3 ms·
This is a puff piece ("things have unintended consequences" is as pablum as it gets). The anti-environmental slant implicit in the piece is intellectually offe
by trevelyan 19y ago
This is a puff piece ("things have unintended consequences" is as pablum as it gets).
The anti-environmental slant implicit in the piece is intellectually offensive. If land is in the hands of developers with plans for real estate development, the wildlife is already screwed. That doesn't mean tanking environmental regulations is somehow "better" for wildlife.
Ceteris paribus, this article sucks.
- mhb 19y agoI don't think the article is any more anti-environmental than it is anti-deaf people. Isn't it a benefit to the environment to point out policies which damage it when intended to help it so that they can be replaced with policies which help it?
- davidw 19y agoWhat I think people should consider as a good course of action in some cases is not throwing their hands in the air and saying "shucks, we can't do anything", but rather considering things carefully, and perhaps modifying policies as they go in order to improve them given actual outcomes.