|
|
| Author |
Message |
rcurl
|
|
Environmental License Plate
| 
Oct 1 15:56 UTC 1996 |
I just learned that there will be a vote this Wednesday (10/2) in
the state Senate on the "environmental license plate" bill. The original
House version of the bill (House 5426) specifies that the funds from the
sale of these plates are to be deposited in the Non-game Fish and Wildlife
Trust Fund, to be used for a variety of activities concerned with the
study, protection, and monitoring of non-game species and their habitats.
The Senate amended version would restrict the use of the funds to
prevention of water pollution. The non-game programs (including MNFI)
have been consistently underfunded, while many pollution-prevention
measures can and should be paid for by the industries concerned. I am
contacting our state senator, Alma Wheeler Smith, to urge her to support
the original House version of the bill. Senator Smith's email address is:
senasmith@senate.state.mi.us Input to other senators would, of course,
also be helpful.
|
| 10 responses total. |
n8nxf
|
|
response 1 of 10:
|
Oct 2 14:51 UTC 1996 |
My environmenat license plate is about 10 years old. What kind of material
are they going to make these "environmental" license plates out of?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 2 of 10:
|
Oct 2 16:35 UTC 1996 |
Al, I presume. The "vanity" plate is a fund raising gimmick, like the
non-game checkoff on your state taxes, for a seriously underfunded
Heritage program that includes the MNFI (Michigan Natural Features
Inventory). Many states are doing this, with a picture of some endangered
wildlife on the plate. The House passed a bill to mandate these plates by
a vote of 99 to 0. However when it got to the senate they amended it,
after arm twisting by Engler and his DEQ henchman Harding, to raise money
to pay for alleviating non-point pollution (which the polluters should pay
for themselves). It has been suggested that instead of something like a
loon as the symbol on the wildlife vanity plate, they can use a
skull-and-crossbones on the pollution plate. If the pollution plate bill
is adopted, there are some threats of a boycott, so it won't raise any
money, and the polluters will still have to pay.
There is an article about this anti-environmental power politics in the
latest issue of TYhe Northwoods Call.
|
raven
|
|
response 3 of 10:
|
Oct 2 18:02 UTC 1996 |
Where does one find "The Northwoods Call?" That sounds like an
interesting magazine, or newsletter or whatever it is...
|
rcurl
|
|
response 4 of 10:
|
Oct 3 06:31 UTC 1996 |
"The Northwoods Call" is published weekly by Mary and Glen Sheppard
from Charlevoix. A subscription is $25 a year. It's motto is "An
admittedly biased newspaper, dedicated to the proposition that there is
only one side to any issue involving natural resources...NATURE'S!" The
address is North Woods Call, Inc., 00509 Turkey Run Rd., Charlevoix, MI 49720.
You can also purchase a 6 months subscription for $16.
|
n8nxf
|
|
response 5 of 10:
|
Oct 4 14:41 UTC 1996 |
(As one who considers man as part of nature, I have difficulty with such
mottos.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 6 of 10:
|
Oct 7 19:19 UTC 1996 |
So, anything man does to "nature" - pollution, resource destruction, etc,
are all acceptable to you as being "natural"?
|
n8nxf
|
|
response 7 of 10:
|
Oct 8 15:27 UTC 1996 |
Yes. That is not to say that man should do those things. When man pollutes
and destroys resources, etc. he not only hurts nature but also himself.
Man crafts nuclear energy, plastics, cars, IC engines, etc. from things he
finds scattered about on earth's surface. These items are not fabricated
from materials, etc. from some other place. The means by which he combines
things, alters cell structures, or whatever, must follow natural laws, not
the laws from some other place. Nature will destroy man before man can
destroy nature since man is part of nature. The fact is that nature will
treat man well if man treats nature well. The issue is how well is well
enough.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 8 of 10:
|
Oct 8 16:12 UTC 1996 |
I agree that there is not really a dichotomy, but there is a long and deep
custom of considering humans apart from, and "superior" to the rest of
nature. This - plus greed - is at the basis of the "Wise Use" movement.
Your philosophy is closer to what I've read of the Native Americans.
However saying humans are "just" part of nature, while true, is not a
prescription for action.
|
n8nxf
|
|
response 9 of 10:
|
Oct 9 15:53 UTC 1996 |
Actually, it is a prescription for action since there is an interrelation-
ship. I understand man's view of seeing himself as superior, though I do
not agree with that either. I suspect many life forms see themselves as
superior. Even if man's relationship with the rest of nature is similar
to that of a parasite and a host, the parasite must be careful not to kill
off the host.
Others have told me that my beliefs are close to those of Native Americans.
I guess that comes from spending too much time out in the woods with few
outside influances on what I *should* believe. ;-)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 10 of 10:
|
Oct 9 16:28 UTC 1996 |
I meant by a "prescription for action" a particular code to follow.
Accepting that one is part of "nature" is an admission, but does not in
itself tell you to cut down all the forests, or not. Both can fulfill
self interests, but in different ways. Even the Native Americans destroyed
parts of their ecosystem while pursuing self interest (although not as
massively as does "modern man" with machines).
|