I'm putting this article up because of what I read in Walter Williams' recent (as of this writing) article, "Environmentalists' Hold on Congress".  Not a direct connection, but the article reminded me of this, so I thought I would present it to you.


I didn't want to believe it when I first read about them.  From the first words of the argument, I was certain it was some kind of nonsense from the environmental elites, something which wouldn't be able to hold water when I investigated the truth.  So, I tried.  And, to my surprise, I found out that every single word of it was true.

There are numerous plants in central Texas which produce useful goods.  However, they seem, from a brief reading, to have a decidedly negative impact on the environment, and to some extent on the local ranching business as well.  Although I couldn't find good statistics on greenhouse gas production for these particular plants, others in other parts of the country which produce similar products are known to produce massive amounts of greenhouse gasses on an annual basis.  Above and beyond just the greenhouse gasses, the plants in question also produce other airborn pollutants - in some cases causing aerial pollution so severe that it can induce serious health problems in susceptible individuals.

Now, the products these plants produce are apparently quite useful, I don't deny that.  And unlike some of the products of our modern world, what they produce lasts for years.  But, really, is this worth the cost in pollution that the plants produce?  Add to this that some local ranchers seem to think they're a problem, it seems like an open and shut case, right?  Right?

I promise you, gentle reader, that every single word I've typed about this is, to the best I've been able to verify (admittedly, that's rather sketchy), true.



Don't worry, the Jester hasn't gone crazy, nor is he turning into a green gnat*.  Ready for the punchline?  (You knew, I hope, there had to be one somewhere)

As stated, every word I've typed is, as far as I can tell, technically true.  Except that I kept intentionally vague about what the plants I'm describing actually produce, choosing instead to focus on the negatives relating to them.

The products?

Wood.  Wooden fence posts, at one time wooden railroad ties and telegraph poles - the plants in question literally are plants; in this case, a species of tree called the Ashe Juniper. (Also known, if taxonomically inaccurately, as the Mountain Cedar.)  Although it does help prevent erosion and provide shade, it's apparently rather bitter, so it doesn't get eaten by grazing cattle, which means the plants can spread in overgrazed areas.  (Wikipedia's article on them describes the stuff as being considered a weed, in fact.)  The 'greenhouse gas' production I mentioned is pretty much plant-generated methane; the 'other aerial pollution' is their pollen - which does induce allergic reactions severe enough to have gained it the name 'Cedar Fever'. 

Perfectly normal plants, which produces useful goods - well, at least one good.  And being 'natural', they're something the cyannical** environmental movement would, if told about directly, probably advocate preserving at the cost of those ranchers and locals who have to put up with the downsides of them.  But how many of them, gentle reader, do you think would accept the stuff if given the original definition only?  Most of the environmental screamers and gnats I've known online (for some reason, the Jester doesn't seem to run into them in reality...I chalk that up to living in a red state) would have already been in a hissy fit to 'tear those monstrosities down' or words to that effect.   They'd automatically believe what I, by attempting to manipulate my choice of words, hoped to get you to believe, if only for a moment: That these 'plants' were factories.  I apologize, gentle reader, for the deception, and I ask your forgiveness - but I believe you see my point.  Given just enough information, the gnats and their ilk will deceive themselves...and the non-gnat enviros?  They wouldn't really care; they'd be too busy trying to figure out how to turn the idea to their own advantage, as always.


If you know of any gnats in your own life, it might be fun to look up a bit more about the Mountain Cedar, and see how they react to a presentation like this one.  Have fun!





*Green gnat: Punning on the old 'green giant' commercials, but mixed in with the idea of a gnat's annoying buzzing whine and their tendency to get in your face.

**Cyannical: Personal term describing those who hold up 'green' motives to further 'blue'*** politics.  (Blue + Green = Cyan.)  Also dovetails quite nicely with the word 'cynical'.

***Aka socialistic - when did we lose the term 'red' for that, anyway?