I don't know why this comment was down-voted. I feel exactly the same. When I saw the news source, Wall Street Journal, I wasn't surprised to see how much the article focused on sweeping away "pesky" environmental laws. Ask anyone who lived in Germany, UK, US, Japan in the 1970s. They can tell you all about life before environmental laws. It was hell. And sadly, the narrative is always stolen away by complaints about "my view will be ruined", ignoring all of the good these laws do for our environment. It would be better to improve the environmental laws to exclude "views" as something to be protected.
That's crazy, and no, it wasn't. Yes, there was lots of pollution. No, it wasn't hell. And much of what enables the high quality of life today with less pollution is build upon what was done then.
> It would be better to improve the environmental laws to exclude "views" as something to be protected.
And to be more focused on humans. If you weigh a city's needs vs that of field mice and you side with the activists who pretend to speak for the field mice, you've lost sight of what's important.
>And to be more focused on humans. If you weigh a city's needs vs that of field mice and you side with the activists who pretend to speak for the field mice, you've lost sight of what's important.
If you side with the humans in cities, and the only environmental laws you have are for their protection, you will screw your rural neighbors something awful. Countries already under-fund and often abuse the rights of rural communities and their citizens, which make up over 25% of the European people. Sure, the 75% in urban areas are able to out-vote the 25% rural population, but that doesn't make screwing over your neighbors a good thing.
