"Children are bad for the planet..." And these people want to run our lives?

Today’s nuclear power news comes from North San Diego County, the home of San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (see article from the North County Times below). 

San Onofre used to have three operating reactors, but the older reactor was decommissioned a few years ago.  A few days ago I proposed a bill in the special session on water, ABX2 5, that would lift the state’s ban on new nuclear power plants to allow a third reactor on the site of San Onofre if 20 percent of its power was dedicated to water desalination.  This could provide about two-thirds of San Diego County’s current water needs. 

Very illuminating web comments on the idea from California’s environmental left clarify the ideology we are up against.  A post on the WiLD Blog (below) blames our lack of water on development.  This, of course, is like blaming our traffic congestion on development.  (You can almost hear them intone, “The traffic was fine until all you people moved here and got jobs…”)  Governor Jerry Brown shut down freeway construction in the late 1970s thinking it would deter growth (Don’t built it and they won’t come…).  History shows that we didn’t build and they came anyway.

WiLD Blog (http://wildcoast.blog.com/2129120/)
“Desalinization projects are the newest hope for the developer lobby in Southern California to find new ways to provide water for all the new construction projects they want to build in our increasingly dry desert…  Chuck--our dwindling water supplies are due to the massive development boom in Southern California…”

Of course, if people move to California or have children and we don’t add more water capacity or build more roads, the infrastructure that supports modern life will begin to get overworked. 

Perhaps what is really at work here is the more honestly and openly stated goal of simply eliminating people.  In an article headlined, “Children ‘bad for planet,’” dated May 7, 2007 in The Sunday Times, the Optimum Population Trust (http://www.optimumpopulation.org/) said having large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanor in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a big car and failing to reuse plastic bags. 

We see these last two concepts in all their glaring clarity in the California State Legislature where SUV taxes (AB 493 in 2007) get proposed every year and plastic bag recycling requirements (AB 2449 in 2006) become increasingly onerous.   

Now, I’m all for conservation – but I am even more in favor of liberty and the free market.  Further, I remain deeply skeptical of an environmental left that is at its core hostile to people while constantly demanding that we give up our inalienable rights in service of the greater environmental good which only they, of course, may define.

Chuck DeVore
California State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com
www.PowerForCalifornia.com

http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/09/29/news/top_stories/21_02_799_28_07.txt

North County Times
Saturday, September 29, 2007

New bill would open San Onofre for another reactor

By: EDWARD SIFUENTES - Staff Writer (excerpts follow)

A bill introduced earlier this week by Assemblyman Chuck DeVore, R-Irvine, would allow the building of a new nuclear reactor at the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station...

"What I'm trying to do is offer a real solution, even if the leaders in the Legislature don't want to," he said. "Eventually, the people of California are going to take note."

DeVore, who has championed efforts to lift the statewide moratorium, said the bill would help fix the state's power and water crunch.

"A new reactor could produce about 1,200 megawatts of power," he said. "My bill would require that 240 megawatts of that power to be designated for seawater desalination. This could provide about two-thirds of San Diego County's fresh-water needs."

DeVore said waste can be reduced by recycling spent fuel. He said nuclear power is a way of generating more electricity without producing more carbon dioxide, which scientists link to global warming.

DeVore said he sees signs that the tide is turning on nuclear power.

Earlier this year, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, said in a House Science and Technology hearing that "technology has changed" and that she "has a different view on nuclear than (she) did 20 years ago."

A spokesman for Assemblyman Martin Garrick, R-Carlsbad, said the lawmaker supports lifting the moratorium.

Comments

[Bladerunner]

Assemblyman--

Seriously, you're slipping. Trying to tag American groups concerned about development in environmentally sensitive areas with a wacked-out British group is weak. And to suggest the Brit group is being honest about their policy(and thus implying environmental groups who don't come out and urge a Chinese 1 child per family program are being dishonest) fails the logic test.

It would be like Dan telling you that because you are trying to aggressively increase the use of nuclear power you really ought to be honest and admit that you're in ideological bed with President Ahmadinijad. You plan to develop a bomb and much to the chagrin of your Irvine supporters drop a Little Boy II on Tel Aviv and a Fat Man II on Fairfax and Olympic.

Did you ever think people suspected you might be a radical Islamist?

[Dan Chmielewski]

I agree, Chuck, you're slipping; you using the O'Reilly/DailyKos element of cherry picking comments from a blog to paint the entire environmental left a certain color. I'd be happy to cherry pick comments from LGF or TownHall to do the same, but I'm sure you or Matt would find that "weak."

We get it; you love nuclear power. And I'm sure that if you suceed in getting voters to lift the ban on nuclear power, your business associates in Fresno will reward you with some nice fat consulting contract.

But all that aside, there is this comment; I've added a couple of lines: Now, I’m all for conservation – but I am even more in favor of *liberty* (unless you're Gay) and the free market. Further, I remain deeply skeptical of an environmental left that is at its core hostile to people while constantly demanding that we give up our inalienable rights (unless you're Gay) in service of the greater environmental good which only they, of course, may define.

What inalienable rights are you being asked to surrender? Life? No, the environmental left isn't against that. Liberty? They aren't against that either? Pursuit of happiness? Define it please and I'd argue this inalieable right is denied to gays and lesbians via Prop 22.

I know I'm beatig a dead horse here, but I don't believe you can honestly claim a mantle of liberty and freedom while still permitting open discrimination and an inequal application of rights/laws to a group of people based on sexual identity.

[Chuck DeVore]

Bladerunner,

I couldn’t have gotten a better straight man if I paid for one myself… I was truly hoping someone would comment exactly as you have done because I had the following just waiting for my response.

Below you will see some excerpts taken directly from the Sierra Club website (URL below) which shows that in 1974, when the world’s population was 4 billion, they were calling for a reduction in people. Today, we stand at 6.7 billion and, just as Friedrich Hayek predicted, the world is a richer, better place for it, with America’s air and water actually cleaner than it was 33 year ago, in spite of the dire warnings of the Club of Rome crowd.

Now, the Sierra Club is upheld by many as the pillar of the environmental movement – very credible and moderate. And yet, the policy statement below, originally written in 1974 and updated in 1995 and still on their website, has some very disturbing implications. For, you see, the desire for “population reduction” often gets translated into government policy which ends up being anti-family.

Now after reading the Sierra Club’s statement below (hardly, in your words a “wacked-out British group”) please tell me again how I am overreaching?

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com
www.PowerForCalifornia.com

http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/population.asp

World Population Year

The Sierra Club welcomes the deliberations of the World Population Year Conference to convene in Bucharest in August 1974, and urges participating nations to support an action plan designed to cope with problems related to population levels:

1. The Sierra Club is concerned with the quality of life for all humanity. Further unrestricted population growth will have unavoidable adverse effects on present and future living standards and particularly will act to prevent improvements of standards of living and intensify conditions of overcrowding and hunger for millions in developing nations.

2. Excessive population density intensifies every environmental problem associated with lack of adequate living space, lack of sufficient vital natural resources, and the disposition of wastes. These environmental problems include the poisoning of air, water and land resources; insufficient production of the food and energy necessary to sustain life; and increased susceptibility to disease arising from the debilitating effect of this pollution and resource exhaustion…

3. Therefore, the Sierra Club resolves that:

1. The aim of policies adopted by the United Nations Conference on Population should be that world population should be reduced to a level no greater than the carrying capacity of the Earth…

5. Population growth already overburdens parks, preserves, and other recreational facilities. The continued enjoyment of natural areas without irreparably impairing those areas depends on formulation of careful policies for population reduction and proper land use.

…Achievement of these ends should be made a top priority for United Nations action at all levels, including formulation of concrete programs for national implementation and funding. If the above goals are immediately pursued on an international level, we believe that population reduction may be achieved by voluntary controls on reproduction.

[Chuck DeVore]

Dan Chmielewski,

My liberty (and yours) is infringed when the government tells me the size of toilet I must use, tells me whether or not I can smoke in my car, or tells me that I cannot use my property for the purposes for which I purchased it, etc.

As for same-sex marriage, why not go all the way and allow Sharia Law marriage in the name of religious equality? One man, four wives...

In America, everyone has the right to marry an eligible person of the opposite sex. Very fair and equal. Beyond that, you are welcome to love whomever you wish in whatever manner pleases you (so long as no one gets hurt against their will).

And, as I have mentioned before, if same-sex marriage is such a no-brainer, why is it that most of the Democratic candidates for president have not publically called for it?

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

P.S. Dan, I'd love to hear your take on, or defense of, the Sierra Club statement on population reduction and why their comments aren't at all like that "wacked-out British group." It may take me a bit to respond, however, as I'm doing major battle with some termites on a second floor porch right now -- lumber and tools strewn all over the place.

[Jonathan Constantine]

BR,

You know Assemblyman Devore isn't in bed with Ahmedinajad. So please no personal attacks.

[Dan Chmielewski]

Chuck --
What is the statute of limitations on statements that define a group Chuck? How about "It's not illegal if the president does it?" Does that one sound familiar and is it true?

Define the carrying capacity of the planet, because without a definition, its pointless to respond.

"My liberty (and yours) is infringed when the government tells me the size of toilet I must use, tells me whether or not I can smoke in my car, or tells me that I cannot use my property for the purposes for which I purchased it, etc." Anyou've used pro-part of this arguement before to decry how law isn't far. Something about you can't enlist until you're 18, you can't drive until 16m etc. etc. If you don;t like the law, work to change it; you are an assemblyman after all. Petitioning my elected officials to change laws I don't like is my obligation as a private citizen and taxpayer.

Good luck with the termites; soccer beckons .. ta!

[Dan Chmielewski]

Implying that Bladerunner is the straightman means you;re the comedian right? No argument there. ;)

[Bladerunner]

Assemblyman-- I'm a straight man and proud of it.

Full disclosure-- I am NOT and have never been a member of the Sierra Club although I consider myself an environmentalist.

That being said, there is a significant difference between the wacked out Brits who want mandatory controls on population(a la your Red Chinese comrades) and the Sierra Club and other groups who are concerned about the ability of the planet to sustain the kind of growth we've seen in the last 100 years. They are only asking for voluntary measures. i wouldn't go so far as they do but I don't see them as secretly wanting to

If you look at third world countries with large birth rates you see the results--the rapid elimination of forests, resources, etc. We have the technology to sustain large families but its not accessible or not utilized in many of these countries. So voluntary efforts to reduce population growth aren't bad per se, as long as they don't impede people's liberty, yes?

And give my best to your comrade in nuclear power, Mr. Ahmadinijad.

[Chuck DeVore]

Here's the problem, Bladerunner, check out the Sierra Club's comment above, where they state, "If the above goals are immediately pursued on an international level, we believe that population reduction may be achieved by voluntary controls on reproduction."

"May be achieved by voluntary controls on reproduction" presupposes that more draconian measures may be needed later if the voluntary ones don't work. Afterall, what's the point of gaining power in government if you don't intent to use it to achieve your ends?

To that end, I would heartily commend to you the book by economist Frederick Hayek called "The Fatal Conceit." The book is a critique of socialism. (I just finished reading a second time after first reading it about 20 years ago.)

In the book Hayek also takes on the Club of Rome population explosion alarmists by noting that humans are a precious resource and that, generally speaking, the more of them, the better off things are because of human specialization. For this reason, resources are far more efficiently used when there is more people. We see that in America, where environmental quality has improved significantly because of our increased wealth and technology -- all caused by more people. Further, Hayek accurately predicted over 30 years ago that the population growth in the industrialized nations would slow considerably, as it has.

Along the lines of Hayek, I predict that as the Chinese and Indian economies improve, so will their environmental quality as they can begin to afford to clean up their air and water.

So, you see, I was taking aim at the same philosophical thread that holds that humans are a blight upon the earth and that my liberties need to be infringed so as to control growth.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com
www.PowerForCalifornia.com

[Patricia]

My liberty (and yours) is infringed when the government tells me the size of toilet I must use, tells me whether or not I can smoke in my car, or tells me that I cannot use my property for the purposes for which I purchased it, etc.

It always amazes me that liberals/leftists are passionate about intentional invasions of our private lives, yet are passionately against the possible invasion of wiretapping of private phone calls. In the latter case, the end result is capturing terrorists who want to blow up our cities. I measure the worth of a privacy invasion against its payoff-- don't they?

[redperegrine]

Patricia, only libertarians are consistent.

[Steve Diller]

Wow Chuck-- These folks are right- seriously man you are losing it. Stop polarizing and labeling. We need to work together. I think these enviros have something. This desal is a bad idea. What we need is growth control, and conservation. You of course want to invoke slogans of freedom, liberty and private property rights to destroy the planet all in the name of development--- get a clue--- please. I have supprted you on many issues but on the enviro stuff your have been acting a bit odd.... what gives?

[Chuck DeVore]

“Steve Diller” AKA “Butch Vanartsdalen” AKA “Dr. Van Nostrom” AKA “Craig” at IP 216.65.217.189 with an email address of frtmate@fea.net, you certainly do get around on the blogs.

I must say, that based on your past posts under your different names, you most assuredly are not the “life long conservative Republican” you claimed to be as “Dr. Van Nostrom”, nor have you likely “supprted (sic) (me) on many issues…” as claimed in your last post.

Now, if you care to engage in the open, with your name, that would be great. But hiding your lefty bent under multiple names isn’t all that impressive.

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District
www.ChuckDeVore.com

[Bladerunner]

Assemblyman---Here's my problem Assemblyman--I checked out the Sierra Club's website--their current one--and here is what I found:

They support

"universal access to voluntary family planning services and comprehensive sex education."

"advocate for womens and girls basic rights including health care, education and economic opportunity,"

"promote youth leadership and raise public awareness of wastefull resource consumption in the context of social and economic equity."

"We don't use the word population control because we want it clear that we are promoting choice and voluntary educated decisions. Our work is not about controlling women's lives"

The controlling women's lives part--that's where you Assemblyman and your Chinese Comrade Jintao come in.

So this is the postion of the Sierra Club--voluntary.

Hayek may have been right that socialism isn't a great concept but he's wrong if he thinks population growth equates with improved quality of life. Just as he's wrong about some of his discriminatory social views(Now Dan will know where you go for your intellectual suport for opposing gay marriage). Populations out of control inevitably lead to resource degradation without sufficient economic and social institutional support to develop compensatory resources. Look at China and India, or for that matter, indonesia and most of the 3rd world--rampant pollution, disappearing forests and animal life. Even with advanced technological support--look at our own country--rapid loss of agricultural land, diminishing fossil fuels to power vehicles in your transportation mode of choice the auto--less room for hunting, less room for wildlife, and on and on. Increased quality of life and population stablization usually occur at the same time.

But still, I'm opposed to mandatory controls and think big families are just fine if you can support them. And I think its disingenuous to suggest that environmentalists who support reasonable controls on growth have a goal of eliminating people.

[Chuck DeVore]

Bladerunner,

The Sierra Club comments ARE from a current site -- follow the link. The point is, they called for population curbs in the mid-70s and again in the mid-90s when they reissued their statement. Until they take it back, it stands.

For a demonstration as to where this kind of thinking leads, look at today's LA Times editorial against completing the 241 toll road. There's a priceless paragraph that says, in effect, more roads lead to more people which leads to more traffic. The opposite is then true: no people, no traffic (and no economy, no children, etc.)

All the best,

Chuck DeVore
State Assemblyman, 70th District

[redperegrine]

"There's a priceless paragraph that says, in effect, more roads lead to more people which leads to more traffic. The opposite is then true: no people, no traffic (and no economy, no children, etc.)"

Chuck, your "opposite" isn't opposite; it's merely a different way of phrasing the posulate.

Perhaps you don't understand the "argumentum ad absurdam." The opposite of a true statement is necessarily false; therefore prove the opposite is true and the statement must be false.

[Bladerunner]

Assemblyman--

Again, its voluntary and there web site says it over and over again.

As for the toll road, what do you expect? before the 91 freeway was built the Moreno Valley was a sleepy rural outpost and Corona a tiny town. The construction of the 91 allowed folks to move to Corona and the Moreno Valley and work in LA or the OC. Which is what the 241 will do o a much smaller scale for the new neighborhoods on the Rancho Santa margarita.

The TCA's insistence on this particular route may doom the extension.