Liberty
Matters News Service
June 21, 2007
House Energy Bill and the Wildlands Connection
HR 2337, the Energy Policy Reform and Revitalization Act of 2007, contains a disturbing section dealing with wildlife and global warming. Sec. 442, National Policy on Wildlife and Global Warming reads: "It is the policy of the Federal Government, in cooperation with State, tribal, and affected local governments, other concerned public and private organizations, landowners, and citizens to use all practicable means and measures (1) to assist wildlife populations in adapting to and surviving the effects of global warming; and (2) to ensure the persistence and resilience of the wildlife of the United States as an essential part of our Nations's culture, landscape, and natural resources." Sec. 444, National Strategy states in part: "(C) assist species in adapting to the impacts of global warming; (D) protect, acquire, and restore wildlife habitat to build resilience to global warming; (E) provide habitat linkages and corridors to facilitate wildlife movements in response to global warming." Dr. Michael Coffman, founder of Environmental Perspectives, Inc., is horrified at the bill's content. "[The bill] contains a provision for the government to do all it can to lock up land to 'protect' species from the ravages of global warming. This bill would legally implement the Wildlands Project. If this passes it opens the door to the government condemning land for the slightest reason if it can be shown it will provide habitat for a species to survive the perils of man-caused global warming," stated Coffman. He continued: "Of course, since no science currently exists to be able to identify whether a habitat will be conducive to protecting species, then any habitat must be considered as potentially valuable for such a purpose. With Kelo on the books, Pandora's Box would be opened. It is the Wildlands Project and Endangered Species on steroids. Along with the intent to declare CO2 as a pollutant, all property rights and the entire economy of the United States would be under the control of our government agencies, and by default, any environmentalist willing to file a lawsuit. This bill has to be stopped." (Dr. Coffman, along with Henry Lamb and Tom McDonald, were the forces that stopped the U. S. Senate from ratifying the UN Treaty on Biological Diversity in 1994). Call your Congressman today, and tell them they must oppose the "Wildlands Provisions," Section 442 of HR 2337" of the Energy Bill.
Email Your Legislator or call 202-224-3121
H.R.2337 - Energy Policy Reform and
Revitalization Act of 2007 (Introduced in House)
Legal Rights for Trees
A couple of environmental zealots, Thomas Linzey, executive director of the Community Environmental Defense Fund and Ben Price, projects director, are trying to attain "constitutional rights" for trees and rocks and other inanimate objects. The Chambersburg, PA group wants towns throughout the country to grant legal standing to ecosystems because Linzey and friends think today's regulatory system legalizes the orderly destruction of ecosystems. Linzey and Price are willing to use any means to promote their religious beliefs that all living and non-living parts of the earth are part of a single organism. "What we're advocating is a wholesale paradigm of change: that Nature is not just property. We're saying natural communities have an inherent right to exist and flourish." The Gaia worshipers liken their undertaking to the problems faced by abolitionists whose efforts led to the abolition of slavery in 1865 and women suffragists who won the right to vote in 1920 with enactment of the Nineteenth Amendment. Jeff Kerr, legal counsel for PETA sympathizes with the pantheists' goals. "The similarity we share is an overcoming of prejudice. We put information out there so people will change their attitudes and behavior. The laws will follow," Kerr said. Nils Frdericksen, the Pennsylvania attorney general's spokesman asked: "if (the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund) is going to encourage municipalities to violate state and federal laws, who's going to pay for that?"
Ecosystem Rights Move Forward in
Washington County
All We're Asking Is $10 Billion More
The Pantheist leagues have their hands out again, begging for more taxpayer dollars to control more private property. All they are asking for this year is $10 billion more for new conservation funding and that's all they will ask for next year, too. Led by the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition, the two dozen environmental groups sent a letter to House and Senate Agriculture committee leaders asking them to increase mandatory USDA conservation spending in the 2007 Farm Bill over the next five years. "Renewal of farm and food policies creates a rare opportunity to address some of the nation's most significant environmental challenges. We urge you to dramatically expand incentives for farm, ranch and forest land management practices that benefit the environment and agriculture." The letter cites "misplaced spending priorities" as a reason USDA ignores farmers who are aching to set aside their land for the greater good; a stable climate and wildlife habitat, for example. "Congress should reward - not reject - farmers, ranchers and forest landowners when they take steps to help meet our environmental challenges. Boosting conservation spending in the 2007 Farm Bill would also help more farmers and more regions receive a fair share of federal farm spending." The National Catholic Rural Life Conference and the Coevolution Institute took part in the plea, as well as, the Center for Biological Diversity and Defenders of Wildlife, who took time from their busy schedules of suing the federal government to join the effort.
Groups Ask for $10 Billion in New
Conservation Funding
Obey the Law, Rules Florida Court
Citivest Construction Company won a victory over the obstructionist tactics of the city of Tampa, last month, when the Second Court of Appeals ruled the city must abide by its own zoning laws. Citivest had been trying to get permission from the Architectural Review Commission to build a condominium tower next to the Hyde Park Historic District. At 20 stories, the building was higher than many in the area, but Citvest conformed to all zoning requirements and designed the building to reflect the historic flavor of the District. The Commission rejected the first two plans and didn't even give the last proposal the time of day. The Commission claimed the condominium didn't meet the standards associated with the historic area. But there aren't any firm "aesthetic" criteria that override the zoning code. The Commission was essentially making up the rules as it went along. After the city council stood by the Commission's ruling, Citivest went to court. Hillsborough Circuit Judge William Levens overruled the city and ordered it to re-think the decision. "The court is bound to apply the law, not to decide a case based on personal or popular opinion," he wrote. The Second District Court of Appeals agreed. While the Architectural Review Commission must promote aesthetic and historical considerations, the zoning code is the ultimate standard and officials can't refuse to apply it, the court held.