Conservative Case for Environmentalism

[Foxfyre]

Human nature is the problem with both business and individual property management.

Leave folks alone at work and they develop an unbelievable tolerance for pollution.

Leave a good property manager like you all sound to be alone living inbetween polluting neighbors who are throwing away tires and refrigerators sometimes ppl to either move or give up.

At home ppl think "its only oil" when they dump it or throw it away instead of exerting the calories and thought to take the used oil back to the auto parts store in the jug the new oil came in. Or they keep burning dirty coal to heat their homes. (you've seen my link, its the truth)

So here comes big government in to threaten both private land owners and ppl who run businesses with criminal penalties they can feel.

Burning 'dirty oil' is a problem only if it is polluting the air, and adequate controls on toxic emissions are sufficient regulation to control that. As global warming due to CO2 has now been pretty effectively debunked in most thinking quarters, that is no longer an issue and we should be able to use our oil reserves with a clear conscience. Our current big government won't go along with that because the President wants cap & trade and for us to be subject to global authority, but if the people are savvy enough and hold sufficient conviction, he won't have the final word on that.

As for that 'unbelievable tolerance for pollution', I suppose that is true for some. But there will always be irresponsible people when it comes to the law, but social pressure is a powerful thing. You do not see pollution or unsightly clutter in areas with strong neighborhood associations. The people themselves rigidly govern that. In better neighborhoods even with business, you don't see unacceptable or illegal dumping because the neighbors simply won't tolerate it. Yes there should be regulation to prevent one person from violating others' rights with improperly disposing of toxic waste, etc., but the bottom line is that people must appreciate the reasons for the regulation before they will religiously follow them.

Education, social pressure, and prosperity. That is the answer. Not more and bigger government.

 

[gslack]

who's stretching, gslack? you claim that the statement is not an absolute elevation of property rights above oversight. what part of it or anything said after the fact supports that? i see 'leave private property alone', and that is all that dude has defended since.

if im a teenager, you'll have to be a 6y/o little girl with all that whining and pussy accusation. it is absolutely over the top.

If I said you were a cross dresser what does that mean? Well it means In my opinion you cross dress and thats it.. Now If I said you cross dress and you started crying and claimed I said you were a psycho that would be a lie now wouldn't it.....

Understand yet? If he or I didn't say what you claim and then when you try and claim we meant it despite evidence and our own words stating in fact we did not mean that, than by all standards you are in fact wrong.

Now, I am going to ask you once more if you are a teenage acne sufferer trying to play adult, and if you ignore it or refuse to answer me again I know the truth.....

Your responses are the kind I get from a child, your manner is like that of a child and your mentality on this exactly like that of a teenager.....

I am in no mood to babysit someones unsupervised spoiled brat. So please junior if you can't pull of acting like an adult don't try....

 

[antagon]

oh ghaaahd, gslack~~

gimme a break.

what part of this thread controverts what ive said about dude?

"I'm all for environmentalism, as long as those participating in the practice do so by managing their own piece of the environment" = participating in the practice of environmentalism other than on one's own piece of land is not accommodated.

knowing of kooks who believe this extends to the government and forms of oversight, i looked for evidence dude wasn't one. i didnt find any. why dont you enlighten me.

revisiting your crystal ball, i suppose, you've channeled the extent of dude's sympathy for the environment then jumped in bed with the kid, however, what you claim on dudes behalf and as grounds to be a sore vag, dont have any substance ive been able to find on this thread.

put out, gslack. ride into battle for your new bedbuddy, and produce a case for all your bitchin, which could show what ive overlooked as a demonstration that dude isnt some property rights hick.

you're filthy, man - you and dude.

 

[antagon]

Human nature is the problem with both business and individual property management.

Leave folks alone at work and they develop an unbelievable tolerance for pollution.

Leave a good property manager like you all sound to be alone living inbetween polluting neighbors who are throwing away tires and refrigerators sometimes ppl to either move or give up.

At home ppl think "its only oil" when they dump it or throw it away instead of exerting the calories and thought to take the used oil back to the auto parts store in the jug the new oil came in. Or they keep burning dirty coal to heat their homes. (you've seen my link, its the truth)

So here comes big government in to threaten both private land owners and ppl who run businesses with criminal penalties they can feel.

i could appreciate your point with respect to the nature of people, but i couldnt tie forthcoming environmental legislation to taming that. we spend billions on regulation, enforcement, and education as it is. these means are scarcely, but sufficiently effective.

if its a cap and trade/cap and tax deal in the works, it would function to:
1) raise money for the government from large businesses. polluters, and banks running the exchange.
2) make the US the proprietor of another comex, based on this 'right to pollute' invention, effective within our borders.
3) present an opportunity to goad/ensnare china, mexico and brazil into said paradigm, and before they participate in a european/international one (a disaster for the US).

the trickle-down effect would be that, perhaps, companies with room to reduce emissions would adopt technologies to do so. there are some fairly cheap ways to sequester soot from coal power production, and producers might take them up on that.

4) US contractors lead the world in this technology. these contractors stand to benefit where mexico and china are large coal-powered economies like our own.

5) stimulate cleaner energy sources in lieu of direct subsidy, which is a non-sustainable burden. the merits of clean energy production will now include slangin these 'pollution credits' to major polluters, or diluting the cost of other 'dirty' energy , much like charities sell tax credits this time of year.

while some dont like this approach, like some of the oil companies who would prefer a straight tax, or citizens who havent considered that this sort of shit is a future trend in commoditization which we either lead (like our acid rain act) or follow, there's more in play for our economy than their interests alone. depending on how on top of your game you are as, say, an energy producer, something like this might look attractive, particularly in a pool with developing nations.

this doesnt even go into the reclaiming the trade and diplomatic capital we've left on the table with other developed countries over the last decade's bonehead approach to 'environmental diplomacy'.

or it could all just be marxist obamunism.

 

[gslack]

oh ghaaahd, gslack~~

gimme a break.

what part of this thread controverts what ive said about dude?

ALL of it past the part where you lied about what was said....

"I'm all for environmentalism, as long as those participating in the practice do so by managing their own piece of the environment" = participating in the practice of environmentalism other than on one's own piece of land is not accommodated.

WTF? Seriously you have a real issue with BS... It means he is all for environmentalism as long as those practicing it do so by managing their own piece of the environment...

If you want to speculate further than that, than it is speculation. You really think if its what you think than it is fact don't you.... HAHAHHAHAAA!

Well douchebag I can speculate its meaning to. I speculate it means he wants everyone to clean their own area of the environment. That means guys like Al Gore shouldn't tell everyone else to be this or that and do this or that, while he keeps a zinc mining operation on his property. Or that people like Al and several other celebrity eco-mentalists shouldn't tell us to conserve and go without while they fly around the planet in a private jet.

Thats my speculation junior and it makes a hell of a lot more sense than your insane nonsense...

knowing of kooks who believe this extends to the government and forms of oversight, i looked for evidence dude wasn't one. i didnt find any. why dont you enlighten me.

Quiet punk! You are little teenage douchebag trying to play adult... I told you I don't want to babysit some ones unsupervised kid.. Now since you cannot debate whats said and would rather argue what you want it to mean, that shows you are an immature little twerp who has been spoiled by his mommy.... Now hush junior I am out of patience...

revisiting your crystal ball, i suppose, you've channeled the extent of dude's sympathy for the environment then jumped in bed with the kid, however, what you claim on dudes behalf and as grounds to be a sore vag, dont have any substance ive been able to find on this thread.

no weasel there has been no bed jumping here, now knock off the fantasies this is a PG rated forum...

put out, gslack. ride into battle for your new bedbuddy, and produce a case for all your bitchin, which could show what ive overlooked as a demonstration that dude isnt some property rights hick.

you're filthy, man - you and dude.

Alright little fella thats enough of the temper tantrum..... And the riding fantasy is just sick...

So you are how old ? HAHAHAHAH!

Dude you are busted....

 

[antagon]

*yawn* still nothing other than your opinion to substantiate what you've divined from your compadre's quote.

 

[editec]

We all live downwind and downstream, too.

Environmentalism is a world wide problem.

So if we're going to tackle this problem efficiently, we do need worldwide cooperation.

We don't live in the 18th century anymore.\

Thinking we can have the same type of governance that worked well 200 years ago, and that will suffice for the problems facing us now, is just wishful thinking.

i dont think our type of governance fails us with respect to the environment. there is plenty of room within the confines of our 18th century charter to affect consideration for the environment among the other needs of our society.

No I don't think so. Our religion of PRIVATE PROPERTY (See the 5th amendment) makes being stewarts of the environment damned hard.

When we tell some property owner that he cannot do something on his land, we are, I think, violating the principle of the constitution.

This is still another reason I think its time for a NEW CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION.

Never gonna happen, though, and if it did, the people sent to it would be the same people in charge now, so I wouldn't expect any real changes in how things work (or don't).

 

[antagon]

but editec, there's zoning laws which could prevent someone from developing on land out of concern for the environment. much like committing other crimes, you cant commit crimes against the environment on your property, either. despite the 5th amendment, you cant make your property into a meth lab; you cant dig a pit and dump toxic waste in it.

with the patriot act, grand jury secret indictments and the like, the 5th doesn't quite offer impunity to criminals, no matter what hicks say. a new constitutional convention seems a stretch when the existing system allows for the document to be revised by lawmakers as it is.