A fellow Ohioan who writes the Nookular Option blog asks one of those nasty little thought-provoking questions: Why do those of us who advocate states’ rights for social issues lack the same energy for states’ rights on an important environmental issue? He linked to an article in the Los Angeles Times citing a Federal court opinion affirming the Feds' denial of California’s waiver application for emission controls more stringent than the Federal standards.
To be consistent in states’ rights, we should be opposing Federal activity in every area not specifically stated in Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.
Unfortunately, environmentalism is not a hot-button issue in Ohio, and Ohio is not one of the 15 states that joined in California’s lawsuit against the Federal Environmental Protection Agency. The reason probably has to do with Ohio’s “practical” nature and our nostalgia for smokestack industries. As we have shown in earlier posts, Ohio has a wonderful opportunity for growth if we embrace environmentalism and use our inventiveness to develop technologies that will let us have economic growth and clean air too.
As one who has advocated both for states’ rights and environmentalism, I am outraged. You should be too.
1 comment:
Thank you. Well said.
Post a Comment