Dan Gomez: Rampaging enviro-nuts pose threat

The vast majority of us can agree that protecting the United States against terror is important. Unless, of course, that means potentially endangering the habitat of some mosquitoes. Sound ridiculous? Not to some environmentalists.

That's right, California environmentalists have officially placed the importance of security and freedom to America and her citizens below that of protecting insects and birds.

As many of us know, the porous Mexican-American and Canadian-American borders present a direct threat to American security. In many areas, all al Qaeda needs is money, and they could sneak cells and possibly even weapons across the border.

In order to protect Americans from this illegal immigration, a recent plan was put forth to construct a 14-mile fence near the Mexican border to complement a 40-mile fence already in place. This 40-mile fence has been credited with dramatic drops in illegal immigration in the area since it was constructed.

Environmentalists claim that the fence will hurt the local ecosystem, including the habitat of some assorted birds and insects (personally, I think it could help the birds by making a nice little perch for them).

Of course, what the Greenies don't take into account is the massive harm that could be done to the ecosystem if al Qaeda were able to sneak chemical, biological or nuclear weapons into the United States.

This particular example shows that the environmental movement has been hijacked by radicals and extremists who put the safety of animals and plants over the safety of freedom and humanity. And yet it is these same environmentalists who should be on the front lines of safeguarding freedom. After all, it is only in freedom-loving places like America that environmentalists would even be allowed to exist.

Unfortunately, the environmental link with terror does not stop there. Radical environmental groups have been on the rise in the United States. Groups like the Earth Liberation Front and the Animal Liberation Front have actually begun firebombing in order to achieve their radical agenda. Of course, these groups are not associated with the more "mainstream" groups like the Sierra Club and Greenpeace, but it is certainly worrying that these "mainstream" groups have not done more to denounce them.

This is not the only instance of environmentalists failing to take human life into account. I am sure that most of us heard about the raging wildfires on the West Coast this past summer. In fact, it happens every year. Wildfires rage out of control and destroy thousands of dollars worth of property and, potentially, human life as well.

And yet, the environmentalists oppose strategic logging efforts in overgrown areas that would prevent these fires from raging out of control. This is despite the fact that the gases released from such fires are far more harmful to our health than the smog that environmentalists are constantly complaining about. Thankfully, President Bush recently signed the Healthy Forest Restoration Act that will protect forests as well as human life and property at the same time.

The environmental movement has also become institutionalized. Environmentalism has become a multibillion-dollar-a-year industry, with every inclination toward exaggeration that enviro-nuts associate with the oil industry. If they can make things sound worse than they are (when in fact many indicators show that the environment is getting better), then they get more money. No wonder, then, that everything you hear from the Greens makes it seem as though the sky is falling (or has holes, or is getting hotter, or whatever it is they come up with next). For example, in 1997, the Worldwide Fund for Nature issued a press release with the title, "Two-thirds of the world's forests lost forever." And what was the actual statistic? 20 percent. Not exactly the accuracy you would have expected from the Greenies, is it?

The environmentalists will retort that their policies are ultimately aimed at protecting humanity from things like global warming. And, of course, they will point to that hopelessly useless Kyoto Treaty. Tom Wigley, one of the authors of the reports to the U.N. Climate Change Panel, constructed a model that showed that if the Kyoto Treaty were enacted, it would postpone the temperature increase that we would normally expect in 2094 to 2100. Not exactly earth-shattering change. And at the hardly bargain price of $1 trillion -- five times the amount it would take to provide the world with universal clean drinking water and sanitation.

Most people can agree that the environment needs to be protected. But the environmental movement has become so radicalized, institutionalized and blatantly partisan that it is difficult for normal people to take them seriously any more. If the environmental movement is to make real, honest progress, then it needs to dissociate itself from the radicals, recognize that it has a vested interest in protecting freedom and stop wasting time with useless projects like Kyoto. Then, everyone in America could be proud to be helping out the environment.Dan Gomez is a junior History major from Wayne, Pa. and chairman of the Penn College Republicans.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.