- Special Sections
- Public Notices
I pontificated on the meaning of “change” in this space back on Oct. 1. I noted that the word “change” is meaningless as it could be a change for the better, or for the worse.
As an example, I gave Oliver Cromwell who briefly ruled England as Lord Protector after England’s civil war of the mid-17th century. People, originally glad to be rid of Charles I, became so sick of Ollie that they restored the monarchy a year after he kicked the bucket in 1659. One of the steps Cromwell did as Lord Protector was to ban Christmas.
“Of course, Obama won’t ban Christmas,” I wrote.
Maybe I was wrong.
On Christmas Eve, I found an interesting article on www.news.com.au. It was an article from The Courier-Mail, an Australian newspaper with the headline “Scientists warn Christmas lights harm the planet.” An Australian scientist named Dr. Glenn Platt, who was quoted in the story, didn’t call for banning Christmas. He called for displays that use less energy stating that 80 percent of Australia’s power comes from coal-fired power plants.
That was in Australia. Environmentalist thinking closer to home is crazier. I saw an article from Business & Media Institute on Dec. 30 that stated that the EPA is thinking about a $175 per head cow tax. It seems all those flatulent cows that we see in Bedford County’s fields are a threat to the environment. Every time a cow passes gas, the methane released allegedly contributes to global warming. The EPA thinks something needs to be done about these dastardly cud-chewing villains.
The tax for dairy cows could be $175 per cow, and $87.50 per head of beef cattle. The tax on hogs would be upwards of $20 per hog, the article stated. Any operation with more than 25 dairy cows, 50 beef cattle or 200 hogs would have to obtain permits.
According to the article, it could apply to field crops. A farmer planting 500 acres of corn would have to get a permit.
This, folks, is how crazy environmentalists have gotten. It’s not hard to imagine all sorts of ugly consequences that could follow if a federal bureaucracy gets a choke hold on agriculture. The federal government has already managed to make life harder for livestock producers with its obsession with corn-based ethanol, dramatically boosting feed prices in the process.
What makes the scenario more frightening is that Barack Obama announced last month that he intends to appoint a climate führer. He nominated Carol Browner to the role. Browner was President Clinton’s EPA administrator. She’s also a disciple of Al Gore and, like her mentor, is an environmental extremist.
While there is some doubt about how much clout this climate führer will have, there is no doubt that an EPA headed by an environmental zealot can do a lot of damage. As noted above, the EPA can use its regulatory power to impose all sorts of dangerous regulations.
Obama has nominated Lisa Jackson for this post. From what I’ve been able to read about her, I can’t say if she’s a global warming ideologue, although it seems she worked in the EPA when Browner was its administrator. Some things I’ve been able to find suggest that she’s a technocrat who will do what she’s told. Either way, Barack Obama will be the one in charge and what the EPA does or whether any nutty ideas Browner comes up with are implemented will depend primarily on him.
Let’s hope that the the harm that save-the-world environmental polices will do will serve as a reality check for Obama once he takes the oath of office as our 44th president next week. Things are going to be tough enough for working people as it is without him putting us at the mercy of climate change true believers.