Greens are really bad for the environment and the economy
Old forest is a worthy investment
Protecting the environment isn't 'extreme'
In the past couple of weeks we've seen letters to the editor and articles in the Empire in support of the environment and that successfully countered the piece by Anchorage Times Editor Tom Brennan that appeared in the Empire on April 12, titled, "Greens are really bad for the environment and the economy."
To name a few of the good countering pieces: "Ugly clearcuts" by Floyd Peterson of Hoonah, published April 12; "Old forest is a worthy investment" by Leon Shaul, published April 17; "Study tracks harm from air pollution" by Delthia Ricks of Newsday, published April 19; especially, Tom Lee's My Turn of April 18 seems to have said it all. Almost all; he didn't mention that Mr. Brennan's article is an example of good writing - the type that can take a few irrefutable facts (of course, there have been excesses in greens' actions); one who uses cute phrases: "Are the greens good for the greenery;" implied vulgarity: "Not only no, but ... no" - all this to come to a predetermined conclusion that would not be supported if both sides of the facts are shown.
Mr. Brennan, I cite the above "green" pieces so that in case you don't read the Empire regularly, you'll have a quick reference to help you with future unbiased writing. Of course, an editor can have biased opinions. Oh, I won't say that you wasted the 35 years that you spent "wrestling with the rascals." I just think that you wrestled with the wrong ones.
Finally, I think it needs to be said that the excesses there have been in the environmental movement were (are) unfortunate, but strong efforts are needed to counteract the collaboration between corporate America and the Republican Party in their rush to clearcut, extract and expel pollutants to gain dollars without regard for future generations.
If we could be more moderate on both sides of the issues, maybe the extremists on both sides would have less influence.