Many Americans mistakenly believe that environmentalism represents the preservation of nature for man’s enjoyment. They see self-described environmentalists, who otherwise call themselves “nature lovers,” who want to preserve parks so that they can continue to enjoy their hikes and bike rides through nature, and thereby stop developers from building condominium complexes along these stretches of land.
But then there are radical environmentalists, those who champion the same ideological movement as the “moderate” greens, but who practice its ideas more consistently. You know, they’re the ones who even want to ban green “alternative energies,” such as windmills, since they kill birds and despoil the natural landscape, or so they argue.
So while those environmentally-correct nature lovers want to preserve Yellowstone Park from evil developers, so that they may continue to ride their snowmobiles through it, they are nevertheless confronted by radical environmentalists who want to ban snowmobiles from the park, because they’re not “eco-friendly,” according to their “science.” What’s more, the radicals are getting the support of the New York Times, which published the following brief editorial on June 6, entitled “Keeping a Watch on Winter,” and calls for the ban of snowmobiles in Yellowstone.
“The scientific results have been consistent. The best alternative, environmentally speaking, is to do away with snowmobiles altogether.”
“They [snowmobiles] have always contradicted the mission of the national parks …”
From what I understand, the national parks were originally created for man to enjoy them, and that enjoyment includes riding his snowmobiles through them. What the so-called moderate greens refuse to understand is where their environmentalist ideology logically leads: not the preservation of nature for man, but from man.