NY Times Loves How Communism Is Good For Cuba’s Environment
Well, yeah, when people have no money, live in 3rd world conditions, sure, that’s great!
(Daily Caller) The New York Times has published a story bemoaning how American companies looking to do business in Cuba could threaten the country’s “pristine” environment that’s the product of decades of communist dictatorship.
“The country is in desperate need of the economic benefits that a lifting of the embargo would almost certainly bring,” the Times article reads. “But the [embargo], combined with Cuba’s brand of controlled socialism, has also been protective, limiting development and tourism that in other countries … have eroded beaches, destroyed forests, polluted rivers, damaged coral reefs and wreaked other forms of environmental havoc.”
Cuba came under communist rule in 1959 after Fidel Castro successfully overthrew the Batista government. For decades, Castro ruled as a dictator and ally of the Soviet Union, imposing a harsh communist regime on the Cuban people that stymied economic growth and people’s standards of living, leaving much of Cuba’s environment untouched.
“Already, American corporations are poised to rush into a country only 90 miles from Florida’s shores,” the Times article warned, but not without noting the despair faced by many Cubans who suffer from a lack of prosperity.
“Despite modest economic advances in the last 15 years, much in Cuba can seem frozen in time, crumbling Havana buildings and old Chevys and Ladas serving as markers of how far the country has been left behind,” the Times reported. “But that has also meant that much of Cuba’s more than 3,500 miles of coastline has remained undeveloped.”
Yes, their environment is great. And, I’ll agree that over-developing the coastline is a blight. I have to wonder how many who work at the NY Times will forgo their own trips to the beach, either down at the Jersey Shore or along the Long Island coastline. Oh, and they forget about the deplorable environmental conditions in other Communist countries, such as the Soviet Union and China. They also do not seem too concerned over the environmental degradation caused by “green” companies like Solyndra.
Cuba’s centralized economic system means frequent shortages of food and other basic products. The Economist noted in 2010 that Cuba’s farms barely produced 20 percent of the country’s food needs, and even with recent agricultural reforms under Raul Castro there are still shortages.
Reuters reported last year that the “communist-run country still encounters chronic shortages” and that “Cubans have come to consider shortages normal, providing both a source of frustration and humor.”
Well, at least it wasn’t caused by “climate change”. Over to the NY Times
Cuba’s green sensitivities evolved as much out of necessity as ideology.
The collapse of the Soviet bloc in 1991 and the continued isolation by the United States forced the country to fend for itself. With the tools of big agriculture — fuel for heavy machinery, chemical fertilizers, pesticides — out of reach, farming moved away from the increased sugar production that characterized the Soviet era, turning more to organic techniques and cooperatives of small farmers. Oxen replaced tractors, and even today, a farmer walking behind his plow is a common sight in the countryside.
Huh. So, they were kinda forced to live like it’s a couple hundred years ago. Much in the same way Warmists/Enviroweenies want to do everywhere else for Other People.