Does a Bear ---- in the Woods? Not if the MPCA Can Stop Him

On the radio this past Earth Day Monday, I put forward the proposition that the modern environmental movement is a victim of its own success.  As the obvious environmental problems are all solved—burning rivers, open waste pits, etc.), we have to dig ever deeper for new challenges and set new standards for environmental quality, no matter how unreasonable, to make environmental “progress.”

This article in today's Minneapolis Star Tribune on local smog jogged loose a nearly-twenty-year-old memory. 

Back then, scientists were searching for clues as to why certain waters in the Chesapeake Bay region were being contaminated by fecal coliform bacteria.  The usual suspects—agriculture, residential housing, and sewage treatment—appeared blameless.

Scientists from Virginia Tech studying the matter collected data showing that at some locations and times, wildlife are the primary sources of fecal pollution. 

Back in 2006, the Washington Post reported (“Wildlife Waste Is Major Water Polluter, Studies Say”) as follows,

Does a bear leave its waste in the woods?

Of course.  So do geese, deer, muskrats, raccoons and other wild animals. And now, such states as Virginia and Maryland have determined that this plays a significant role in water pollution.

Scientists have run high-tech tests on harmful bacteria in local rivers and streams and found that many of the germs--and in the Potomac and Anacostia rivers, a majority of them--come from wildlife dung.  The strange proposition that nature is apparently polluting itself has created a serious conundrum for government officials charged with cleaning up the rivers.

Nature polluting itself.  I would say that is a conundrum.  The old cliché about bombing the village to save it comes into play.  As the Post reported, scientists determined that, to meet EPA water quality guidelines,

there needed to be an 83 percent reduction in the amount of waste that wildlife left directly in streams.

But even the scientists who make these determinations say such a large reduction is unlikely.  Although Maryland does kill a few hundred geese annually to reduce water pollution, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service last month relaxed its rules to make it easier to kill geese for public-health reasons, no officials in this area have plans to kill or remove wildlife on a scale large enough to make a difference to the waterways.

Humans are not so lucky.  As we ratchet environmental standards up beyond anything that Mother Nature herself can meet, we get further removed from common sense in regulating human (if not wild animal) behavior.

Which brings us back to the Star Tribune article from this morning ("To fight Twin Cities smog, give up that lawn mower, diesel buses?").  In the article, the Star Tribune reports,

Unless Twin Cities residents get serious about giving up old lawn mowers, wood-burning stoves and diesel engines, the state of Minnesota could face costs of up to $240 million a year to meet tough new federal clean air requirements.

You see, the metro region is bumping up against new, more stringent air quality standards.  And like the raccoons in Maryland, since other, more significant sources of pollution already have been eradicated, environmental regulators feel compelled to eradicate pests such as lawn mowers.  In fact, the Star Tribune reports that local pollution is getting better—not worse—compared to past levels and to other regions in America.  No matter.

Last month I published a User's Guide to the Liberal Legacy Media.  Today’s article on smog is a textbook example of the Stage 1: Trial Balloon article.  As I explained,

This type of reporting represents the "coming attractions" feature of the progressive state.  Those wacky ideas that right-wing radio talk show hosts like to make fun of are actually next year's public policy debate and will be state law within two years.

The "news" story itself may appear to be little more than a rewritten press release from a progressive non-profit, labor union, or academic institution.  It represents the newest, freshest products from the progressive laboratory of ideas.  The purpose of Stage 1 reporting is to acclimate the general public to whatever new direction the progressive infrastructure would like to take us.  Problems you never knew existed are identified and government-based solutions are devised.

All the classic elements I identified are there: the “press release” prose from the progressive non-profit, the government solution, the “get ready, it’s coming” fatalism.

The Star Tribune quotes an official with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on what to do, as they

wrestled with wood burning, including back-yard fires. “It’s used as a form of recreation and enjoyment.” he said. “There is a real tug and pull between what we know and what we like.”

Back-yard fires?  Common sense has left the building.  And if I were a bear in the woods, I’d be looking over my shoulder.