Earth Day predictions of 1970- Why you shouldn’t believe nutroot predictions of 2009

[Yurt]

Isnt it interesting that the so-called "solution" to all these environmental "problems" is nothing more than the same socialist regulation that the people rejected outright and which has been repeatedly demonstrated to ruin economies? I mean what the heck are the chances that all our solutions are socialist in nature right after these same measures are completely rejected by the population on their merits alone.

There is absolutely no chance that these socialists realizing their agenda was failing are now attempting to mask it as "environmentalism" to scare up emotional support for it. No way that could posibly happen. Because the only solution for our problems is larger more intrusive government. It's just a fact. And only someone who is stupid could disagree with that.

The solutions to our environmental problems were socialist. We needed Government to step in and force businesses to do things that were not in their best interest. Corporate America did the same thing then as they do now. Claim they will go out of business, threaten to lay people off, buy off your local right wing politician.
These companies were dumping untreated industrial waste right into our rivers, right into our water supplies. They burned whatever they wanted and dumped it into the air. We needed strong Government regulations to force these companies to do the right thing.
Is that "Socialism"?? Yes it is

And it worked

no

that is not socialism

 

[Yurt]

There was and still is a very major distinction between:
(1) efforts to control or reduce or eliminate POLLUTION, and
(2) efforts to control or manage the CLIMATE and "eliminate" the "threat" of AGW.

Don't make the same mistake that leftwinger just made!

Most reasonable people applaud the former! Only left-wing socialist-inclined fubars buy the notions associated with the latter!

To argue that the same legal and technological techniques are not used to fight climate change and polution is naive

Yes America, our very own right wing conservatives fought long and hard against every environmental initiative in the 60s and 70s. They used the very same rhetoric they use today

ANd if I had argued that "the same legal and technological techniques are not used to fight climate change and polution," then there might have been some reason for your empty rhetoric. But as things stand, not so much.

And no. Conservatives did not argue against any VALID "environmental initiatives." It is true that rational people DID argue against the irrational alarmism of doomsayers who had no fucking clue what they were talking about.
As Mark Levin has noted, the enviro-wackoo fubars (my terminology, not Mr. Levin's) argued FOR the prohibition on DDT. Fucking schmucks. They are responsible for FAR more deaths than anything they helped to avoid.

So, in sum: your post is devoid of true factual basis or rationality.

You leftwingers are like that.

true.....but liberals could not exist if they didn't have a boogeyman.....

 

[rightwinger]

Yes America, our very own right wing conservatives fought long and hard against every environmental initiative in the 60s and 70s. They used the very same rhetoric they use today

Repeating the same regurgitated pat partisan pablum doesn't make it true.

Denying that right wing conservatives opposed environmental initiatives does not make it so....neither does neg repping

The goal of environmental policy is to protect the environment for future generations while interfering as little as possible with the efficiency of commerce or the liberty of the people and to limit inequity in who is burdened with environmental costs. This policy grew mainly out of the environmental movement in the United States in the 1960s and '70's during which several environmental laws were passed, regulating air and water pollution and forming the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Partially due to the high costs associated with these regulations, there has been a backlash from business and politically conservative interests, limiting increases to environmental regulatory budgets and slowing efforts to protect the environment. Since the 1970s, despite frequent legislative gridlock, there have been significant achievements in environmental regulation, including increases in air and water quality and to a lesser degree, control of hazardous waste.

Environmental policy of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conservatives blocked every major environmental initiative

Now lets look at how Conservative god Ronald Reagan viewed environmental protections

Ronald Reagan entered office openly hostile to environmental protection and campaigned against harsh government regulation with the environmental arena in mind. As Reagan entered office, he was given two transition reports- one called "Mandate for Leadership" from the Heritage Foundation and one called "Avoiding a GOP Economic Dunkirk" from conservative Congressman David Stockman(R-MI)- that called for drastic changes in environmental regulation, primarily through administrative changes. In pursuit of this strategy, Reagan gradually reduced the EPA's budget by 30% through the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, cut the number of EPA employees, and appointed people at key agency positions who would enthusiastically follow the administration line. Appointees such as Anne Burford at the EPA and James G. Watt at the Department of the Interior were overtly hostile to environmental protection. Through his appointments, Reagan changed the operations of environmental protection from stiff regulation to "cooperative regulation".