What’s That Smelt? Environmentalism Gone Bad

What’s That Smelt? Environmentalism Gone Bad

http://www.thedcwriteup.com/tag/delta-smelt/
Posted on 02 July 2009 by Peter Tucci
VN:F [1.5.8_856]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

The delta smelt is a blue, 2-inch long fish native to California’s Sacramento River delta.

It’s also a symbol of environmentalism gone awry.

Two years ago, Federal District Judge Oliver Wanger imposed restrictions on how much California’s state water authority can pump out of the Sacramento River, on the grounds that the water pumps were drawing in and killing the endangered delta smelt, in violation of the federal Endangered Species Act. The pumps supply millions of Californian farms, businesses and consumers with water.

The pump restrictions may be good for the delta smelt, but they’re awful for California. As a result of the restrictions, thousands of acres of farmland in the once fertile western San Joaquin Valley are drying up, 85,000 Californian farmers and laborers are out of work, and whole towns are dying. In Mendota, a century-old farming town west of Fresno, unemployment has reached 41 percent. In nearby Firebaugh, the unemployment rate has reached 40 percent. Overall, the pump restrictions are expected to cost California’s agriculture industry upwards of $500 million per year, indefinitely.

In April, thousands of farmers gathered at the San Luis Reservoir near Los Banos, Calif., to protest the pump restrictions. The Stockton (Calif.) Record interviewed one of those protestors, a 55-year-old almond farmer named Sharon Wakefield. At the time, the federal government was preparing to completely shut off the flow of water to Wakefield’s farm. Without water, Wakefield’s almond trees will die.

“I don’t know what we’re going to do,” Wakefield said. “My family came out [to California] with the Dust Bowl, and I’m not going back.”

Wakefield is one of the human victims of modern environmentalism, a movement that increasingly ignores the human costs of its efforts. What was once a movement dedicated to serving humanity and grounded in reason has gradually morphed into an ideological crusade grounded in hysteria. And what was once a campaign to improve the quality of life of humans is now fighting to improve the quality of life of fish — at the expense of humans.

This is insane. And yet, this sort of environmental radicalism creates an opportunity that the Republican Party can easily exploit: an opportunity to steer the environmental movement down a more moderate path by offering pragmatic solutions to America’s environmental challenges.

So far, Republicans have failed to do that. According to a 2008 Pew Research Center poll, 65 percent of voters believe that Democrats are better at protecting the environment than Republicans. Only 21 percent of voters told Pew that Republicans are better than Democrats at protecting the environment.

With environmentalism surging in popularity, Republicans can no longer afford to be seen as the anti-environmental party. According to a 2008 ABC News/Planet Green/Stanford University poll, 41 percent of Americans now describe themselves as environmentalists and 42 percent of Americans now say they prefer to vote for environmentalist candidates over non-environmentalist candidates. Only six percent of Americans would prefer to vote for a non-environmentalist candidate over an environmentalist candidate.

In the coming years, environmentalism is likely to grow even more popular — which is why the GOP can no longer afford to cede environmental issues to the Democrats. Instead, the Republican Party needs to engage in environmental debates, gain credibility with voters on environmental issues, and start to influence and shape environmental debates, from what to do about global warming to what to do about delta smelt.

For this to happen, the Republicans need an environmental vision. They need to define what a Republican approach to environmentalism would look like.

It could look something like this:

First, a Republican approach to environmentalism would recognize that, while new environmental regulations may be necessary, those regulations don’t need to be oppressive and economically debilitating. Liberty and a healthy environment are not mutually exclusive.

Second, a Republican approach to environmentalism would emphasize personal responsibility. This means relying on individual initiative instead of government mandates; and on private-sector, free-market solutions to environmental challenges instead of on massive government interventions in the economy.

Finally, a Republican approach to environmentalism would consider environmental needs in light of human needs.

In the context of the delta smelt debate, a Republican environmentalist would have a simple solution: install filters on the Sacramento River’s water pumps. This would save most, but not all, of the delta smelt, and would spare California’s farms and farmers from economic destruction.

As Republican strategists prepare to revamp the GOP’s overall message in preparation for the 2010 and 2012 elections, they’d be wise to incorporate some form of environmentalism into that message. Doing so would benefit both the Republican Party and the country.