Environment, Energy, and Agriculture: Difference between revisions
move Heartland |
update |
||
Line 104: | Line 104: | ||
<br> | <br> | ||
''For a full list of bills from this section, [[Bills Affecting our Water, Air, & Land|click here]]'' | ''For a full list of bills from this section, [[Bills Affecting our Water, Air, & Land|click here]]'' | ||
----- | |||
<h3>Some of this Corporate Agenda Has Already Become Law</h3> | |||
[[Image:Wisconsin.png|left|90px]] Wisconsin Governor and ALEC alumni Scott Walker included language in the 2011 budget bill designed to end mandatory recycling programs for Wisconsin communities. More than 1,000 municipalities in Wisconsin rely on a small landfill tax to fund local recycling programs. Walker wanted to use the money collected from the landfill tax for a new, privatized economic development agency. The proposal outraged county leaders and administrators as well as Republican legislators. Republican State Rep. John Nygren questioned whether the budget measure would really save money in the long run, when balanced with the increased cost of maintaining and building expensive new landfills. The Governor’s actions made no financial sense, but they did comport with ALEC’s [http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/2/28/3J0-Resolution_on_Packaging_and_the_Municipal_Solid_Waste_Stream_Exposed.pdf Resolution on Packaging and the Municipal Solid Waste Stream], which criticizes "interfering government mandates” and promotes a free market approach to waste removal and recycling. In the end, cost-effective recycling prevailed in Wisconsin. Learn more here (LINK). | |||
|} | |} | ||
| style="border:1px solid transparent;" | | | style="border:1px solid transparent;" | | ||
Line 130: | Line 134: | ||
<h3>Prohibiting Local Efforts to Ensure Safe Food</h3> | <h3>Prohibiting Local Efforts to Ensure Safe Food</h3> | ||
[[Image:GMO.jpg|right|120px]]Another [http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/f/f0/3A9-State_Pesticide_Preemption_Act_Exposed.pdf model bill] from ALEC's member corporations prohibits local, city or county governments from limiting pesticide use, requiring that communities do whatever officials in the state capitol decide to allow in distant towns. [http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/8/3A3-Biotechnology_State_Uniformity_Resolution_Exposed.pdf Another bill] places the same restrictions on local efforts to restrict bio-engineered and GMO crops. If these model bills become law, local governments would be prohibited from responding to their community's concerns about pesticide use or the dangers of GMO crops. ALEC allegedly supports "federalism," or state's rights -- a theory premised on the idea that state government can better represent and respond to local interests than a more centralized federal government. But ALEC apparently does not apply this logic to relations between local and state government. | [[Image:GMO.jpg|right|120px]]Another [http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/f/f0/3A9-State_Pesticide_Preemption_Act_Exposed.pdf model bill] from ALEC's member corporations prohibits local, city or county governments from limiting pesticide use, requiring that communities do whatever officials in the state capitol decide to allow in distant towns. [http://www.alecexposed.org/w/images/8/3A3-Biotechnology_State_Uniformity_Resolution_Exposed.pdf Another bill] places the same restrictions on local efforts to restrict bio-engineered and GMO crops. If these model bills become law, local governments would be prohibited from responding to their community's concerns about pesticide use or the dangers of GMO crops. ALEC allegedly supports "federalism," or state's rights -- a theory premised on the idea that state government can better represent and respond to local interests than a more centralized federal government. But ALEC apparently does not apply this logic to relations between local and state government. | ||
{{Helpful Resources}} | |||
<div> | <div> | ||
|} | |} |
Revision as of 17:43, 11 July 2011
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|