“KEEP THE MIDLANDS BEAUTIFUL” LIVING UP TO ITS NAME
|| By FITSNEWS || We don’t often pay homage to environmental groups which receive funding from taxpayers. Having said that, we’ve been consistently impressed by the work of Jacqueline Buck over at Keep the Midlands Beautiful – a group which celebrated its 25th anniversary this year.
Buck’s organization gets roughly 25 percent of its funding from government sources … and while we don’t approve of such expenditures, we’re certainly appreciative of how far she is able to stretch those tax dollars. More importantly, we’re appreciative of the larger job Buck’s organization is doing – including the hosting of quarterly events which enable Midlands residents to safely dispose of used electronics, tires and other trash that doesn’t fit neatly in your garbage can.
We attended one of these events recently and were thoroughly impressed by how well-organized it was … and how much good it did for the community (Buck’s group has recycled more than 200,000 tons of used electronics this year alone).
Here’s the thing: Private donors subsidizing events like this is precisely what environmental advocacy should look like. There was no government bureaucracy involved – it was simply a group of committed volunteers using (mostly) private resources to accomplish a task that benefited the environment and helped local consumers.
We love that … and have long maintained that committed advocates like Buck devoting their time and resources to causes they believe in is the most efficient way to create positive change.
(And we are correct).
Anyway, as the Christmas season winds down Buck’s group is currently promoting a novel idea for disposing of used Christmas trees (even if you have a Clark Griswold-sized Tannenbaum).
Rather than dumping your tree on the roadside, you can turn it into mulch at an event known as the “Grinding of the Greens.” In fact Buck’s groups is offering free mulch from ground-up trees to consumers on a first-come, first-serve basis at this event.
(For more information on Keep the Midlands Beautiful’s various events, CLICK HERE).
Buck’s group is also partnering with the S.C. Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) in an effort to use old Christmas trees as marine habitats.
How does that work? Easy: You throw your tree in a lake – where it will form a natural habitat for fish and other aquatic life.
Buck says only SCDNR professionals should handle this task, but if you’re like us you don’t want government resources involved in your tree-tossing. So if you’re doing it yourself, be sure to throw your tree in deep water (preferably in an uninhabited cove) where it can sink to an appropriate depth as trees dumped in the wrong part of a lake can cause damage to boat motors.
Again … this website will never support the taxpayer subsidization of organizations like this, but we applaud Buck nonetheless for the efficiency, effectiveness and innovation of her operation.
She’s providing a valuable service to her state … and doing it (mostly) with private money.
***
14 comments
Kudos to Ms. Buck and KMB for showing leadership in responsible activism. They sure are more effective than those chanting retards waving signs and laying on the sidewalk for Mother Earth. To quote TBG, Pro Tip: If your cause doesn’t require YOUR time, YOUR money, and YOUR effort, your probably part of the problem and not the solution.
“lying” on the sidewalk…….. “you’re” probably part of the problem.
Oh, and, “certainly” are more effective.
Republican/Democrat ? Conservative/Liberal ? You have no idea what those labels mean
1970 was a year of tremendous environmental action by Nixon and Congress.The President signed the National Environmental Policy Act on January 2nd, delivered a call to make “the 1970s a historic period when, by conscious choice, [we] transform our land into what we want it to become” in his State of the Union Address, and ended the year with the creation of an independent agency to regulate the environment.
It’s almost impossible to imagine such strong bipartisan support for environmental legislation these days, but politicians of all stripes were responding to real and serious problems in the country’s towns, suburbs, and wilderness areas.
To return that support, the newly created EPA decided to hire a slough of photographers to document the environmental problems extant in 1970s America. The Documerica project, as it was known, did not make a big impact on the national debate of the day, but it did provide us a remarkable record of the local pollution problems that beset average Americans. It’s not surprising policymakers agreed that the nation needed these reforms, even if it cost some small amount of economic growth. Scenes like the ones shown in this gallery are why Nixon, one of the left’s most despised figures, created the Environmental Protection Agency. The Atlantic
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2010/12/gallery-why-nixon-created-the-epa/67351/#slide2
Even Hitler wanted clean drinking water for the German people. (Though I doubt Krupp’s billowing smokestacks bothered him.)
Yahawn … “Government is not the solution, government is the problem…..” – R.R. in His First Inaugural Address.
As of this New Year, government is still the biggest polluter. What happens to all of those outdated g’ment computers? Into the land fills in Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania … Them g’ment stupnagals don’t know from recycling. Same, same with energy, vehicles, buildings, office furniture, … TP and other g’ment waist.
FYI: The most equitable way that g’ment could recycle paper, cardboard trash = burn it for the energy. But Noooo! …
What continues to amaze me is the conservative/libertarian belief that the free market will just solve every societal problem through charity, despite the fact that the reason government agencies and government grants focus on actually fixing these problems in the first place is due to the free market’s failure.
25% of your budget is nothing to sneeze at. Losing 25% of your money may not obliterate your ability to do things, but it certainly would cripple it significantly. But we’re told that if we just got rid of that pesky gubmint and gave all the tax dollars back to the people, the people would, in turn, donate to organizations like this. That’s absurd and has zero basis in reality. What “limited gubmint” would actually do is turn everything into charity, and what little increases in charitable giving would come about would not prevent the massive dilution of funding that existing charities receive today.
Your friendly reminder that, yet again, talk about slashing gubmint spending is still completely focused on spending that benefits society as a whole. This whole “We want to get rid of corporate welfare first! Honest!” bullshit is nothing but turd polish.
I see your point of view, really I do, but it is just maddening to see what a Federal dollar buys vs what a private dollar buys. This example group seems to be getting more bang for their buck and demonstrable results more than any Government Agency is capable of. I don’t necessarily “Hate” Government as much as I do waste, and I think many “Less/Limited Government” folks feel the same way.
I was skeptical at first, read a little on this group and realized that they run the Adopt-A-Highway groups. What pisses me off is that the money they raise private or government are to pick up after low lives that can’t throw their own trash in a can. Throwing beer cans out the window before they get home and our money is cleaning up after this.
These other events electronic etc. are needed so kudos this group and Ms Buck.
Absolutely Correct: We are all here for that one purpose: To up the establishment, up the human condition, up the free spirit, … clean up the mess and keep on keeping on …
Government does not seem capable of following that ideal without spinning it to its own bureaucratic ends. … We (and some of them) will keep trying.
Here is a free market solution overlooked: burn the trash to generate electricity = it’s cheaper even than coal! Two decades or more ago this was one of Al Gore’s solutions to the Washington waste paper overload … But, get this, the Clinton first term democrat congress shot that idea down … Duh?
(This cleaner, free market solution made Al Gore justifiably angry … So He over-reacted …)
First of all I am one of those you will see on the side of the road wearing a safety vest and putting all manner of trash in an orange bag. And secondly having grown up on Staten Island and having swum (is that correct usage there “thirdgradeenglish”) :) in New York harbor in the 50’s and 60’s I remember all the mess that used to float up on the beach. Everything from used condoms to tar balls.
So something along the lines of the EPA was necessary at the time to force all of us to be a little more conscious of what we were dumping into the ocean and the ground water.
HOWEVER I believe that the EPA has become yet another arm of the government that will enthusiastically consume large quantities of our money in an effort to take away individual liberties. Some of those who seek employment in the EPA are consumed by some religious fervor to force the country to rely on unproven and immature technology (solar, wind, geothermal) and completely abandon the energy production that has built this country. Others in the EPA want to morph the “navigable waters” clause to include the skeeter pond in my back yard. Why? To extend their control over my property.
And of course the Congress that is supposed to be reigning in this behemoth is too busy sucking their thumbs hoping the zealots in the press don’t beat them up too much so they can keep their jobs. There are a few good ones but not nearly enough to make a difference. So the beat goes on.
That’s just my opinion on this subject.
I think that even a little research will show just a little more government involvement in this, and other similar, groups than the story alludes to. Actually…a whole lot more involvement..
For example…Id be curious to know who paid to dispose of all those electronics you gushed about that were recycled….because someone had to…and I doubt it was good spirited libertarians (or Republicans) who donated their “hard earned money”…
200,000 tons is 10,000 truckloads of electronic waste. I have serious doubts as to the accuracy of said number particularly if limited to “electronic” waste.
In fact, if they are shipping that much electronic waste they shouldn’t need any “gubmint” assistance as the Founding Editor is so fond of degrading. That enterprise would be wildly profitable.