[Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS, the monthly journal of 
Hillsdale College, Hillsdale,  Michigan  492242.  Subscription 
free upon request.] 
 
``SAVE  THE  PLANET,  SACRIFICE  THE  PEOPLE:  THE  ENVIRONMENTAL 
                     PARTY'S BID FOR POWER'' 
                 Edward C. Krug, Soil Scientist 
 
             [From Imprimis 20(7):1-5 (1991 July).] 
                          [3943 words] 
 
Editor's Preview:  Last November, Hillsdale  College's Center for 
Constructive  Alternatives  sponsored  a  week-long  seminar that 
invited nine  prominent scientists and  environmental analysts to 
assess the respective track records of government and the private 
sector in environmental protection.   Their unanimous opinion was 
that government  action, usually precipitated  by unsound science 
and media sensationalism, results  in massive overregulation and, 
as in the case of the 1990 Clean Air Act discussed in this issue, 
billions  of  wasted  dollars.   Soil  scientist  Edward  C. Krug 
observes  that  such action  often  makes  environmental problems 
worse and diverts  attention from other  less publicized but more 
potent dangers. 
 
 
ACID RAIN AND THE CLEAN AIR ACT: A 40 BILLION-DOLLAR COVER UP 
 
Every day, millions of dismayed Americans read the news that acid 
rain is creating an aquatic ``silent spring'' in the northeastern 
United States.  ... Thousands  of lakes  are dead  with thousands 
more soon to die.  ... Acid rain is  wiping out our forests.  The 
perception of  mounting environmental devastation  has created an 
overwhelming sense  of urgency.   The feeling  is, ``For heaven's 
sake  stop  talking about  it  and  do something  before  we kill 
everything!''  The  trouble is,  none of  this news  of impending 
environmental disaster is true. 
    Political  activists  from  the  Sierra  Club,  the  National 
Audubon Society,  and other organizations  have worked diligently 
to create the public perception that it is.  Some scientists have 
helped  to  fuel  the  flames   of  panic.   In  1980,  the  U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)  claimed that acid rain had 
increased the average acidity of northeastern lakes a hundredfold 
over the last  40 years.  In 1981,  the National Research Council 
claimed that the number of acidified lakes would double by 1990. 
    But  National Acid  Precipitation Assessment  Program (NAPAP) 
scientists assigned to research the ``problem'' realized that the 
publicly accepted claims of disaster were unsubstantiated.  There 
was simply  no scientific  assessment of  acid rain's  effects on 
which to base claims of disaster,  or any claims at all, for that 
matter.  Accordingly, NAPAP spent hundreds of millions of dollars 
to  develop  the  first   census  of  acid  rain's  state-of-the- 
environment.  This is what they found for lakes: 
 
1. There are only 240 critically  acidic (pH <= 5.0) lakes out of
   over 7,000 northeastern lakes; not the thousands claimed.
 
2.  The  average  lake  is  as acidic  as  it  was  prior  to the 
Industrial Era  (some lakes  have become  more acidic,  some have 
become less acidic over time); not a hundred times more acidic as 
claimed. 
 
3. Only  35,000 of 200,000,000  acres [0.0175%]  of eastern lakes 
are critically acidic. 
 
4. Most  of this  acidic water  is in  Florida.  Yet  the rain in 
Florida is  among the  least acidic rain  in the  eastern U.S. -- 
three times less acidic than in the Adirondacks. 
 
5.  The  amount  of  acidic  water  is  not  changing  with time; 
thousands of additional lakes are not becoming acidic as claimed. 
 
6. The old Clean Air Act is working; SO2 (the principal pollutant 
that creates acid rain) has been halved -- 20 million tons rather 
than 40 million  tons per year.   The new revisions  will make no 
difference in the amount of acid rain 30-40 years from now.  [See 
Ackerman 1981 for more on the old Clean Air Act.] 
 
7. All of the acidic lakes  in the northeastern U.S. can be limed 
for  $500,000  a year  compared  to  billions of  dollars  for an 
elaborate government acid rain program. 
 
This is what was found for forests: 
 
1. ``Forest decline is extensive  in many unpolluted areas of the 
world, whereas trees in  highly polluted areas (i.e. metropolitan 
areas) are largely unaffected.'' 
 
2. The nitrogen in acid  rain is fertilizing 300,000,000 acres of 
eastern forest.   Such fertilization  may have  a negative effect 
for about 0.1 percent of the forest.  Enhanced growth by nitrogen 
fertilization may result in increased winter damage for 3,000,000 
acres of high-altitude spruce-fir forest. 
 
    It  is  only common  sense  to conclude,  therefore,  that an 
expensive crash program to further accelerate the current rate of 
reduction of acid rain is not justified. 
    Yet in major media sources such  as Newsweek and the New York 
Times political activists passed off as ``environmental experts'' 
continue to claim that  NAPAP has made no  progress at all.  They 
say that NAPAP was a waste of  time: it had only proven that acid 
rain  is the  ``crisis''  it was  ``known  to be''  prior  to the 
inception  of  NAPAP  a  decade  ago.   In  the  few  cases where 
responsible scientists manage  to report some  of the real facts, 
it is  claimed that  NAPAP's results  are politically  tainted -- 
under representing  the  effects of  acid  rain.  It  was  in this 
atmosphere that congress  passed a new  Clean Air Act  in 1990 in 
large  part  to  allay manufactured  fears  of  acid  rain.  What 
Congress  is  trying  to  cover up  is  the  fact  that  this new
legislation will cost  our nation, conservatively,  $40 billion a
year. 
 
THE RISE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PARTY 
 
Acid rain is only one of a dozen manufactured crises ranging from 
toxic waste  to chemical  poisoning of  food and  global warming. 
Consistently  we  are  led  to believe  that  we  must  submit to 
comprehensive regulation by an ``elite'' of environmental experts 
if our planet is to be  saved.  The real crisis, however, appears 
to lie with these self-proclaimed saviors.  They view the present 
world order --- which places power in the hands of individuals -- 
as foolhardy.  They  manipulate science and  our own institutions 
to convince us  that it is  necessary to sacrifice  our rights of 
self-determination for  some ``greater  good'' like environmental 
protection. 
    Environmentalism itself has become more than just a cause; it 
is the preeminent  American political party.   Ron Arnold, author 
of  Ecology Wars  [1987],  reports that  the  major environmental 
organizations  meet  regularly  to  coordinate  their activities. 
And,   according   to   California   Representative   William  E. 
Dannemeyer, the top  twelve organizations that  comprise the base 
of support for the Environmental Party are four times bigger than 
the combined Democratic and Republican parties: 

    ``All  told, the  Environmental  Party has  an operating 
    budget of $336.3 million (1988)  and has a donor base of 
    12,959,000.  That's  nearly $250  million more  than the 
    Republican and  Democratic parties combined  and a donor 
    base of some 10 million persons more!'' [Human Events, 1 
    Sep 1990, pp. 3-4.] 
 
FREE ENTERPRISE: TARGETED FOR EXTINCTION 
 
    About  90  percent of  these  funds go  to  support political 
activities, not  environmental improvement.   Yet members  of the 
Environmental  Party  have established  themselves  as  the poor, 
blue-jeaned,  idealistic  defenders of  the  public  interest and 
Planet Earth.  Their opponents, usually American businessmen, are 
portrayed  as  Darth  Vaders  in  three-piece  suits  --  special 
interests opposed to the common good. 
    The  Environmental party  is difficult  to oppose  because it 
embraces a nominal cause that  has no opposition.  Who wants foul 
air, dirty  water, and  reckless disposal  of toxic  wastes?  Who 
relishes questioning  the Party  and being  automatically labeled 
and enemy of Mother  Nature?  The last group  that wants to fight 
on   these  uneven   terms  is   the  business   community.   But 
confrontation cannot  be avoided  because the  party has targeted 
free enterprise for extinction. 
    If one  were deliberately  trying to  create a  means to kill 
free  enterprise (and  its  attendant wealth  and  freedoms), one 
could  not  come  up  with  a  better  killing  machine  than the 
Environmental party.   Indeed, from  the beginning,  business and 
industry learned that fighting back in self-defense is even worse 
than doing  nothing.  And,  of course,  there are  those who have
decided  that if  you can't  beat  'em, join  'em; over  half the
financial support received by the Party comes from private-sector 
foundations.  [See Echard 1990.] 
 
GOVERNMENT: THE BUSINESS OF REGULATION 
 
    To  understand  government's  role as  a  Party  ally,  it is 
helpful to  think of  government as  the business  of regulation. 
Like all business, the business  of regulation seeks growth.  But 
even governmental growth  is not risk-free.   It has the inherent 
liability of incurring the displeasure of the consumer (taxpayer) 
by  increasing the  cost (taxes)  of the  product.  Environmental 
legislation,  however,   is  like   manna  from   heaven:  it  is 
principally an off-budget tax.   The government is thus perceived 
as working for the common good, literally for free. 
    To government, the well-known  Environmental Party line is an 
irresistible siren's song: 
    ``Government  must  regulate  all  human  activity.  The 
    masses  must obey  the  environmental bureaucracy  -- it 
    knows what  is `best.'  Sacrifice  must be  made for the 
    `just cause.'  There are only 5 to 10 years before it is 
    too late to save the  planet from the masses who inhabit 
    it.'' 
And  crises  are the  time-honored  formula by  which  people are 
persuaded to give up their rights to government. 
 
MASS MEDIA: THE PARTY'S OTHER ALLY 
 
    It was  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who  observed that ``hastiness 
and superficiality -- these are  the psychic diseases of the 20th 
century and  more than  anywhere else  this is  manifested in the 
press.''   Businessmen  would  do  well  to  heed  Solzhenitsyn's 
warning,  for they  have few  enough friends  in the  media these 
days.  A  report of the  Media Institute  shows that ``Television 
almost never portrays business as a socially useful ... activity. 
[Quoted in Arnold 1987, p. 20.]'' 
    Americans  love  the  underdog.    Stories  of  the  ``common 
citizen''   battling   against   unscrupulous   capitalists   and 
industrial giants are popular and pay big dividends for the media 
with little  accompanying risk.  The  myth of  the great lobbying 
power of  the ``Timber Barons,''  the ``Oil  Monopolies'' and the 
``Mining  Kings'' support  the image  of  a David  versus Goliath 
conflict -- the battle between good and evil. 
    Since the environmental  party provides an  endless source of 
prepackaged,  easy-to-report  disasters  --  clear  cut  cases of 
conflict  between  good and  evil  for eager  consumption  by the 
public -- the Party and the media are natural friends and allies, 
bonded through mutual self-interest.   Together, they bombard the 
public  with a  never-ending  series of  fictitious environmental 
disasters.  Invariably,  the businessman and  free enterprise are 
to blame. 
    The Environmental Party  and the mass  media also conspire to 
provide  government  with  a  clear  mandate  to  micromanage all 
aspects  of  human  activity.   While  scientific  truth  is  not
established  by vote,  political  reality is.   The Environmental
Party,   government  and   mass  media   represent  a   triad  of 
self-interest  that  excludes  the  public  interest.   They  are 
succeeding  in dismantling  democracy and  free choice  where all 
previous efforts have failed. 
    The only way to defeat them is by grassroots activism through 
private groups  like the one  I work  for -- the  Committee for a 
Constructive Tomorrow  (CFACT).  These  groups, though  small and 
often  unknown  to  the general  public,  can  have  an important 
influence on the issues of  our time, especially on environmental 
issues that have become mired in politics and media hype. 
 
DISCREDITING SCIENCE AND GOVERNMENT 
 
    But the  brilliance of  Environmental Party  strategy lies in 
its ongoing  attempt to discredit  science and  government and to 
persuade  the  public  habitually  to  place  its  trust  in  the 
proclamations of the  Party's political activists.   Here are the 
results of a survey  by the Democratic firm  of Marttila & Kiley, 
and the  Republican firm of  Market Strategies,  Inc. reported in 
the Washington Times last August [1990]: 
 -- Only 15 percent of the American public trusts what government 
scientists say. 
-- Only 6 percent trust scientists seen as representing industry. 
-- 68 percent implicitly believes political activists. 
-- 67  percent  agrees  with  the  statement,  ``Threats  to the 
environment  are  as  serious as  environmental  groups  say they 
are.'' 
    Virtually all scientific  research is funded  by industry and 
government.  Since the public no  longer trusts these sources, it 
is  apt  to accept  the  ``good faith''  assertions  of political 
activists as fact. 
 
THE PARTY'S RUINOUS ENVIRONMENTAL ETHIC 
 
Diverting Attention from Real Dangers 
 
    In 1990,  President Bush  planted an  elm in  Indianapolis on 
Earth  Day.   He claimed  that  this  tree was  a  symbol  of the 
environment,  and  of  the ``problem''  of  global  warming.  The 
``green'' elite that informs the  President got part of it right: 
The  elm  tree  does represent  a  problem  --  the environmental 
devastation resulting from the Party's sham-environmental ethic. 
    The President's  elm is  also representative  of the specific 
problem faced by  our eastern forests:  It may soon  die.  But it 
will not die from  acid rain or air  pollution but from Dutch elm 
disease. 
    There are  150 million acres  of eastern  hardwoods that have 
been assaulted in recent years  by a variety of imported diseases 
and pests.   Before the chestnut  (the most valuable  tree in the 
eastern  forests)  was  eliminated  by  blight,  an  enterprising 
squirrel could have gone from Maine to Georgia on the branches of 
chestnut trees, coming down only to cross rivers. 
    Oak,  which has  replaced much  of the  elm and  chestnut, is
being  devastated by  the gypsy  moth.   Beech bark  disease from
Canada is  now making  its way across  the rest  of North America 
after being introduced into Nova Scotia from Europe. 
    Meanwhile,  the  Environmental   Party  bemoans  acid  rain's 
hypothetical  risk  to  about  300,000  acres  of  high  altitude 
spruce-fir   forest   from   winter   injury   due   to  nitrogen 
fertilization. 
    Inflated  fears  about  acid  rain  distract  us  from  being 
concerned  about the  remaining  18 million  acres  of spruce-fir 
forest  that are  literally being  chewed  up by  imported insect 
pests.  For example,  90 percent of  the mature fir  trees in the 
Southern Appalachians  are dead  or dying  because of  the woolly 
adelgid.  The spruce buzzworm has  eaten millions of acres of red 
spruce in Maine and many more millions of acres in Canada. 
    While  the  Environmental Party  diverted  our  attention and 
resources to acid  rain, in 1986 the  zebra mussel was introduced 
into  our  lakes  from  Norway.   A  comparison  of  the problems 
represented by acid rain and the zebra muscle is in order: 
    It is probable that acid rain acts to increase the acidity of 
naturally acidic ``fishless'' waters.  It may also acidify a very 
small percentage of  low-productivity waters.  But  the party has 
portrayed lakes that  cover a few  tens of thousands  of acres -- 
most  of  which we  now  know to  be  naturally acidic  --  as an 
environmental Armageddon. 
    The  zebra   mussel,  on   the  other   hand,  is  enormously 
proliferate  and feeds  on the  planktonic  food base  of aquatic 
ecosystems.  It has no natural enemies.   In just a few years, it 
has rapidly spread to eat the planktonic base of the aquatic food 
chain, decreasing the  productivity of tens  of millions of acres 
of water.   It has  also done  billions of  dollars of  damage to 
water  supply systems  and industry.   Biologists  see no  way to 
prevent  the zebra  mussel  from taking  over  our more  than 100 
million acres of high-productivity freshwater. 
    If the  Environmental Party  were a  genuine champion  of the 
environment, it would not be preoccupied with multibillion-dollar 
acid rain controls or its other pet concerns like the spotted owl 
and the snail darter.  It would not embrace nominal environmental 
issues that  are used  to acquire  control over  vital industrial 
activities and it would not ignore greater environmental problems 
just because they cannot be used to achieve such control. 
    The truth  is that  the Environmental  Party is  dominated by 
false prophets whose concern for the environment masks their real 
agenda,  which is  social engineering,  and their  ultimate goal, 
which is power. 
 
THE QUEST FOR POWER 
 
    During the  debate over  the Clean  Air Act  of 1990, Senator 
Daniel Patrick Moynihan [D., NY]  pointed to the key problem when 
dealing with the Environmental Party: the triumph of process over 
reason.   He  declared that  ``environmental  legislation created 
over the last  twenty years has  typically forbidden any analysis 
of cost or has demonstrated no concern for it.'' 
    The party  is not  interested in  using logic  and science to
correctly identify problems,  or to decide  which responses might
do more  harm than good.   It ruthlessly  pursues any legislation 
that gives  it the means  not just to  control economic activity, 
but  all  forms  of  human  behavior.   The  result  is  that the 
Environmental Party has become the  absolute secular power of the 
country.  Any activity can  be construed as unacceptably damaging 
to the environment.  Pull  one fish out of  a lake, cut one tree, 
or  plant  a  field  and  you can  be  said  to  have  harmed the 
environment.  If you breathe, you  exhale CO2 and allegedly cause 
global warming. 
    The Environmental Party did not acquire power all at once; it 
took its lead from bureaucracy.   Starting with the first federal 
water  pollution  law  in   1948,  government  has  given  itself 
increasing  authority  to  regulate   everything  from  noise  to 
wildlife.  Ron  Arnold notes that  with the passage  of RCRA (the 
Resources   Conservation   and   Recovery   Act   of   1976)  and 
``Superfund''   (the    Comprehensive   Environmental   Response, 
Compensation and Liability  Act of 1980),  government now has the 
authority  to  regulate literally  every  substance  in existence 
[Arnold 1987, p. 15]. 
    The Environmental Party has  imitated government by gradually 
expanding  control  over well  known  environmental organizations 
such as  the Sierra  Club, the  National Audubon  Society and the 
National Wildlife  Federation.  These  groups began  as bona fide 
organizations promoting wise use,  i.e. conservation of the land, 
but have abandoned, as former NWF president Ray Arnett and others 
have  testified,  conservation education  for  the  more tempting 
pursuits of political advocacy and lobbying. 
 
THE NEW WORLD ORDER: COLOR IT GREEN 
 
THE DESTRUCTION OF PEOPLE 
 
    What  values  does  the  Environmental  Party  advocate?  Ron 
Arnold states:  ``America's new-found sensitivity  to nature came 
packaged in  a strongly  anti-industry, anti-people  wrapper.  It 
came  with a  gut  feeling that  people  are no  damn  good, that 
everything  we do  damages  nature and  that  we must  be stopped 
before we  totally destroy  the earth.''  [p. 10]   The best know 
environmentalist  of our  time, Dennis  Hayes, proclaimed  on the 
first Earth Day, ``We feel that  Earth Day has failed if it stops 
at pollution, if it doesn't serve as a catalyst in [changing] the 
values of society.'' 
    In his 1968  book, The Population  Bomb [New York: Ballantine 
Books/Sierra Club, 1968] (sold by the Sierra Club and endorsed in 
the foreword by Sierra Club Executive Director David Brower), Dr. 
Paul  Ehrlich  called  people  a  ``cancer''  on  the  earth.  He 
repeatedly asserted that ``the battle to feed humanity is already 
lost.''  He  predicted that  the world would  run out  of food by 
1977, after which world population  would begin to starve back to 
two billion by 2025. 
    To  stave off  this disaster,  Ehrlich  prescribed a  form of 
global triage.  He claimed that  the Third World was hopeless and 
that we should help it  die: specifically, we should increase the
death rate  by denying food  and technology and  reduce the birth
rate  through  mandatory birth  control  and  sterilization.  The 
nations that were not beyond hope would have only mandatory birth 
control.  Government  experts would  decide who  could reproduce. 
In 1968, Ehrlich did not think that we were ``mature'' enough for 
this approach -- yet. 
    Now, nearly a quarter  of a century later,  the world has not 
come to  an end.  Undeterred  by his awesome  capacity for error, 
however,  Ehrlich  has  republished  his  thesis  (The Population 
Explosion  [New York:  Simon  and Schuster,  1990],  1989 [sic]), 
merely  changing  the  dates.  Incredibly,  he  has  retained his 
hallowed status  as a prophet  of the future,  even receiving the 
1990 MacArthur Foundation genius award. 
    With  the   help  of  Ehrlich   and  others   like  him,  the 
Environmental  Party is  working hard  to  make its  dismal world 
vision  come  true.   For  example,  one  of  the  12  pieces  of 
legislation  the  Environmental  Party  uses  to  rate Washington 
legislators  is a  bill to  fund the  United Nations'  program of 
compulsory sterilization in Third World countries receiving aid. 
 
GLOBAL WARMING: ANOTHER MANUFACTURED CRISIS 
 
    The U.N.'s alliance with  the Environmental Party doesn't end 
with the schemes to kill off or stunt the Third World population; 
the stated  fundamental goal  of its  international convention on 
global warming is no less that the development of a statist world 
government  that  will  control every  activity  of  life  in all 
countries.   The leading  17  industrial nations  have  signed an 
agreement in principle to implement such  a plan to stave off the 
alleged horrors of global warming. 
    Global  warming  is  but  another  manufactured environmental 
crisis  whose real  purpose  is social  engineering.  World-class 
agronomists,  geologists,  and  environmental  scientists  of the 
U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) find that 
if  global  warming occurs  to  the  degree and  extent  that the 
doomsday  global  warming models  predict,  it will  be  of great 
benefit to  the world!   What these IPCC  data mean  for the U.S. 
alone is an increase of $12  billion per year in food production, 
$30-50 billion per  year in water resources,  an increase in wood 
of 80 billion cubic  feet, and more than  $500 billion in wood by 
2050.   (These prospects  are merely  academic, however,  since a 
number of  scientists admit  that if  we look  at the  last fifty 
years,  rather  than   the  century  average   as  is  customary, 
temperatures are not increasing.) 
    Nevertheless, the well-publicized  plans of the  U.N. and the 
Environmental Party  require Third  World nations  to place large 
areas in ``forever wild'' nature  preserves to prevent their dire 
and, predictably, false warnings about global warming from coming 
true.  Additionally,  these nations will  be denied  use of their 
remaining  natural   resources  by   the  banning   of  primitive 
slash-and-burn   practices   and  of   modern   agricultural  and 
transportation technologies  based on  fossil-fuels -- ostensibly 
to minimize emissions of CO2. 
    The real consequence of such action is to prevent Third World
countries   from  becoming   developed.    The  U.N.'s   and  the
Environmental Party's plan effectively blocks them from following 
the  developed  nations  through  the  demographic  transition to 
prosperity and near-zero population growth rates. 
    The  plan  is  a  self-fulfilling  prophesy.   Underdeveloped 
nations will remain underdeveloped,  and will retain low economic 
growth,   high   population  rates,   poverty,   and  concomitant 
environmental devastation. 
 
THE PARTY'S HOSTILITY TOWARDS GOD-CENTERED RELIGION 
 
``Beware of false  prophets, who come to  you in sheep's clothing 
but inwardly  are ravenous wolves.   You will know  them by their 
fruits.'' 
                                                  Matthew 7:15-16 
 
    The  Environmental Party  has given  us  a new  definition of 
``social responsibility,'' one that has  little to do with people 
and  much  to  do with  rainforests,  sea  turtles,  dolphins and 
spotted owls.  It has also given  us a new definition of man, one 
that has important religious significance. 
    It  was   the  misanthropic   core  philosophy   of  the  new 
environmentalism  in  the  1970s  that  originally  led  Reverend 
Richard  Neuhaus  (a  founder   of  National  Clergy  and  Laymen 
Concerned About Vietnam) to write  the book, In Defense of People 
[New York:  Macmillan, 1971], in  which he pointed  out that this 
movement  puts the  ``rights of  nature''  above the  ``rights of 
man.''  Today, we also know  that under the Environmental Party's 
proposed  new  world  order,  the lost  rights  of  the  many are 
concentrated into the hands of the ``knowing few'' who administer 
``the rights of nature.'' 
    The core  of this environmental  totalitarianism is anti-God, 
even  though  some general  Judaeo-Christian  or  other religious 
principles   are  acknowledged   and   even  venerated   by  many 
Environmental Party Members. 
    God and  the Environmental Party  know that man  is a sinner. 
Both define  what sin  is.  Even  though we  sin, the  loving God 
views  people, science  and technology  as blessings.   Under the 
loving God, we have free choice.  The Party does not love people, 
science, or  technology.  It  wants to  replace God  with its own 
authority and eliminate  free choice.  It  worships Creation, but 
not the Creator. 
 
DEFEATING THE ENVIRONMENTAL PARTY 
 
    The  Environmental Party  does  not respect  the  sanctity of 
science.  It manipulates science as a tool of persuasion. 
    It  does not  respect the  sanctity  of the  environment.  It 
manufactures environmental crises  as a means  of gaining control 
over the resources that support  modern civilization.  One of the 
outcomes of this siege on  civilization is the destruction of the 
environment. 
    The Party  does not respect  the sanctity  of an individual's 
right  to self-determination.   It holds  that, given  the truth,
``we the people'' do not have the ability to make the ``correct''
decisions.  Only the Party elite have that ability. 
 The Party views the present world order -- which places power in 
the hands  of the people  -- as dangerous  and unacceptable.  Its 
leaders must feel  ironic satisfaction in using  our own free and 
democratic institutions to  force us through a  form of boot camp 
in which  they break  us down  and remake  us in  a new ``green'' 
image. 
    Those same leaders  know that ``the  only thing necessary for 
evil to triumph  is for good  men to do  nothing.''  Let us prove 
them  right --  not  by doing  nothing  -- but  by  defeating the 
Environmental Party's bid for power. 
 
 
  [The following appeared on page 2:1 as a one-column insert.] 
 
    ``Edward C. Krug, director  of environmental projects for the 
Committee  for a  Constructive Tomorrow  (CFACT, P.O.  Box 65722, 
Washington,  D.C.  20035), is  a  former soil  scientist  for the 
Illinois  State  Water  Survey.   With  more  than  a  decade  of 
experience in the field and a  Ph.D. in soil science from Rutgers 
University, he specializes  in research on  manmade influences on 
watersheds -- influences such as dredging, agriculture, industry, 
mining and waste  disposal.  On the college  level, he has taught 
courses in land planning and utilization, and electron microscopy 
and x-ray  microanalysis.  He  lectures frequently  before groups 
such  as  the  National Press  Club,  the  Air  Pollution Control 
Association, and the American  Association for the Advancement of 
Science.  His articles  have appeared in  Policy Review, Science, 
Nature,  the  Encyclopedia  of Earth  System  Science,  and other 
publications.   In  December  [1990],  Dr.  Krug  was interviewed 
during a  widely remarked ``60  Minutes'' program  on myths about 
acid rain [broadcast on 30 December  1990], and he will appear on 
a second ``60 Minutes'' program this month.'' 
 
[Reprinted by permission from IMPRIMIS, the monthly journal of 
Hillsdale College, Hillsdale,  Michigan  492242.  Subscription 
free upon request.] 
 
      [The following is not part of the original article.] 
 
Ackerman, Bruce  A. and  Hassler, William  T.  CLEAN  COAL, DIRTY 
    AIR.  New Haven, CT: Yale, 1981. 
    How the Clean Air  Act became a multi-billion-dollar bail-out 
    for high-sulfur coal producers. 
 
Arnold, Ron.   ECOLOGY WARS.   Bellevue, WA:  The Free Enterprise 
    Press, 1987. 
 
Brookes,  Warren  T.   ``The  Green  Network  Grows  Greener With 
    Cash'', HUMAN EVENTS, 19 May 1990, p. 14. 
    Based on Echard 1990. 
 
Echard, Jo Kwong.  PROTECTING  THE ENVIRONMENT: OLD RHETORIC, NEW
    IMPERATIVES.   Washington,  D.C.:  Capital  Research  Center,
    1990. 
    Capital  Research  Center,  1612 K  Street  N.W.,  Suite 704, 
    Washington, D.C. 20006.  Voice: 202-822-8666. 
 
Krug, Edward C.   ``Fish Story: The  Great Acid  Rain Flimflam'', 
    POLICY REVIEW, Spring 1990, pp. 44-48. 
 
Krug, Edward C. and Frink, Charles R. ``Acid Rain on Acid Soil: A 
    New Perspective'', SCIENCE 221:520-525 (5 Aug 1983). 
 
