Overlooked in nearly every 'green' debates is a clear definition of what we're trying to accomplish - as well as a failure to address just where the solutions will be found, and who is to make the decisions.
Instead, it is assumed that there is a 'problem,' and assumed that the solution is to be found within the mechanism of government and regulation.
Here are some points all should consider, whenever any sort of 'green' debate arises:
First, what is the problem? Look at LEED, for example. Ask folks 'What is LEED?," and you'll get plenty of vague and incorrect answers. This is not just because folks are ignorant; the entire 'green' movement hop, skips, and jumps between an enormous variety of 'feel good' causes. It's not a building code; it's plain social engineering. The same sort of thing that has made many places into totalitarian hellholes.
Under the umbrella of 'code enforcement,' or as part of a 'point system,' one finds the inspector intruding into every aspect of the job - as well as the world around the job site, years later. That's what the periodic recertification does: it provides a means to compel the property owner to advocate for many social causes, causes that have little to do with his property directly.
For example, location in a 'depressed' area, along a bus route, and in a town with a 'green belt' are all matters that affect the 'score.' If the area improves, the bus line is rerouted, or the 'green belt' intruded upon, the property might well lose it's "Gold" rating .... though the building hasn't change a bit.
There is the intrusion of ideology into fields that arguably, under our heritage, ought to be decided by private property owners and market forces. For example, LEED would encourage the Nevada desert being 'preserved,' forcing us to build on land that might actually be useful as a farm or mine. One might argue that useless 'waste' land is the best place to build, as the good land is still available for a productive use.
Differences of opinion are not always appropriately addressed through political or regulatory means. Indeed, our entire history, the very foundation of the "American experiment," is the severe restraint of government, strict limits on it's powers at every level- and, in particular, the Federal level.
Yet, "Green" advocates go to 'national' or 'worldwide' authority as their first resort. Rather than let energy efficiency be 'regulated' by folks seeking to reduce their power bills, activists prefer to outlaw light bulbs.
Every governmental employee has a duty to look at these proposals in light of the limits placed on thier authority - AND to stop trying to find new excuses to expand. Such expansion is exactly what led us to the point where religious clergy are steeling themselves for persecution at the hands of the American government. That ought to be a wake-up call.
Keep politics off the forum? There is nothing more inherently political than the "green" agenda. To not address it is to surrender to it.
Maybe the road to Hell really is paved with good intentions.
Instead, it is assumed that there is a 'problem,' and assumed that the solution is to be found within the mechanism of government and regulation.
Here are some points all should consider, whenever any sort of 'green' debate arises:
First, what is the problem? Look at LEED, for example. Ask folks 'What is LEED?," and you'll get plenty of vague and incorrect answers. This is not just because folks are ignorant; the entire 'green' movement hop, skips, and jumps between an enormous variety of 'feel good' causes. It's not a building code; it's plain social engineering. The same sort of thing that has made many places into totalitarian hellholes.
Under the umbrella of 'code enforcement,' or as part of a 'point system,' one finds the inspector intruding into every aspect of the job - as well as the world around the job site, years later. That's what the periodic recertification does: it provides a means to compel the property owner to advocate for many social causes, causes that have little to do with his property directly.
For example, location in a 'depressed' area, along a bus route, and in a town with a 'green belt' are all matters that affect the 'score.' If the area improves, the bus line is rerouted, or the 'green belt' intruded upon, the property might well lose it's "Gold" rating .... though the building hasn't change a bit.
There is the intrusion of ideology into fields that arguably, under our heritage, ought to be decided by private property owners and market forces. For example, LEED would encourage the Nevada desert being 'preserved,' forcing us to build on land that might actually be useful as a farm or mine. One might argue that useless 'waste' land is the best place to build, as the good land is still available for a productive use.
Differences of opinion are not always appropriately addressed through political or regulatory means. Indeed, our entire history, the very foundation of the "American experiment," is the severe restraint of government, strict limits on it's powers at every level- and, in particular, the Federal level.
Yet, "Green" advocates go to 'national' or 'worldwide' authority as their first resort. Rather than let energy efficiency be 'regulated' by folks seeking to reduce their power bills, activists prefer to outlaw light bulbs.
Every governmental employee has a duty to look at these proposals in light of the limits placed on thier authority - AND to stop trying to find new excuses to expand. Such expansion is exactly what led us to the point where religious clergy are steeling themselves for persecution at the hands of the American government. That ought to be a wake-up call.
Keep politics off the forum? There is nothing more inherently political than the "green" agenda. To not address it is to surrender to it.
Maybe the road to Hell really is paved with good intentions.