NY Times declares no more environmental stories to report

Shuts down its environmental desk, via Lawrence Auster:
What is it—four years since the high tide of manmade global warmism, and four years since the fraud began to be exposed? Will any liberals have second thoughts about a belief system which periodically declares that our society or even the whole ecosystem is about to be destroyed by some horrible problem and that statist tyrannical wealth-destroying measures must be taken NOW to solve the problem and that anyone who questions the truth of the problem or the proffered solution is at best a mindless tool of evil forces?
Lawrence's take is a bit different than mine. I have said for some time that environmentalism is one of those causes that the Left is going to quietly back away from. Most of our 1+ million new Americans a year come here precisely because they don't want to hunt, fish or strap on a backpack. Also, pensions, disability checks and public schools won't pay for themselves, so we better crank up the bulldozers.

The Left appears to recognize its dilemma, hence the move away from difficult, hands-on stuff like land stewardship and wildlife management and on to vague, incorporeal notions like 'global warming.' It's tough and fascinating to figure out biodiversity and the appropriate balance between Man and Nature. But now that global warming isn't panning out into flooded cities, bankrupt ski resorts, Dust Bowl II, etc., the NY Times just can't think of any more environmental stories to report. Aren't there still rising ambient levels of mercury in fish, destruction of fauna in Africa, thermal inversions?

The last wild California condors had to be captured in 1987 just before they slipped into extinction, and after what must have been some intensive work by extremely dedicated and talented people, their numbers are high enough that they have since been re-introduced into the American Southwest. So how is the largest North American land bird doing these days, and how did we accomplish this? The Ochs-Sulzberger Family Trust and Carlos Slim don't seem to think that's the sort of thing that matters much.


IanH said…
I'm sorry you don't get more comments on this blog.

I've just about given up on TAC. Now they've even come out in favor of gun control. Even Daniel Larison seems to focus almost all his energy on foreign policy these days.
I am too, but there are a million blogs out there by people smarter, more creative and better writers than me. Fortunately, unlike Andrew Sullivan, I'm not trying to make a living at it.

TAC is a strange phenomenon. Ron Unz must have offered Taki a lot of money. Like Gelbaum buying off the Sierra Club once its members started putting two and two together on immigration and environmental stewardship.
Matt said…
TAC is what it is and will never change. It used to annoy me, but I've made my peace with it. Larison is really entertaining; I think he has successfully responded to everything ever written about Chuck Hagel now. Can't say he isn't dedicated. But the foreign policy focus has been since at least 2008. Go read his 2006 posts and it's like a different person. But there's still Dreher, who pokes at crimethink pretty regularly.

I think you might get more comments though if not for the spam filter. I'm starting to think that only a robot could decipher some of these.

Rev. Right said…
Republicans ought to offer legislation to bulldoze national parks, starting with Yosemite, to build housing for the illegal immigrants we are about to amnesty. It's only fair. Those who opposed could be branded racist.
Scotsman said…
This is a good theme you hit on awhile ago AG; one of the more fascinating and underreported aspects of it is the total retreat by the left in the Western world on labor activism, regardless of what you think of the labor movement.

Instead of trying to protect the wages fought and won decades ago, they have become the apologists for slave labor wages. Just one example - the celebration of the notion of 'jobs Americans wont do' (ie the jobs unionized Americans wont be allowed to do). So the left is now on the same side as the crony capitalist.

You were right that the left had one old cause in one hand, and another in the other hand and weighed which one was more important. We've seen this before.

Environmental protection < Multiculturalism

Labor movement < Multiculturalism

Multiculturalism has became the left's purpose for existence; a means to itself.
Matt said…
In general, the left is much less bold than it used to be. Can you imagine anyone today trying, as Truman did, to nationalize the steel industry (fill in important industry of today there)? Obama for all his radicalism didn't even suggest that might be a good idea under certain circumstances to nationalize a single bank, much less all of them. Similarly, as bad as a Sotomayor is, she's pretty much a mediocrity who won't do anything more than rule in favor of already-entrenched programs. You won't see any Roe v Wades or Griswold v Connecticuts from the Obama court.

My theory is that the left is decadent and its once fleshed-out theories have been reduced to reactionary prejudices. They still win on "vision" because if anything the right is worse.
PRCD said…
The Left seems to do a great job of increasing hunting lands. Look at Detroit, which is now prarie teeming with pheasants and other wildlife.

They also like to regulate all public land use or turn it over to cartel memmbers to grow pot, which keeps it in pristine condition for the next generation. No one wants to die in a hail of AK-47 fire on a day hike.