The Los Angeles Times today explores the latest wrinkle in the classic debate over whether the environment is here to serve us or the other way 'round. In this regard, the Times reports (under the headline "Crowd aims fury at regional panel"):
The mood of the crowd jammed into the meeting room was angry.
Many had lost their homes to the forest fire that swept through the Sierra Nevada just south of Lake Tahoe.
They said they were angry at bureaucrats and environmentalists who made cutting of trees and clearing of land difficult. There was always too much red tape, they said, and now it was too late.
In all, a crowd of nearly 2,000 people descended on the South Tahoe Middle School auditorium Monday night, wanting to be heard in the face of their losses.
And if there was an object of scorn in the crowd, it was the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, a powerful bi-state environmental land use agency charged with managing the resources of the basin.
When a speaker mentioned the agency, the crowd responded with a chorus of boos. "What a joke!" yelled one man.
The wrangling began in earnest over the assignment of blame, including arguments over whether federal and state forest managers had made their tree clearing rules too strict in the face of pressure by environmentalists.
A common sentiment Monday was expressed by Jerry Martin, a bartender at the Horizon Casino Resort, whose house was still standing, although eight others around it had burned to the ground. He said U.S. Forest Service rules regulating the harvesting of dead trees were too stringent for those living next to government land.
"I hate to get political, but environmentalists wouldn't let us cut down the dead trees," he said.
The complete article, which is found at the link above, makes plain that the government does not agree with the above-quoted criticisms. For example, a spokeswoman for the local Regional Water Quality Control Board states that the homeowners in fact could, without a special permit, have cut down dead trees on their property as a fire-protection measure.
No doubt further debate and investigation of this particular disaster will follow. But for the moment, the key observation is this: the destructive fire and the Times' story illustrates once again the tension between those who believe the environment should be treated in the way that best benefits humans and those who believe that we are mere guests (some have gone further, saying we are parasites) of nature.
This film by the documentary-maker Martin Durkin prteenss the arguments of scientists and commentators who don't believe that CO2 produced by human activity is the main cause of climate change. It's a controversial film that was roundly attacked by some scientists and enthusiastically received by others and the arguments it contains are an important part of the wider debate on the causes of climate change. The film was shortlisted for the Best Documentary award at the 2008 Broadcast Awards.
Posted by: Pach | June 12, 2012 at 04:37 PM
love the coverage. for what it's worth, the capitalized titles are a little much.
Posted by: | June 26, 2007 at 06:37 PM