To date, my mode of operation has been to post articles onto my blog previously printed in The Boonslick Weekly. I’ve enjoyed the privilege of writing a weekly environmental column in our local newspaper for over four years.  That came to an abrupt halt after this article ran. My column was deemed “too political and no longer inspiring”.  Seems I pushed the envelope too far for this small conservative community. I’m still processing this piece of information and will share my reflections on my next posting.  For now, this is how I chose to get real.

Let’s Get Real

I try my best to not be too “political” while writing this column but sadly, the environment has become a partisan issue.

While industry enjoyed business as usual dumping their toxic waste into our waterways, by the 1960s the accumulated pollution was no longer acceptable. Fish were dying in the Great Lakes, rivers were catching on fire, and smog was inundating our larger cities; all threatening our health and well being. Federal laws in the 1960s addressed those concerns – The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act and others began to regulate what industry could do, all receiving bipartisan support. By the 1970s the Environmental Protection Agency, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration and the tradition of Earth Day began, all were on board.

Gradually a shift occurred as documented by the League of Conservative Voter’s scorecard. In 1973, 59% Democrats and 28% Republicans in the Senate, while 63% Democrats and 32% Republicans in the House supported pro-environmental laws. In 2016, 96% Democrats and 14% Republicans in the Senate and 94% Democrats and 5% Republicans in the House cast pro-environmental votes.

I’ve been studying this phenomenon for a while now. Best I can understand, everybody, public and politicians alike, loves the environment; it appears the divide occurs when it comes to regulating pollution. Federal regulations are seen by some as a threat to economic growth or individual liberty. It seems the “big picture” is being lost.  With change always comes the opportunity for innovation – if we had worked together from the get-go, solutions prioritizing our individual liberty and health would have been found. Unfortunately this collective effort didn’t occur.

To get around the discomfort of scientific evidence, industry and politicians started questioning science, the very science that has protected us, brought innovation and enriched our lives. It seems the flash-point was when scientific evidence confirmed humans were contributing to global climate change and the risks it posed. When serious discussion began about further regulating greenhouse emissions in the 1990s, the political divide escalated. Those who were most concerned about “conserving” our earth were dismissed as liberals or socialists. Again we had the opportunity to seize the opportunity for innovation.  If we had chosen to subsidize renewable energy over oil, we would have painlessly decreased emissions, while creating a robust economy enhancing the health of our earth and populace.

Here is my dilemma; I’m not one to post fuzzy cat postings on Facebook. While I enjoy writing about my love of nature, these are not typical times. We are experiencing an unprecedented escalated assault on our health and environment. Industry and big money are firmly pitted against the environment, all too willing to compromise the health of our bodies and environment. In that effort “alternative facts” are now treated like facts and scientific evidence questioned, ignored and buried.

To honor my subject matter – the environment –you may have noticed I have been speaking a bit more candidly. Many of my readers, who too are quite worried, have thanked me for those efforts. While now wracked with concern, I hope to return to a lighter message soon.