Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Palco Suit Thrown Out?

Well, well...looks like the judge in the lawsuit against Pacific Lumber Company threw the case out. I'm kinda glad to see that but have some mixed feelings. I wonder if the D.A. will appeal?

That's not to say that a Libertarian would necessarily oppose such a lawsuit. Libertarians should oppose fraud by business as well as individuals. But, the environmental lobby has been discredited over the years, in my eyes, by throwing out too many "The Sky Is Falling" stories that I'm skeptical whenever they come up with another one- Global Warming supposedly caused my human activity being an example. But, I digress.

I don't know if Palco fudged the reports to get their logging plans approved or not. I certainly wouldn't blame them if they did since California has some of the toughest, if not the toughest, logging regulations on the planet. If they wrote a completely objective report on what affects their logging might have on the watersheds and forest lands, they probably wouldn't get it approved. Can't hardly blame someone for a little "creative writing" to paraphrase a law enforcement term.

Some would deny that our regulations are so strict but California, being at least one state that imports the majority of its lumber, certainly must be since we buy so much lumber from other states and countries that don't have such strict regulation. It would probably be better, assuming such strict regulation is needed, to loosen up and have that lumber harvested here, where there is some consideration given to environmental issues, rather than keep importing from other places where there such consideration might not be given.

No comments yet from D.A. Gallegos. Be interesting to see what he has to say.


At 10:38 PM, Anonymous Jaime said...

good point fred. Let them log the trees over there, as long as we don't see the damage, who cares? My 2000 square foot house still gets built. I still live in a beautifull scenic place... Environmentalism is a classic example of the haves trying to make sure that noone gets what they already have. Maybe we should all burn down our redwood houses and build mud yurts. But where would we mine the mud?

At 6:59 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ha! Environmentalism isn't about whether you live in luxury. Sorry you don't care about the ecosystem beyond your back yard.

And cheers to judges for giving corporations the rights of human beings. Corporations well deserve the constitutional freedom of speech, the freedom to tell untruths. Again, I say Cheers!

At 3:25 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As we were leaving the Target parking lot today everyone in the car waved "Goodbye!" to Target. Well, except for one person who was confused by our social custom. I had to explain, "Corporations are people too."

At 2:33 PM, Blogger Jeff said...


"Environmentalism is...the haves trying to make sure that noone gets what they already have."

That is a useless oversimplification of environmentalists. It's not quite the strawman fallacy, because there are environmentalists that hold this view, the NIMBY attitude. When Rachel Carson wrote Silent Spring, she was not trying to protect her own little neck of the woods for herself. She was concerned about the long-term health of all our communities. The industrialists would have us plow forward with near complete disregard because of the profit incentive. I think that's what creates environmental extremism, one group of extremists responding to another.


Post a Comment

<< Home