Does this bizarre, piecemeal approach to protecting roadless lands have more upside than downside?
On July 17, I went to R-Y Timber Company in Townsend, Montana, to stand in the sweltering heat and watch sweat pour off Senator Jon Tester (D-MT). On such a day you’d think Montana’s Junior Senator would be talking about global warming, but no, he was talking about an equally hot subject, Wilderness, as he officially announced the introduction of his Montana Jobs and Recreation Act (S. 1470). Since then, I’ve read the whole thing and written extensively about it, as well as posting several guest commentaries, pro and con, including one from the Senator himself. (You can read it all here.) Now, I’m trying to decide if this bizarre, piecemeal approach to protecting roadless lands has more upside than downside and if I should support it. But first, let’s talk nomenclature. Tester and the coalition pulling the strings in the background decided to call it a “jobs bill,” which is almost insulting. Perhaps 5 percent of the bill indirectly deals about jobs and the rest with roadless land. Cons
Related Questions
- Would a systemwide approach for reforming health care costs work better than piecemeal approaches that targets specific treatments?
- What is the role of Company Law Board in protecting the interest of depositors? How one can approach it?
- Why is the Polly Klaas® Foundations approach for protecting children effective?
