Hugh Bollinger / Saturday, April 16, 2011

Budget cuts, ugly forests?

The new governor of Maine, Paul LePage, said: “Maine’s working families and small businesses are endangered,” he said. “It is time we start defending the interests of those who want to work and invest in Maine with the same vigor that we defend tree frogs and Canadian lynx.” He's one of many governors working to cut the budgets of environmental regulation. When budgets get tight, the first things to go are the things you think are cosmetic. If you're a CEO, the first thing you jettison are the manicures. If you're a salesman, you swap the $50 haircuts for a $10 jobbie from SuperCuts. And if you're the Federal Government, you stop protecting the merely pretty parts of your state. Are manicures and haircuts and forests important? It depends. If you're trying to get a new job, a manicure and a haircut might make a good impression. Same with forests. There's all kind of economic data stating that pretty places -- in the West and South, chiefly -- attract smart and talented people to them and, therefore, develop their economies. There are many reasons why San Francisco has more tech companies and college grads than Oklahoma City, but a gorgeous natural environment is certainly one of them. So even if you ignore the "deep ecology" arguments against cutting necessary environmental regulations, cosmetics do matter. Better to maybe find another way to save money. Better to turn off the cable instead. -- Reilly Capps

Calling all basejumpers The cameras and the mystery

392 Rate this article:

No rating

Tags: environment regulation reilly capps Riled Up states

Budget cuts, ugly forests?

Related articles

Please login or register to post comments.

Archive