Caution -- "Experts" at work

In a newly released report called "Wildlands and Woodlands," about 20 professors from Yale, Harvard, Brandeis, Cornell and other schools in the Northeast have bemoaned the loss of forests in New England and recommended that 70% of the land should be forested. These so-called "experts" blame the loss of forest on the construction of homes and developments for the wealthy which are spread across the landscape destroying forests. Even aside from the obviously Marxist nature of their criticism, they are simply wrong. The "experts point out that at the time of the Civil War, Connecticut was 30% forested. Today, it is 50% forested, but seventy years ago, that figure was 70%. Farms that had destroyed forests were abandoned as people moved both west and into the cities. Then, after World War 2, the "expert" claim that sprawl for rich people took forested land and used it for suburbs.

In actual fact, the suburbs developed for one reason only: it was not wealth; it was the automobile. In 1920, most people lived either on farms or in the cities. Urban dwellers lived in cities to be close to their work. In the post war period, automobile ownership became much more widespread, so folks could move farther from work and get out of congested cities. These suburbs were not playgrounds for the rich, they were living space for the middle class which makes up about 80% of the population of the USA. Not surprisingly, when suburbs get built, forests get replaced. At the same time, population rose, so more land for homes was needed. (The "experts" also lament the population rise and remember the good old days when New England's population was only 1 million people.)

The truth is that this study is another instance where the ideology of so-called experts triumphs over actual scholarship. Blaming deforestation on the wealthy is obvious nonsense. Ignoring the rise of the automobile is more of the same. Decrying population growth that took place decades ago similarly makes no sense. Maybe next we will hear that but for the discovery of America by Columbus the would be no deforestation problem. In any event, the main point is that there are many many more acres of forest now than there were 100 years ago.

Finally, we get to the point of the study. The experts want a 70% forest cover in this area. Translated into English from Expert-speak, that means these folks are in favor of absolutely no growth or development of any sort in New England. There would also necessarily be very strict governmental controls on all construction, way beyond the current paradigm. In other words, it is a Marxist trifecta: the problem was caused by the rich, market capitalism which would lead to growth cannot be allowed and total government control is needed. What total nonsense!