Green New Deal
By Jim Palmer Jr.

I  find it offensive when idealistic zealots, usually hailing from a pollution clogged city, lecture rural folks about environmental issues then force their ideology upon non-offenders and offenders alike, sometimes at great cost to all. The portion of the price they ask that is most detrimental seems to be the loss to our freedom.  Should we allow the world to be polluted so we can save a few bucks? Of course not, but I believe we can claim the God given stewardship for our planet without buying into the terrorist-like cry that “the sky is falling!”

Do you remember the (now canceled) Dr. Suess character Sam, who persistently encouraged an unnamed character to sample a dish of green eggs and ham?  “I do not like green eggs and ham.  I do not like them, Sam-I-Am,” repeats the reluctant character.

A few years ago, I found myself in a situation similar to the unnamed character in that story when I was asked by a developer if I would promote “green” homes to the public. Their thinking was that environmentally conscious people might be enticed to pay more for a product that at least claimed to be environmentally friendly.  That idea never gained any traction.
I suppose a definition of an environmentally friendly home is one that is efficient to heat and efficient to cool, water saving, and is built with safe products that won’t pollute or create environmental hazards in the future (ie. Asbestos, formaldehyde, etc), which definition probably fits most new homes in the current market.

I believe in being environmentally responsible, but I’m also annoyed by false claims of that movement.  An example is low-flow-toilets that never really ended up being water savers since users could never seem to flush the complete contents of the bowl in one try.

If science rules the day, then consider how they think a rural residence threatens the water resource when virtually every ounce of water consumed on those rural premises goes into a septic system and right back into the aquifer it was drawn from.  Even accounting for evaporation when watering a spacious lawn or garden, that loss might only be a fraction of a percentage, of which would be recovered whenever it rained or snowed.

If the ideal goal of this green-movement is to meet the needs of society indefinitely without depleting natural resources by creating products that can be reclaimed or re-used, while reducing waste, consumption and pollution, then who wouldn’t agree to that as long as the cost is justified, the promises real, and our freedom protected?