Well, this is a touch disjointed because I cut most of it, and have to
get a couple things done, off the net.

I think we agree on most basics, but not on who we trust. You trust
some, I don't trust anyone in politics. (They keep insisting on silly
stuff, like I can't keep a knife at someone's throat, just because
he's a politician.)

D Kat wrote:

Anything once it turns into a bureaucracy develops serious flaws. The idea
behind the laws is correct - if we don't take care of the earth, we in the
end will be the ones to suffer most. It is the implementation that has a
problem. Part of it is that people who end up being the ones that hold the
power either they don't care, they don't have the leeway or they don't have
the knowledge to make these things work.

I fully agree with every bit of the above. People also gain power by
claiming to be "the environmental candidate", when they are more
accurately called "the anti-environmental candidate". "The devil can
quote scripture for his own purposes."

Too many of the previous administration were (and are) simply riding
the "environmental horse" as a means of gaining power and wealth.
Trusting them is no wiser than trusting the present bunch, IMO.

I made a study of confidence games back a long time ago when I
realized I was falling for too many of them for my health. Most of the
"environmental" groups are demonstratibly long con's.

It is critical that we protect our
wetlands from human development. The majority of sea life begins in
estuaries. Our water is purified going through wetlands. It is one of the
riches habitats on the earth.

This gets into location. As an example, the entire state of Alaska can
be considered "wetlands", according to the definitions *needed* in
most of the US. Pretty much the whole darn state squishes underfoot,
unless it's frozen. It's a bit too much of a good thing, as several
diseases thrive under these conditions, and the wetlands here are
actually a major source of pollution to the streams. (shrug) most
people in the lower 48 don't realize this, and, well, they get told a
lot of lies by people who want power and money, and we end up with
laws that are a good laugh at best, destructive of the environment at
worst.

The *laws* might work in parts of the lower 48, or might not. A law or
regulation gets passed that is micromanagement proper for one place,
is applied to a huge number of other locations, and does harm in some
of them, as in Alaska.

The people who want the power and money tell the voters that the
people who actually live in the country want to destroy the
environment, but, who really wants to live in the midst of
environmental devastation? I don't miss a koi pond, because there is a
lovely, natural pool at the mouth of a ravine next to where I work.
It'd take a major fortune to manufacture something like that. Serene,
peacefully, a series of small waterfalls lead into it and out,
surrounded by tall hemlock, eagles and raven overhead, and occasional
mink or weasel bouncing past. The bowl faces the evening sun and is,
well, great. Okay, it would stand a few more fish, something other
than a handful of brook trout.

As I said - a hotbutton topic for me so this is the last I will say on it.
DKat

Believe it or not, we are pretty much on the same side in what results
we want.