Learn About CRC with Easy Steps

Capital Research Center (CRC) was established in 1984 to study non-profit organizations, with a special focus on reviving the American traditions of charity, philanthropy, and voluntarism.

Since the launch of the Great Society programs by President Johnson and Congress in the 1960s, many thousands of nonprofit advocacy groups have emerged, often promoting more government welfare programs in areas once considered the domain of families, charities, neighborhood associations, and other voluntary organizations.

 The growth of government has increasingly supplanted the voluntary action and community-based problem solving that the great observer of early American society, Alexis de Toqueville, recognized as a defining feature of our country.

Capital Research Center is analyzing organizations that promote the growth of the welfare state - now almost universally recognized as a failure - and in identifying viable private alternatives to government welfare programs. Our research forms the basis for a variety of publications.

John Roberts Vs. The Environmentalists hail Supreme Court ruling on carbon

Greenwatch Editor David Hogberg and research assistant Tamara Kafkova examine the oppositon to John Roberts from the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth, and Earthjustice in the National Review Online:
The bone of contention that the enviros are currently gnawing at is Roberts’s minority opinion in Rancho Viejo v. Norton. The Sierra Club complains that Roberts “strongly implied that Congress does not have the Constitutional authority to protect certain species under the Endangered Species Act.” Earthjustice (formerly the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund) warns that in “a key environmental case, Judge Roberts questioned the constitutionality of Endangered Species Act safeguards.” Based on that, Earthjustice sent out an e-mail claiming that “much of what we know about Judge Roberts is quite troubling.” And Friends of the Earth claims that a “recent case dealing with the Endangered Species Act raises troubling concerns about Robert’s commitment to upholding Congress’s constitutional right to pass laws that protect our air, land and water.”

However, it is more than just furry little critters that green groups are concerned about:
It’s clear that environmental groups have never regarded the ESA simply as a legal process to protect species. For them it’s the enforcement mechanism of their philosophical convictions, in particular of an ideology called “Deep Ecology.” Deep Ecology is the construct of a Norwegian philosopher, Arne Naess, who carried to extremes the not unreasonable assertion that all living things have an intrinsic worth. But here’s what Naess said: “The right of all forms [of life] to live is a universal right which cannot be quantified.” He also said, “No single species of living being has more of this particular right to live and unfold than any other species.”
This sort of wooly thinking has so infested the environmental movement that there is now a foundation grant-maker, the Foundation for Deep Ecology, established in 1990 by former Esprit clothing CEO Doug Tompkins to support its projects. In fiscal year 2004 the Foundation had $48 million in assets and gave out just over $1.1 million in grants. Tompkins recalls having a “powerful epiphany” after reading about Deep Ecology. He laments the time he wasted in corporate America because he wasn’t “out there with the Earth Firsters, where my heart actually longed to be.” (Since 2000, the foundation has given $109,000 to Friends of the Earth, $35,000 to the Sierra Club Foundation, and $5000 to Earthjustice.)
The ESA is the perfect vehicle for imposing on San Diego developers the tenets of Deep Ecology. With good reason, Earthjustice calls ESA “arguably the strongest of the environmental laws.” Because of the way it is set up, ESA lets environmental groups file lawsuit to put a stop to anything that could qualify as human activity (and that’s a lot) that might endanger a designated species. And what better way to decrease human population (or at least halt its growth) than to put tracts of land off-limits and prevent people from earning a living.

Become a Fan

Popular Posts

Powered by Blogger.