Some environmentalists are paper tigers

“They kill good trees to put out bad newspapers.”
—James G. Watt, quoted in Newsweek, March 8, 1982

I happened across a small editorial in the Reno Gazette-Journal that gave praise (sort of) to the “Bush administration’s proposal to raise mileage standards for pickups, minivans and some SUVs.” Apparently, the reason the editors got their undies in a bunch was that it was some SUVs and not all SUVs. So while they admitted that the announcement “was a start,” they went on to lament that it was “a feeble one.”

OK, so let’s get the obvious out of the way. There isn’t anything Bush could do, short of leaving office or dying, that is going to make left-wing newspaper editors happy. Even if it did, they wouldn’t admit it. You know it. I know it. They know it. Hence, the half-assed dig at the Bush administration’s environmental policies couched under the guise of “praise.”

Democrats and tofu-farting environmental activists love to portray the president as just another big-corporation-loving, environment-hating nut, who’s hell-bent on destroying the planet. For example, when he nixed our involvement with the Kyoto Protocol Treaty in his first term, lefties came unhinged.

“See,” they said. “There’s proof that the idiot president hates the environment and puts his big-oil buddies first.”

Of course, June 25, 1997 is conveniently lost in this rhetoric. On said date—right before the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated—the U.S. Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (also known as Senate Resolution 98). This little piece of legislation clearly stated that, in the opinion of the senate, the United States shouldn’t sign on to any treaty that didn’t include binding targets and timetables for both developing and developed industrialized nations, or it “would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States.”

And the vote count? 95-0.

You may note that, if consistency were a consideration, then not one senator would have voted in favor of Kyoto. And that includes Massachusetts Sen. John “I voted against it but I would have voted for it” Kerry and his loud-mouthed compatriot Ted Kennedy.

But on Nov. 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore signed the protocol anyway. All too aware of the senate’s view, however, the Clinton administration didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to even submit it for an up or down vote for ratification. (Isn’t it cute how Democrats can be “for” something and “against” something at the same time?)

According to the Drudge Report, we also know the following: Al Gore’s airplane burned in excess of 65,600 gallons of jet fuel and cost more than $131,000 to get him to and from Kyoto just to ink his “symbolic” signature. Total time spent on the trip? Nineteen hours.

“Our fundamental challenge now is to find out whether and how we can change the behaviors that are causing [global warming],” lectured Mr. Environment.

Now color me silly, but I tend to get a little annoyed when limousine-liberals tell me it’s my behaviors that need changing.

So in similar fashion, the editors on their moral high horse at the RG-J seem way cool with calling for additional sacrifices from the automotive industry in the name of the environment.

I have my own environmental concept I’d like the Bush administration to consider. Let’s save some trees and impose a limit on the amount of wood pulp newspapers are allowed to consume when making their product. Then we’ll see how environmentally friendly editors are.