Monarchs: Eucalyptus globulus introductions versus preservingnatural communities

[Michael Gochfeld]

> iT HAS BEEN WRITE THAT: .
>
> If by "public money" you mean money from the federal government then it _is_
> terrible. The federal government has no constitutional authority to spend
> tax money on habitat restoration and likewise for the thousands of other
> things it spends tax money on. Charitible contributions are quite another
> story and should not be lumped together with public money. People are
> free to give money to any cause they choose and should do so.
>

By the same token one could argue that the federal government has no constitutional
authority to spend tax money on habitat destruction, but it does so in many ways
through grants, subsidies, non-enforcement and pseudo-enforcement of laws and regs.

And since the legal fees that developers spend to challenge laws and regs and
planning boards are tax deductible, we all subsidize habitat destruction.

MIKE GOCHFELD


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl