Libertarian: ‘Green’ Policies Spark Wildfires
The Canadian fires “spilling smoke all the way down the East Coast highlight how backward policies delay or even prevent forest restoration work that would cut wildfire risk,” points out Tate Watkins at Reason. “Pollution standards and excessive red tape” plus “potential litigation from environmental groups” discourage proven ways to prevent forest fires, such as “controlled burning and mechanical thinning” that “make forests resilient by removing fuel in methodical, deliberate ways before it goes up in smoke in much more intense wildfires.” So now “fire-prone areas can be left at risk for years.” And smoke from wildfires is exempt from EPA emissions standards, but not smoke from controlled burns. Yet “the EPA is considering tightening its restrictions — despite warnings it “would further stifle the controlled burning needed to slash wildfire risk.”
Conservative: The Reparations ‘Rabbit Hole’
New York lawmakers just voted to follow California “down the slavery-reparations rabbit hole,” laments The Wall Street Journal’s Jason L. Riley, “and more states are sure to follow.” It shows “the progressive left isn’t interested in getting past race, and that social justice in practice amounts to little more than a power grab.” New York, after all, outlawed slavery in 1827, and “all the slaves and slaveholders are long gone.” Chinese- and Japanese-Americans were also mistreated, yet now outperform white Americans economically. And blaming slavery for outcomes today overlooks “the legacy of the welfare state,” which “subsidized counterproductive behavior that took a huge toll on the black family.” Reparations can’t solve “cultural deficiencies.” And they wouldn’t be “just” — only “corrupt.”
Eye on DC: Just Say No to Climate ‘Emergency’
“Progressive lawmakers are once again calling on President Joe Biden to declare a climate emergency,” notes Merrill Matthews at The Hill, grabbing “sweeping new executive powers” to (for example) “block crude oil exports.” Yet this “isn’t really about Canada’s wildfires,” as claimed, but bypassing “the Republican House of Representatives and perhaps a few reluctant Democratic senators” on climate. It’s a pattern “we’ve seen on several occasions,” like Biden using “the national health emergency over COVID-19” to justify loan and rent moratoria. Yet “these same progressives” shout “that democracy is on the verge of collapse.” No: the real threat to democracy is “the effort to create a much more powerful executive who can ignore the duly elected representatives of the people.”
From the right: Newsom’s Shadow Campaign
“Democratic governors don’t tend to jump at the chance for a sit-down interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News” or “to do tours of states they consider hostile to their own, like Florida,” snarks Stephen L. Miller at the Washington Examiner. Which suggests Gov. Gavin Newsom (D-Calif.) is “clearly running a shadow campaign just in case President Joe Biden doesn’t fulfill his pledge to become the Democratic 2024 presidential nominee.” In the face of “Biden’s age and mental acuity,” plus his poll numbers, “Newsom wants to be ready.” Kamala Harris? She has her own “disastrous public approval ratings.” So, for what it’s worth, “Newsom is running for president.” For now, “it’s unofficial.” But “will it stay that way?”
Gadfly: Expect the Worst From ‘Influencers’
Why, asks National Review’s Jim Geraghty, was the White House so surprised by that boob-baring Pride “influencer”? After all, “people become social-media influencers because they are good at attracting attention,” and winning eyeballs by “doing something stupid, obnoxious, or repugnant is every bit as valuable as attracting attention for doing something smart, virtuous, or helpful.” In “the world of social-media fame,” what counts “is that people are talking about you, even if they’re talking about how dumb and shameless you are.” Indeed, “if you have a strong sense of propriety, decorum, and shame, you are not likely to become a big-time social-media influencer.” Yet Biden’s “staff keeps inviting groups of people who make their living by breaking rules and behaving outrageously and provocatively, and then expects them to follow the rules.”
— Compiled by The Post Editorial Board
This story originally appeared on NYPost
