It’s Not Easy Being Green

The good news for environmentalists is that three lawmakers won 100 percent ratings from the Virginia League of Conservation voters, based on votes cast during the 2005 session of the General Assembly. The bad news is that two of them — Del. Viola Baskerville, D-Richmond, and Del. Chap Peterson, D-Fairfax — both stepped down from their seats to run for Lieutenant Governor. Oh, well, at least Del. Adam Ebbin, D-Arlington, is sticking around.

Ten Republicans rated “Zero,” three in the Senate and seven in the House. View the rankings here.

Share this article


(comments below)


(comments below)


  1. Two of the three statewide Republican candidates ranked 0. Is this good or bad? Why can’t conservatives get the time of day from conservationists? You’d think there would be some common ground. Explain and discuss.

  2. subpatre Avatar

    Why can’t conservatives get the time of day from conservationists?
    Because they’re not conservationists, they’re Democrats making enviromentalist sounds.

    In the ranking’s introduction, the Virginia League of Conservation Voters (VALCV) cites as a priority and progress:
    Overall spending for Natural
    Resources increased by nearly
    25% with $50 million for the
    Water Quality Improvement Fund…

    Funding for Bay cleanup is critical to watershed counties. There’s no more important issue –certainly none larger in impact– toward improved water quality. The bills were introduced at $160 million by Louderback, a conservative Republican ranked “44” by VALCV; in the Senate by Quayle, also Republican, rated a 33. ‘Rank hypocrisy’ now has a dual meaning.

    More examples of VALCV’s Democrat-biased hypocrisy abound.
    – Of three ranked ‘100’ (Democrats) none voted for all of VALCV’s agenda.
    – All of the top 25% rankings are Democrats
    – All the bottom 10% rankings are Republicans
    – In the bottom 25%, only 2 Democrats (out of 58 legislators) were below ’25’

    Further discussion could focus on VALCV’s Democrat-aligned platform on issues, like affordable housing or proffers, unrelated to conservation.

    The core issue is whether an agenda improves the environment. I’d submit VALCV’s philosophy, favoring fines over remediation, has proven to prolong problems, doing little or nothing to actually improve our environment.

  3. Ray Hyde Avatar

    What is VALCV’s take on cost/benefit analysis? My classes in environmental economics say that a perfect environment is available only at infinite cost.

    We’ll find common ground when the cost of doing nothing equals the cost of remediating our processes.

Leave a Reply