While I generally agree with the commentary of columnist Brett Nolan, his September 12 column “Strive to find middle ground for environmental politics” drove me to respond with dissent.

In this column, Nolan claims that “promoting an environmentally conscious community doesn’t have any negative effects.” While this statement seems relatively innocuous, its implications suggest something much more dubious.

The utilization of pro-environment rhetoric is      entirely related to the public policy that follows.

Legislation of this ilk can have serious negative effects, as the over-regulation of business can stifle an otherwise healthy economy.

Furthermore, Nolan jocularly suggests that there should be a withdrawal of government subsidies in the oil industry, embracing this idea because it would allow the free market to influence the production of alternative fuels.

While I agree with this basic principle, I also believe it should remain consistent throughout the column.

Both Democrats and Republicans have their own, valid reasons for supporting their respective environmental policies.

It is unwise to strive for a middle ground on every issue of American politics; in doing so, the “great     debate” that our forefathers envisioned is replaced with cookie-cutter politicians holding “leadership-approved” press conferences.

Sometimes it is necessary to “preach to the choir”- it’s the best way to get them to sing.

Evan Buckley

UK Graduate Student