Opinion

Environmental Extremism Is Creeping Into Every Domain of Public Policy

Charlotte, NC — Many on the left continue to place their ideology of environmental extremism above all other considerations, including economic growth, individual freedom, and the welfare of low-income Americans.

This worldview ignores critical trade-offs and places environmental interests above even basic principles that have long served as a foundation of this nation. Further, this extreme environmental movement has crept into almost every issue area imaginable.

There are certainly environmental issues that need attention, but sensible environmental policy doesn’t address those issues in a vacuum without regard for other important concerns. Yet, this extreme movement acts in such a manner.

The following examples highlight how environmental extremism is skewing public policy:

Energy

To environmental extremists, it’s more important for the government to force radical changes to how we generate electricity and fuel our vehicles than it is to have reliable and affordable energy or to remove barriers to innovation.

It doesn’t matter how unrealistic their objectives are, or the fact that their climate change efforts would have no meaningful effect on global temperatures.

This virtue-signaling may make the extremists feel better about themselves, but it certainly won’t make low-income households feel better when they are disproportionately impacted by higher energy prices. Nor will it make Americans feel better to pay more of their hard-earned money for less reliable energy.

Food and Agriculture

Some extremists would prioritize their environmental agenda over efficiently producing safe and affordable food for Americans.

Instead of simply addressing specific environmental issues, some want to develop a national food policy, which is just another way of saying a federally centralized approach to dictate food and agricultural production, distribution, and consumption.

One of the primary goals of this envisioned national food and agricultural policy would be advancing environmental objectives. What is ignored in this movement is affordable food and consumer choice.

To see how such a philosophy would be applied in practice, the 2015 Dietary Guidelines process is instructive.

In developing its recommendations for the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services, the influential Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee decided it would take into account non-dietary issues, such as climate change and sustainability, and not focus solely on the nutritional health of Americans—which is the purpose of the guidelines. Fortunately, the agencies rejected this extremism.

Housing, Land Use, and Transportation

The extreme environmental agenda has long been entrenched in urban policy, primarily through “smart growth,” which is a pleasant name given to an unpleasant centralized planning philosophy.

Some of the key components of this philosophy are restricting development through land-use regulations, which drives up housing prices and limiting the use of cars by promoting higher density development and transit. The ability of Americans to afford their own homes and live where they would like is ignored.

Financial Regulation

Environmental extremists are currently pushing for Janet Yellen, President-elect Joe Biden’s nominee for treasury secretary, to take drastic action to address climate change, such as by forcing oil and gas companies to sell off fossil fuel assets.

This is yet another effort to create a government mandate for environmental, social, and governance risks to play a primary role in banking and investing.

These efforts are a backdoor way to try and accomplish environmental objectives and simultaneously to try and radically change the very purpose of American businesses, and as a result, the entire economy.

Conclusion

Environmental policy should be debated in an open and transparent fashion. Using every issue imaginable as a pretext to push an environmental agenda is both not transparent and minimizes other critical concerns, from higher prices of basic needs to ensure a stable food supply.

There should be a proactive environmental policy agenda that doesn’t ignore the costs and trade-offs of seeking to achieve positive environmental outcomes.

The left likes to claim a monopoly about caring for the environment. But nobody, either on the left or right, has such a monopoly.

Placing the environment over individual rights and freedom, and even humanity itself, as some extremists do, may make some feel better about their commitment to the environment, but they do so at the expense of the well-being of the American people.

Content syndicated from TheLibertyLoft.com with permission.

Jared Dyson

Jared Dyson is the Editor-in-Chief at The Liberty Loft and host of The Jared Dyson Show on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, TuneIn, Pandora, or iHeart Radio. 

Share
Published by
Jared Dyson

Recent Posts

Trump’s Big, Beautiful, Bill Scores Victory in Senate – Still Hard Road Ahead

The U.S. Senate voted to advance President Trump's "Big, Beautiful, Bill" to debate, clearing an…

3 hours ago

Trump Declares War On Deep State Leakers

The Trump administration is cracking down on government leakers and curbing the flow of classified…

5 hours ago

Alan Dershowitz Explains Why Trump Can Now Ignore Rogue Injunctions From Liberal Judges

Alan Dershowitz weighed in on Fox Business Friday on the ongoing battle between the executive…

5 hours ago

Hugh Hewitt Names Which City Would Get All Of NYC’s Banking And Finance If Mamdani Wins

Radio host Hugh Hewitt said Friday on Fox News’ “Hannity” that he believes Miami will…

5 hours ago

A Cornerstone Of The America First Mandate

The United States’ recent confrontations with Iran dominate the headlines, but the growing, if quieter,…

5 hours ago

Charlie Kirk Warns ‘Biggest Fight’ Of Trump’s Presidency Awaits

Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk appeared on Fox News Friday to discuss what he…

5 hours ago