maybe we should hire Trump to build a wall to keep it in! -- j
.

Do you observe that these measures are, practically speaking, not reversed or do you say that they are not reversible? If we were to have a president who was determined to reverse them, would he be able to do so?

Jan

The Federal Wilderness and Endangered Species agenda against humanity is much older than the Globalwarming climate hysteria, let alone the current theatrics in Paris.

Trying to fight back in the courts is extremely disruptive and expensive for property owners and rarely succeeds.

These eco-fascist tactics of the viro preservationists are not reversed by future presidents, once established they become politically entrenched and not subject to reversal. They only grow, always in the name of "compromise", one step at a time. Part of that is due to the entrenched agency mechanisms that are rigged in favor of the viro pressure groups and insiders who live inside the agencies, but it is worse than even that. The National Park Service, etc. have been shafting private property owners for a century. Each instance is so abusive that the natural tendency is to at first believe that it is too extreme to happen, then when it does the victims aren't heard from in the PR din forever hyping that something has been "saved", with the usual quasi poetic imagery of scenery and furry animals. The wealthy, politically-connected viro pressure group lobby assures that politicians are unable to reverse their "gains".

lt is politically a land grab, but is much more than that: the viros' misanthropic worship of nature in a so-called "natural" state regarded as a mystical intrinsic value superseding man's values and rights. That is why they can so easily sacrifice people to the preservationist agenda.

What can I say, Doc, other than somebody, somewhere, knows exactly this and is executing exactly this agenda of complete cognitive dissonance with one hell of an earthly gulag in mind.

"Sustainability is a Political Slogan, not Science."

Thanks db, an excellent quote from an excellent article. It goes to the heart of the current global machinations for the very control of what are finite resources. Because, the euphemism of "sustainability" defies the very reality that consumption of finite resources is not sustainable. Therefore, it is political, therefore disingenuous, therefore not cognizant of reality.

So, respectfully, I must take exception to your characterization that there is no such thing as a natural resource, and that it can't be finite.

The entire history of human existence, replete with all its conflict, progress, unique definition, and disasters, have been over the struggle for natural resources. Be it water, land, air, mineral, or livestock - human existence is dependent on these natural resources.

Now, maybe we can engage in discussion over what is "natural" - there is plenty of room for that - but it still comes down to the recognition of the properties of the real world around us. This is the essence of objectivism. The extent of our planet is finite. Any given material property contained therein is therefore finite.

Until and unless the Star Trek replicator or other such alchemy is invented, all resources are finite. The actual limits of this very measurable essence is of course a moving target as db suggests, based upon changing technologies, changing economics, and then yes, perhaps to the day when the infinite stars have become reachable to a very imperfect species known as humankind. But until then, the finite aspect is an undeniable reality.

and the real world "corrects" our delusions in ways which
may not be clear to the deluded -- like the downfall of
the rail line to the hotel in Key West. . Henry Flagler was
a visionary whose time had not yet come. -- j
.

so that's why I keep hearing that gurgling sound! -- j
.

The ship's already run aground and is taking on water.

I once advocated stopping doing business with all these creatures but the big players are part of it now and these creatures just don't care if the rest of us stop...they just ignore the legalities, the laws of economics and the very laws of physics...they just don't care.

How the hell do we beat that?

it won't work out;;; you are right, and this ship must be turned
before it runs aground on political correctness. . P.C.=death. -- j
.

The UN already has both of those sewn up. That's one more on the list of reasons to abolish the UN, or at least leave it.

It's designed not to work out...maybe they know, I'm betting they don't.
Somehow the industries are going to have to figure a way around it.
The next frontier's are the ocean floor and outer space.

The timing of this makes me think that it is a sop to the Paris GW conference. Since that is ending with a no-teeth resolution, this is what is in Obama's power to attempt to do by fiat to support Green agendas.

It sounds good, and he will be able to use this as a card to play for liberal audiences. The Gulch has made me aware (thank you, Gulch) that this probably won't happen - and that it does not matter to Obama if it does not. This edict is something that can easily be tied up in court (States-vs-Feds/ Landowners-vs-Feds) for long enough time to elect a different president...one who would rescind it.

This does not matter: Obama is not trying for anything productive, he just wants to be able to wave this about in support of Greens, post COP21. He does not really care if his edict will founder later on.

Jan

The government needs to get out of the land business. There's no justification for the government to own most of NV and AK, among others. Have a homestead act 2.0, and be done with it. You can also use that homestead act to get rid of entitlements and other charitable activities usurped by government, and let the private sector take care of them going forward, as they did in the 19th century and earlier.

A handful of point, DrZ.

Jan

Another nail in the coffin that once was America. A win-win? It's a lose-lose.

maybe 0 read atlas and decided to be john galt and stop the usa.
he sure is doing that stopping the usa as fast as he can.

The entire liberal community is schizophrenic and irrational, obsessed with Utopian dreams. They live in an idealized, delusional vision of a perfect world.

They want wind power, but scream at the idea of windmills killing birds, or of the "devastation" of running high power lines to get the energy produced where it's needed. They want solar power, but wail over the "filth" of mining the materials necessary to produce solar panels. They want hydroelectric power but simultaneously want dams taken down so the fish can follow their natural, historic streams.

When faced with the reality that their blessed power sources are too expensive, they demand that the price of fossil fuels be raised so that their beloved clean energy can compete, in spite of the fact that the increase punishes the poor (whom they purport to love) the worst.

Reality, to the liberal, is the devil incarnate. The fact that fossil fuel must be used to create their dream of renewable energy, instead of being driven out of use is to be ignored. The fact that nuclear energy is the cleanest, most reliable non-polluting, non-carbon emitting energy source is inadmissible, as it's just "evil."

We can only hope that before our society reaches the point of collapse, people willing to deal with reality, including the law of diminishing returns, come into controlling positions. Sadly, the siren song of a perfect world with no unexpected consequences, however delusional, seems to have a grip on the minds of so many it will be difficult to bring people back to the real world.

This last year is not going to be pretty. Eight years in and his legacy is a slow growth, a significantly weakened country, reinvigorated middle eastern threat, and oh yeah, a unilateral health care plan that not one person thinks is right. He accomplished nothing when he didn't have both houses and total power. Because for all his rhetoric, he refuses to compromise or work with anyone. Just like FDR threatening to stack the Supreme Court. This guy is a totalitarian pig.

First of all there is no such thing as natural resources. Oil was just a waste product on land until someone figured out how to refine it. Second of all these things are not finite. For instance, it takes less than a month to turn biomass into natural gas. For more see http://hallingblog.com/2010/11/07/sus...

If the bureaucrats got their way, everyone would sit at home in their cold dark tests, not using oil, gas, water, electricity, and building materials- but pay lots of taxes. We would all have medical insurance but not be able to afford to actually use the insurance. We would all work for the government and receive subsistence wages , except for the politicians and the other recipients of cronyism

I would love to get a glimpse of life in the USA in 50 years- just curiosity. Not a desire to live in it