The Home Project

I just watched an internet video one hour and thirty three minutes in length. It is worth every second. EMR has written extensively about people depleting our natural capital. This video brings those thoughts to life. It is a liberal thesis. However, it is also a jaw dropping, eye popping wonder. Let nobody say that Ole Groveton can’t recognize brilliance – even in the liberal cause. The section on Haiti (beginning at about 0:52) is haunting.

As a side note, embedding was “disabled by request” on YouTube. Therefore, I am providing the link to the video. Also, there have been about 3,500 articles posted on Bacon’s Rebellion since its inception (articles, not comments). It’s quite possible that this video was posted in the past. I seem to have a vague recollection of parts of the video. However, even if this is a “dupe”, I think it is worth a re-visit.

I hate it when liberals do something right!

See the video here.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

28 responses to “The Home Project”

  1. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Darrell —

    I watched the live feed – SNAFU – situation normal, all f'ed up. I also checked around the blogosphere – Monkeyfister is the only one reporting new explosions on Sunday. A few other blogs have picked up Monkeyfister's story but none can collaborate anythung. A typically useless 10 minute review of the MSM provided nothing of interest.

    My guess is that Monkeyfister misinterpreted some oddity from the video, like one of the remote controlled submersibles stirring up the leaking oil.

    I mean, neither the Obama Administration nor BP would lie or delay the truth … would they?

  2. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    not sure what the point is here.

    Can the situation get worse?

    yup.

    so what?

    Is EVERYTHING now days some sort of a conspiracy?

  3. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Groveton, Glad to see that you're developing some environmental sensibilities. One of the public policy tragedies of the past 40 years is that "conservatives" allowed "liberals" to command the environmental movement, which had resulted in all manner of excess and inefficiency.

    Human activity does have vast and damaging impact on he environment, and we humans (not to mention othe rlife forms) will pay the price if we don't find a way to mitigate the damage. Harkening back to the great conservationist Teddy Roosevelt, we conservatives need to take environmental problems seriously and help devise solutions that incorporate market-based principles. Otherwise we turn it over to the libtards who can think of nothing but command-and-control solutions.

  4. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Bacon… I thought it was open season on you limp-wrist RINOs these days.

    Command & Control?

    Can you say Chesapeake Bay – Volunteer Cleanup?

    How about "voluntary" oil drilling standards?

    oh.. and when BP screws up.. it's the Govt fault?

    cause we know that Govt regulation is a failure -right?

    I'm trying to piece together some level of coherence of conservative philosophy these days on the matter of Conservation and I'm here to tell you – that youse guys are all over the map on this.

    Listen to Rand "teapot" Paul on this issue. "We don't need no stinkin EPA".

    Global Warming? Nope. No such thing because the scientists have entered into a worldwide conspiracy to foist their slimy liberal agenda on hapless conservatives….

    Name the Conservative that you believe BEST EXEMPLIFIES the best ideals of Conservation – Jim.

    Who is that Conservative that champions Conservation and the Environment now days?

  5. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    One of the public policy tragedies of the past 40 years is that "conservatives" allowed "liberals" to command the environmental movement, which had resulted in all manner of excess and inefficiency.

    Bingo. Well said.

    Bacon understands market driven conservation. Now if we can just get EMR and Larry on board…..

    RH

  6. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I asked for examples of Conservative leadership of those values.

    How about you RH? Have you got anyone who would lead the Conservatives so that they prove to us all that they are indeed better than the liberals "command and control" approach?

    HINT: in your dreams is not real.

    this is the part of the test that Conservatism fails not only on the environment but many other things because they have their ideology but actually practicing it in the real world seems hard for them.

    For instance, the only true real-world fiscal conservatives in the party are summarily outed as RINOs – almost if they are outed as GAYS… and promptly excised from the party so that the true fiscal conservatives can do what they did in 8y years with that Conservative President – who, to this day, has never been viewed as a RINO by those that still love him.

    My point here is that Conservatives don't live in the real world anymore and especially so on the environment.

    When they are in office, they gut the "command & control" approach to oil drilling; replace the leadership with industry plants and then when the inevitable happens.. they blame others whoever they can latch onto or trying to discredit the science.

    No where is a Republican stepping forward and laying out a different approach to ..say oil drilling.. nope.

    where are the Republican leaders for something other than a command and control approach to oil drilling in the gulf?

    answer please.

  7. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I'd actually like to see a POLL of the Tea POTs as to whether or not companies like BP should be regulated or not by the Govt.

    We already know Rand Paul's answer, right?

    so, let me ask.

    You don't like command & control for regulation ….such as oil drilling…

    and you say you want a market approach.

    okay.. let's hear a workable market approach that does not require the govt to implement and monitor it.

  8. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Jim Bacon

    "One of the public policy tragedies of the past 40 years is that "conservatives" allowed "liberals" to command the environmental movement, which had resulted in all manner of excess and inefficiency."

    Huh? What planet do you live on. True, Richard Nixon did some of the most important environmental work of the 20th century with NEPA and the air and water acts and forming the EPA.

    But subsequent GOP presidents made it a travesty from Reagan on down. "W" was perhaps the worst in terms of letting industry set regs and allowing regulators to enjoy their pimping and partying. Bush is one reason the Minerals Management Service allowed BP and its subs to put in substandard equipment and now can't stop the Gulf leak.

    You are a real racist when it comes the the environment.

    Peter Galuszka

  9. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Peter, how do we disagree? After Nixon, conservatives and Republicans dropped the ball. On the environment, they became the party of "no." Instead of devising market/property-based solutions, they handed the issue over to the Dems, who can't conceive of a solution to a societal problem that doesn't involve expanding the size and scope of government.

    So, I ask again, where do we disagree?

  10. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    you can't blame the Dems approach if you don't have a better alternative…

    It's like standing at the ice cream counter and not find a flavor you want..

  11. James A. Bacon Avatar
    James A. Bacon

    Larry, to learn more about free-market approaches to the environment, check out the Rocky Mountain Institute website or for something closer to home, check out my old writings on the Bacon's Rebellion e-zine.

  12. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Jim,
    We disagree because you initially said that envionmental regulation got screwed up by "liberals" who took over when "conservatives" did nothing.
    I say that Reaganand the BUshes screwed it up. They ar enot liberals. Why isn't this clear to you? I mean, it's like a nobrainer.

    Peter Galuszka

  13. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I agree with Peter. Not even the liberals like the govt command & control approach to some of these problems.

    They'd love to have better approaches.

    The reality is that profit trumps the environment in many cases.

    We know, for instance, that with or without govt regulation, that BP would not put extra money into a more safe system because in their mind the risk was so small that it was acceptable.

    That view was not shared by others who would be affected by a potential blowout so the argument degenerates into the age old argument that "too much" protection costs money – unnecessarily.

    Of course, the folks that say that – they head for the exits when there is a failure and some are clever enough to say that the failure demonstrates that the govt cannot effectively regulate – ergo – regulation if a failed approach.

    That would be just fine – if there was a viable substitute approach that actually worked but we know what it's really about – "market-based" = "unregulated" and unregulated has very few success stories and a ton of bad outcomes.

    the goal of those who support no regulation is.. if forced into a regulatory paradigm… to gut the regs.. so you have regulation in name only.

    oops.. that's RINO.. isn't it?

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Peter, I'm with Jim. I don't see the disagreement, except you point out that GOP was DELIBERATE in handing over the reins on this one.

    RH

  15. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    for just the briefest time, Rand Paul was sharing the Conservative view of how much government involvement there should be in the private sector.

    He went on to say that Obama was being "un-American" in his criticism of BP.

    I have to admit.. I simply had not considered that perspective at all… but NOW ..I AM starting to understand a lot more where conservatives are coming from on this issue and I have to tell you… it's a bit scary….

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "We disagree because you initially said that envionmental regulation got screwed up by "liberals" who took over when "conservatives" did nothing."

    I don't think that's what he said.

    whether "conservatives" allowed "liberals" to command the environmental movement, or whether conservatives actively anbandoned it, the result was the same.

    We got some good results, but we also got a lot of wasteful and harebrained ideas, which are now embedded in the national psyche.

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry, you are right. I don't see a single conservative who could offer real leadership on the environment.

    I don't see any on the liberal side either. The liberal version of command and control boils down to "this is your property and we are going to take it" The liberal version of cost/benefit analysis is to make the benefits priceless so the costs look low. Liberals don't care how much they waste in the name of conservation and conservatives don;t seem to care what they destroy in the name of savings.

    RH

  18. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Why not move this discussion from tossing rocks at empty pigeon holes to an interesting dilemma in which ‘conservation’ organizations now find themselves.

    They have taken the path blazed by Jay Hair at World Wildlife:

    Conservation Institutions have gotten in bed with Enterprises — Greenwashing at its worst.

    The result has been no better than the Old Fourth Estate getting in bed with Enterprises rather that helping citizens understand THE ESTATES MATRIX.

    On Monday WaPo had a top of the front page story: “Oil Spill Threatens to Stain Alliances.”

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/23/AR2010052302164.html

    It has done a lot more than “stain.”

    Interesting that the story was posted on the 23rd and the headline was changed from: “Nature Conservancy faces potential backlash from ties with BP”

    Johann Hari had a nice summary of the problem that had not ‘surfaced’ yet in the 22 March edition of The Nation.

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100322/hari

    Now it has gone viral. Read it and then Google it to see the impact.

    As Professor Risse says:

    “There is no alternative to Fundamental Transformation”

    Observer

  19. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Ray, I can easily cite 10 or more leaders in the Environment – perhaps not ones that you would choose but ones who are none-the-less acknowledged by both liberals and conservatives as leaders in the environmental movement.

    I'm asking you to name a similar person from the Conservative side of the house…

    I can think of one – Christine Whitman – right?

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    None of them meet my simple standard for environmental fairness and efficiency. All are ideologues, of one stripe or another.

    Anyway, why would I of all people know ANYONE from the conservative side of the house? I'm a freaking liberal, if anything. I just happen the think that the liberal environmentalists have mostly lost their mind, and the conservative environmentalists don't understand the problem.

    RH

  21. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I can think of a few, but they are Academics not environmentalists, per se.

    RH

  22. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    not to your standards but to the standards of MOST on BOTH sides of the liberal/conservative continuum.

    Your ideas are warped ideas that are not accepted by folks on either side so don't use your standards.

  23. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Conservation Institutions have gotten in bed with Enterprises — Greenwashing at its worst.

    They SHOULD be in bed with the enterprises.

    That's whee the money is.

    Same for Unions.

    When you are in bed with the Money you will be careful not to let it kill the goose that provides down for your comforter.

    You will want them to make the most money possible at the least environmental cost.

    Then you don't want to waste money over regulating them so that they can make more PROFIT, and you will have more money to spend sooner on your next best environmental priority.

    People wo think as that in the italics have set the environmental movement back 50 years, if not more.

    RH

    RH

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "Your ideas are warped ideas that are not accepted by folks on either side so don't use your standards."

    My ideas are not accepted by either side because my ideas are designed to be fair and constructive.

    Everyone else just wants to win, hold power, and get one over on the other guy (Steal, in other words).

    My ideas aren't even mine, and they are widely taught in environmental economics courses. Course, when you go out to get an actual job, you are going to wind up working for one side or the other, and they expect loyalty and more profit sooner – no matter how you get it.

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The Nature Conservancy "conflict of interest" sories are old hat. that stuff was going on when I worked in the field.

    Just because there is cooperation does not mean there is either conspiracy or cupidity

    RH

  26. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    ideas that are predominately accepted by BOTH sides as fair are better than your ideas and that's in fact the way much of this works.

    It's always a compromise and the folks who think only one way and will not yield are spun off to the side as they should be

  27. Geezus,you are so wrong.
    The views held by both sides are held so they can gain some usher advantage.

    The result eventually averages out to fair like the.random walk of adrunken sailor.

    It is a. Collosal waste of energy and. Resources.

Leave a Reply