nerves jump and your skin itch."

Woooo! What a great description of the winds last week. Except that this passage wasn't written last week, last month, or last year. It was written by detective fiction master Raymond Chandler to describe the Santa Ana winds of about 70 years ago. It's in the opening paragraph of his famous short story "Red Wind," first published in 1938. So rough winds are nothing new under the California sun!

What's really changing the "climate" in Southern California is that there is more fuel for fires, since much less of the brush, as well as disease-infested trees, can be cleared, thanks to environmental mandates.

The problem is even worse on land owned by the federal and state governments. To satisfy the feds, San Diego has placed more than 170,000 acres off limit to development for the exclusive purpose, in the city's words, of "protect[ing] habitat for over 1,000 native and non-native plant species and more than 380 species of fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals." Hugh Hewitt, the California radio talk show host and author who is also a real estate attorney, has noted in the Weekly Standard:

"The land that has passed into 閳ユonserved' status is at even greater risk of fire than private land that is home to a protected species because absolutely no one cares for its fire management policy. The scrum of planners, consultants and G-11s that put together these plans should be monitoring these areas closely. Instead, they regulate and move on to savage the property rights of the next region."

And enviro groups also get more and more land locked up by conveniently finding more species to petition the government to protect. In California, as in other places, it's often a case of creative subdividing of essentially the same species. First it was the Stephens kangaroo rat whose designation as endangered put much brush clearance off limits. Then, in 1998, the San Bernardino kangaroo rat got listed. Also under federal protection is the Fresno kangaroo rat. And so on and so on.

Across the country, fires have become more destructive as trees and shrubs gain "protected" status preventing them form being cleared. As Bill Croke noted last week in American Thinker, In the last two decades annual timber production on the national forests in the West has decreased from roughly 12 billion board feet to less than 3 billion today. This has resulted in brush-choked forests with large "fuel loads."

The ironic thing is that all this "protection" at the expense of humans doesn't necessarily work out for the gnatcatchers -- not to mention more majestic creatures -- anyway. According to the Associated Press, the fires struck close to the San Diego Wild Animal Park, threatening condors, a cheetah, and many other animals. The Blue Ribbon Fire Commission found that the 2003 wildfires resulted in "the loss of valuable watershed, wildlife, and critical environmental habitats."

Of course, saving species never really was the objective of many enviros. It's just a subterfuge for their main interest of controlling the human species.

Endangered Species Act abuses, including those that prevented fire breaks in Southern California, were an issue that helped get the GOP in power in 1994. But with some exceptions like former Rep. Richard Pombo of California, Republicans began to abandon this issue, lest they be branded as anti-green. It's time for the GOP, as well as truly moderate Democrats, to befriend again the threatened species known as the beleaguered property owner.

And if the Nobel Committee really wanted to give an award to folks preventing a hazard threatening mankind, they should rescind Al Gore's prize and hand it to the brave California firefighters whose jobs have been made so much harder by the nonsensical practices of the environmental movement.

Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

I agree that yours is a long question. I also agree that environmentalist are misguided. It is one thing to save the whale from harpooning, or baby seals from getting smacked with baseball bats, it is quite another to think that by non forestation and good forestry planing we can not harvest and control our forest and still have a habitat for wild species. The spotted owl, save their nest, what happens when a forest fire burns it down. The scrub you speak of, now those poor birds no longer have a nesting habitat, my guess is that come the nesting season, they will find one suitable. This is typical radical behavior, not give a solution that is in the best interest of all concern. I say your on the right track. The solution is protect the habitat from fires. The species will thrive, or maybe not, isn't that what Darwin's whole theory is about, survival of the fittest? If they don't adapt, then surely they will be extinct in the future, not because of man, but because they failed to evolve.

Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

long one.

I would add the elimination of nuclear power to the list.

Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

to me its funny that he would attribute the fires to that seeing as how they found out it was done by an arsonist...plus if the believed in control burning not so much land would burn like it is.....

Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

These fires have been burning for hundreds of years.

California, the world capitol of consumption, was running out of real estate in posh locations so they expanded willy nilly into the fire zone.

Now the fires that have always been burning, are relevant.

Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

Exactly

(I skimmed all of it)

Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

It's all a perspective yours, mine, his, hers....Go ahead and waste your breath=)

Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

I aint gonna read past your question, the rest is soap boxing

It has been going on since they have been around

Remember them

spray painting baby seals

driving spikes in trees

driving the most untuned vechicles known to man north of cuba

leaving their trash every where they protest

Dont know

Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

Environmentalists don't cause more harm than good.

How could they?

The American fires are down to other issues

Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

Wow, long question... I don't think that environmentalists necessarily cause more harm than good. They are (for the most part) well intentioned people who feel that things need to be preserved. The fires in California were caused by policies enacted due to the pressure from environmentalists, true. However, the solution they came up with (i.e. suppressing all fires and allowing no logging) was flawed. So while the environmentalists were right in wanting to save the "woodland creatures" they were wrong about how to do it. We've learned, and hopefully things will change in the future, but it does take lots of money to get the forests to where they need to be.

Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

You should be reported for abusing Yahoo!Answers community guidelines (..your non-question is really a "rant"...) But I'm sure not going to hit the ol' "Report Abuse" button because everything you've posted is absolutely true and lays bare the absurd agenda of tree huggers and their ilk.

Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

Environmentalists are sociopaths. Plain and simple.

There's no reasoning with whack jobs that would - because there are "too many humans" - rather throw their own child in front of a train to save a spotted owl.

Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

ARe you asking a question or writing a novel. In any case, you are on the wrong side of this debate; next time, don't waste so much effort trying to defend the indefensible.

Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

how were you able to write so much without adding details?

Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

Because they want to blame EVERYTHING on global warming and the real culprits may not get caught. Their agenda has become more important than the lies they have to tell to bolster it. So many reasons, choose one.

Even funnier is it was reported that one of the arsonists was caught. But I guess global warming made him do it...it wasn't a natural disaster, it was inflicted by a criminal. Ca. environmental policies just made sure he was VERY successful with his arson.

Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

Great post. I lived in California for eight years in the 80s and every year we had fires. In fact the same hill that caught fire twice while I was there now has homes on it.

As for the Santa Anna winds, I remember times I had to walk backwards while leaning to get from one class to another in high school.

Simple fact is more people have built more homes in places where they shouldn't have.

Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

They do more harm than good because they have very narrow tunnel vision: They only focus and are only interested in the benefit that they are doing, and not any of the negative consequences - even if the negative consequences are much worse than any benefits.

A lot of of it is fanaticism. Sometimes people let themselves get to the point where they become so fixated and obsessed about achieving a goal, that they only ask themselves if the goal COULD be achieved rather than if it SHOULD be achieved. Often times a fanatic doesn't care HOW it gets achieved either, and how much damage it does on the way as long as the goal is achieved.

Example: Nature First is a very radical group that is known to "spike" trees in the upper northwest states of Washington and Oregon. This means that they drive large iron or steel spikes into trees that lumberjacks will eventually harvest. Lumberjacks will cut down the trees, and the trees will be sent to a factory where they are usually sent through a large saw unit. The saw unit hits the spike, and the blade shatters and causes injury to any person within a certain vicinity of the machine.

I watched one documentary in particular where one man had his face mangled and lost some eyesight when the saw machine hit a spiked tree, and the blade broke and mutilated his face.

Point of the story: Nature First succeeded in their goal: to stifle the lumber industry (at least temporarily), and they had their narrow tunnel vision (preserving trees), but the "HOW" was reckless and outrageous (sabotage the lumber and risk killing or seriously injuring innocent people).

Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

In the spirit of full disclosure, I like animals more than I like people and I was born in a tree. That said, I don't think you should lump all "environmentalists" into a group. Generalizations are generally wrong! I actually read your whole question and while thought-provoking, it's a little one-sided. Blaming environmentalists for the CA wildfires is just as silly as blaming God. It happened. There was a lack of rain for a long time. Global warming, I don't know but "generally" plants tend to burn more when they don't get water. Basically we need something called common sense. Some of these property owners should have spoken up but maybe they were too busy having lattes at Starbucks? While do California yuppies cause more harm than good? (LOL) And hindsight's 20/20, huh?

Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

Most of the environmentalist do much more good than harm. There are a few extremists that go too far, but most of us are good people. I highly recommend watching the Anderson Cooper documentary, "Planet in Peril," although it's not the planet that is in danger.

Human beings are in danger because of the dwindling resources on earth, that is caused by greed, overpopulation, stupidity, and the short-sightedness of our leaders. I give Anderson Cooper credit for making it clear that overpopulation is one of the biggest threats to our environment. Many environmentalists refuse to mention the overwhelmingly negative impact that human overpopulation has on our environment.

Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

.Thanks! For saying it so well,I 100% agree I did happen to see that program,and it was insulting to anyone with common sence.

Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

OK. i just bet you could have condensed that. Good question though. We do need environmentAList to remind unthoughtful people like me that we need to clean up after our selves. I am a hunter/fisherman and i know the only ways ill ever be able to do either in the future is to take care of what we have. Some people take it too far though but i really believe in al gore's message as well as coopers they just take extremes with it. fires can be set by matches. but maybe the state of our environment has made it harder to put out the flames. I say cooper is a journalist. Not an expert in global warming. and btw i only read the first paragraph of ur question i have a novel that im working on and didnt expect to be reading one on Y! answers

Why do environmentalists cause more harm than good?

I doubt anybody read all that.

I disagree. Without people working for cleaner air and water, nothing would ever get done about it.