CDZ Environment can be restored without pushing or agreeing on Global Warming.

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Jan 21, 2010
23,669
4,178
290
National Freedmen's Town District
I believe all the same arguments for restoring and preserving the environment,
by stopping destruction, waste and pollution by people/corporations/etc.
can be made WITHOUT pushing or agreeing on Global Warming.

Can anyone give or explain points that "absolutely rely" on Global Warming
and cannot be based on stopping pollution and destructive of land, air, water, wildlife and natural resources, harmonious relations, and ecosystems?

Or resolved by common respect for people of other values, regardless if we agree or not.
Isn't making collaborative decisions with communities affected
good enough to stop destruction and agree on better solutions
WITHOUT relying on belief or arguments concern "Global Warming."

[I believe this issue has become the new God, and it is not necessary to argue about "the existence of God"
in order to agree on relations and actions in Life.]
 
It's the old argument of Conservationism vs. Environmentalism. I believe far more in conservation than environmentalism, but the same people oppose both. The 2 have many of the same goals, and republicans will oppose both equally. Ask a republican about drilling in ANWR. Or about stopping plastic use.
 
I believe all the same arguments for restoring and preserving the environment,
by stopping destruction, waste and pollution by people/corporations/etc.
can be made WITHOUT pushing or agreeing on Global Warming.

Can anyone give or explain points that "absolutely rely" on Global Warming
and cannot be based on stopping pollution and destructive of land, air, water, wildlife and natural resources, harmonious relations, and ecosystems?

Or resolved by common respect for people of other values, regardless if we agree or not.
Isn't making collaborative decisions with communities affected
good enough to stop destruction and agree on better solutions
WITHOUT relying on belief or arguments concern "Global Warming."

[I believe this issue has become the new God, and it is not necessary to argue about "the existence of God"
in order to agree on relations and actions in Life.]

Yo, Hi Emily, your first sentence gave you away? My belief is, that "Mother Nature" takes care of the earth, and humans can think they are right by taxing us again for nothing, will solve the problem, but no, just more lies for more money!!! Get a Grip?

"GTP"
00a0a_6yezWZMDUX1_600x450.jpg
 
I believe all the same arguments for restoring and preserving the environment,
by stopping destruction, waste and pollution by people/corporations/etc.
can be made WITHOUT pushing or agreeing on Global Warming.

Can anyone give or explain points that "absolutely rely" on Global Warming
and cannot be based on stopping pollution and destructive of land, air, water, wildlife and natural resources, harmonious relations, and ecosystems?

Or resolved by common respect for people of other values, regardless if we agree or not.
Isn't making collaborative decisions with communities affected
good enough to stop destruction and agree on better solutions
WITHOUT relying on belief or arguments concern "Global Warming."

[I believe this issue has become the new God, and it is not necessary to argue about "the existence of God"
in order to agree on relations and actions in Life.]

Yo, Hi Emily, your first sentence gave you away? My belief is, that "Mother Nature" takes care of the earth, and humans can think they are right by taxing us again for nothing, will solve the problem, but no, just more lies for more money!!! Get a Grip?

"GTP"
View attachment 37989
See emilynghiem? This is the kind of intellectual powerhouse we're dealing with. :cool:
 
It's the old argument of Conservationism vs. Environmentalism. I believe far more in conservation than environmentalism, but the same people oppose both. The 2 have many of the same goals, and republicans will oppose both equally. Ask a republican about drilling in ANWR. Or about stopping plastic use.

Hi TheOldSchool, why add another layer like Global Warming to argue about?

If it's that hard just to resolve issues of pollution and waste, in themselves, why not address that first?
Why pick a new fight to fight ON TOP of the CORE issues going on. Do you see what I'm asking, and why?
 
I believe all the same arguments for restoring and preserving the environment,
by stopping destruction, waste and pollution by people/corporations/etc.
can be made WITHOUT pushing or agreeing on Global Warming.

Can anyone give or explain points that "absolutely rely" on Global Warming
and cannot be based on stopping pollution and destructive of land, air, water, wildlife and natural resources, harmonious relations, and ecosystems?

Or resolved by common respect for people of other values, regardless if we agree or not.
Isn't making collaborative decisions with communities affected
good enough to stop destruction and agree on better solutions
WITHOUT relying on belief or arguments concern "Global Warming."

[I believe this issue has become the new God, and it is not necessary to argue about "the existence of God"
in order to agree on relations and actions in Life.]

Yo, Hi Emily, your first sentence gave you away? My belief is, that "Mother Nature" takes care of the earth, and humans can think they are right by taxing us again for nothing, will solve the problem, but no, just more lies for more money!!! Get a Grip?

"GTP"
View attachment 37989
See emilynghiem? This is the kind of intellectual powerhouse we're dealing with. :cool:

1stRambo and I have found other issues we agree on.
That is full time work to pursue those key points, and we don't have any time to waste fighting.
Why can't this approach work for environmental issues and corporate responsibility?
Why can't Greens collaborate with Libertarians and check against corporate abuses of public funds to destroy environment and wildlife. isn't there enough to fix that we AGREE should be corrected.
Why not focus there instead of deflecting onto issues that go around in circles fighting and diverting resources?
 
It's the old argument of Conservationism vs. Environmentalism. I believe far more in conservation than environmentalism, but the same people oppose both. The 2 have many of the same goals, and republicans will oppose both equally. Ask a republican about drilling in ANWR. Or about stopping plastic use.

Hi TheOldSchool, why add another layer like Global Warming to argue about?

If it's that hard just to resolve issues of pollution and waste, in themselves, why not address that first?
Why pick a new fight to fight ON TOP of the CORE issues going on. Do you see what I'm asking, and why?
I see what you're asking but conservation is an issue that is opposed by the same people who oppose climate science. The core issues are basically air, land and water pollution, and destruction of forests and ecosystems. The people who are opposed to climate science are inherently opposed to dealing with those things as well. Like I said, ask them about drilling in ANWR, plastic use, rain forest destruction, etc.
 
I believe all the same arguments for restoring and preserving the environment,
by stopping destruction, waste and pollution by people/corporations/etc.
can be made WITHOUT pushing or agreeing on Global Warming.

Can anyone give or explain points that "absolutely rely" on Global Warming
and cannot be based on stopping pollution and destructive of land, air, water, wildlife and natural resources, harmonious relations, and ecosystems?

Or resolved by common respect for people of other values, regardless if we agree or not.
Isn't making collaborative decisions with communities affected
good enough to stop destruction and agree on better solutions
WITHOUT relying on belief or arguments concern "Global Warming."

[I believe this issue has become the new God, and it is not necessary to argue about "the existence of God"
in order to agree on relations and actions in Life.]

Yo, Hi Emily, your first sentence gave you away? My belief is, that "Mother Nature" takes care of the earth, and humans can think they are right by taxing us again for nothing, will solve the problem, but no, just more lies for more money!!! Get a Grip?

"GTP"
View attachment 37989
See emilynghiem? This is the kind of intellectual powerhouse we're dealing with. :cool:

1stRambo and I have found other issues we agree on.
That is full time work to pursue those key points, and we don't have any time to waste fighting.
Why can't this approach work for environmental issues and corporate responsibility?
Why can't Greens collaborate with Libertarians and check against corporate abuses of public funds to destroy environment and wildlife. isn't there enough to fix that we AGREE should be corrected.
Why not focus there instead of deflecting onto issues that go around in circles fighting and diverting resources?
I think the reason the fight exists at all is that there ISN'T enough to fix that we agree on. Especially because many conservatives believe that God gave us this world to do with as we please and there's nothing we can do to harm it that isn't already in God's plan.
 
I believe all the same arguments for restoring and preserving the environment,
by stopping destruction, waste and pollution by people/corporations/etc.
can be made WITHOUT pushing or agreeing on Global Warming.

Can anyone give or explain points that "absolutely rely" on Global Warming
and cannot be based on stopping pollution and destructive of land, air, water, wildlife and natural resources, harmonious relations, and ecosystems?

Or resolved by common respect for people of other values, regardless if we agree or not.
Isn't making collaborative decisions with communities affected
good enough to stop destruction and agree on better solutions
WITHOUT relying on belief or arguments concern "Global Warming."

[I believe this issue has become the new God, and it is not necessary to argue about "the existence of God"
in order to agree on relations and actions in Life.]

Yo, Hi Emily, your first sentence gave you away? My belief is, that "Mother Nature" takes care of the earth, and humans can think they are right by taxing us again for nothing, will solve the problem, but no, just more lies for more money!!! Get a Grip?

"GTP"
View attachment 37989
See emilynghiem? This is the kind of intellectual powerhouse we're dealing with. :cool:

1stRambo and I have found other issues we agree on.
That is full time work to pursue those key points, and we don't have any time to waste fighting.
Why can't this approach work for environmental issues and corporate responsibility?
Why can't Greens collaborate with Libertarians and check against corporate abuses of public funds to destroy environment and wildlife. isn't there enough to fix that we AGREE should be corrected.
Why not focus there instead of deflecting onto issues that go around in circles fighting and diverting resources?
The problem is that the Global warmers want to call CO2 pollution. Yikes!
 
It's the old argument of Conservationism vs. Environmentalism. I believe far more in conservation than environmentalism, but the same people oppose both. The 2 have many of the same goals, and republicans will oppose both equally. Ask a republican about drilling in ANWR. Or about stopping plastic use.

Hi TheOldSchool, why add another layer like Global Warming to argue about?

If it's that hard just to resolve issues of pollution and waste, in themselves, why not address that first?
Why pick a new fight to fight ON TOP of the CORE issues going on. Do you see what I'm asking, and why?
I see what you're asking but conservation is an issue that is opposed by the same people who oppose climate science. The core issues are basically air, land and water pollution, and destruction of forests and ecosystems. The people who are opposed to climate science are inherently opposed to dealing with those things as well. Like I said, ask them about drilling in ANWR, plastic use, rain forest destruction, etc.

Dear TheOldSchool
What about approaches to conservation like Conservation International.
That's a conservative idea to OWN the land so it can be preserved.
The venture that celebrities like Harrison Ford were supporting
involved CEO's pooling resources together on a corporate level
to protect entire migration patterns across land for the sake of wildlife and ecosystems.

Sting started Rainforest International to help with African and South American rainforests
destroyed by logging roads disrupting the ecosystems and native village cultures.

Why aren't these SOLUTIONS getting the same publicity and funding as POLITICAL CONFLICTS.

That's what makes it look like a political conflict of interest, to get votes and capital deals to the politicians pushing their agenda.

Even the Green movements and organizations have complained of being sold out to political hijacking.

Why aren't the grassroots levels supported, where the people actually AGREE and can work together?
Why is that being sold as "impossible"? Just so politicians can take over and claim to be in charge?
 
emilynghiem ask
It's the old argument of Conservationism vs. Environmentalism. I believe far more in conservation than environmentalism, but the same people oppose both. The 2 have many of the same goals, and republicans will oppose both equally. Ask a republican about drilling in ANWR. Or about stopping plastic use.

Hi TheOldSchool, why add another layer like Global Warming to argue about?

If it's that hard just to resolve issues of pollution and waste, in themselves, why not address that first?
Why pick a new fight to fight ON TOP of the CORE issues going on. Do you see what I'm asking, and why?
I see what you're asking but conservation is an issue that is opposed by the same people who oppose climate science. The core issues are basically air, land and water pollution, and destruction of forests and ecosystems. The people who are opposed to climate science are inherently opposed to dealing with those things as well. Like I said, ask them about drilling in ANWR, plastic use, rain forest destruction, etc.

Dear TheOldSchool
What about approaches to conservation like Conservation International.
That's a conservative idea to OWN the land so it can be preserved.
The venture that celebrities like Harrison Ford were supporting
involved CEO's pooling resources together on a corporate level
to protect entire migration patterns across land for the sake of wildlife and ecosystems.

Sting started Rainforest International to help with African and South American rainforests
destroyed by logging roads disrupting the ecosystems and native village cultures.

Why aren't these SOLUTIONS getting the same publicity and funding as POLITICAL CONFLICTS.

That's what makes it look like a political conflict of interest, to get votes and capital deals to the politicians pushing their agenda.

Even the Green movements and organizations have complained of being sold out to political hijacking.

Why aren't the grassroots levels supported, where the people actually AGREE and can work together?
Why is that being sold as "impossible"? Just so politicians can take over and claim to be in charge?
Sure if private citizens want to own land to preserve it then great! But it's a tiny tiny fraction of land that's owned for the sake of preserving it. Those programs, btw, are started by liberals and made fun of by most conservatives.

If we took away government control of land and put it up for sale to the public then a handful of corporations would snatch it all up and use whatever means necessary to suck all the resources out of it that they could. Ecosystems be damned.
 
I believe all the same arguments for restoring and preserving the environment,
by stopping destruction, waste and pollution by people/corporations/etc.
can be made WITHOUT pushing or agreeing on Global Warming.

Can anyone give or explain points that "absolutely rely" on Global Warming
and cannot be based on stopping pollution and destructive of land, air, water, wildlife and natural resources, harmonious relations, and ecosystems?

Or resolved by common respect for people of other values, regardless if we agree or not.
Isn't making collaborative decisions with communities affected
good enough to stop destruction and agree on better solutions
WITHOUT relying on belief or arguments concern "Global Warming."

[I believe this issue has become the new God, and it is not necessary to argue about "the existence of God"
in order to agree on relations and actions in Life.]

Yo, Hi Emily, your first sentence gave you away? My belief is, that "Mother Nature" takes care of the earth, and humans can think they are right by taxing us again for nothing, will solve the problem, but no, just more lies for more money!!! Get a Grip?

"GTP"
View attachment 37989
See emilynghiem? This is the kind of intellectual powerhouse we're dealing with. :cool:

1stRambo and I have found other issues we agree on.
That is full time work to pursue those key points, and we don't have any time to waste fighting.
Why can't this approach work for environmental issues and corporate responsibility?
Why can't Greens collaborate with Libertarians and check against corporate abuses of public funds to destroy environment and wildlife. isn't there enough to fix that we AGREE should be corrected.
Why not focus there instead of deflecting onto issues that go around in circles fighting and diverting resources?
I think the reason the fight exists at all is that there ISN'T enough to fix that we agree on. Especially because many conservatives believe that God gave us this world to do with as we please and there's nothing we can do to harm it that isn't already in God's plan.

Actually TheOldSchool there is a whole movement, religious coalitions
led by Christians who see this as a battle between God and Mammon or material greed.

Why aren't you giving any credit to these Christians?
Why is the Christian left allowed to be trampled in the media where only the Christian right gets any visibility?

You don't have to be part of this censorship.

National Religious Partnership for the Environment - Home
About Us Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life COEJL
Mission Statement of the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life GreenFaith

When my website was started to help a Jewish activist lobbying to save Headwaters Redwood Forest,
she pushed for Corporate Responsibility as a unifying factor, and even the Jewish tradition that Trees are sacred.

The coalition in Houston unified both liberal and conservative groups that signed on.

I wrote an entire musical series on the connection with this green progressive movement
and the spiritual stewardship over Creation as a Gift from God.

WILDLIFE PRAYER (after Maddona's Like a Prayer)
God made Headwaters Grove - full of creatures great and small
He gave us Redwood Trees - 40 stories tall . . .
Then Maxxam bought the land - and tried to cut them all
The loggers came in droves - and made the Garden fall . . .

How many of these - endangered species
Live in the redwood trees - C'mon and count with me:
Bald eagles and hawks - Salamanders and frogs
Wild Murrelets - How many are there left?

We have a choice, to follow God or Mammon
We have a choice, to hear the Voice Of Compassion
It's not God's will, to harm His own Creation
Why should our forest life be killed By corporations?

How many of these - endangered species Live in the redwood trees - c'mon and answer me:
Bald eagles and hawks - Salamanders and frogs Wild Murrelets - How many are there left?

After the Flood, God's creatures multiplied
He didn't let one species die He made a promise
It takes all kinds, to build an ecosystem,
Each color shade, each "Ray of Light" To fill the spectrum


O Father in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy name:
Stop war and destruction, End this corporate game.
Deliver us from Mammon, World famine and greed.
Teach Love and Compassion. Save the redwood trees!

God made Headwaters Grove, full of creatures great and small
By reaching out with love, we can save - them - all

[bridge]
Life is a gift from God We must obey His Laws
To live in Harmony That is our destiny
Each creature needs a home A place to grow - and - thrive
The Earth cannot be owned By Grace alone The world survives.

Life is a gift From God above That only He can give
Live simply that The beauty of The world can simply live

God gave us Redwood Trees - Over 40 stories tall
Now Mother Nature needs - our help to save them all
 
I believe all the same arguments for restoring and preserving the environment,
by stopping destruction, waste and pollution by people/corporations/etc.
can be made WITHOUT pushing or agreeing on Global Warming.

Can anyone give or explain points that "absolutely rely" on Global Warming
and cannot be based on stopping pollution and destructive of land, air, water, wildlife and natural resources, harmonious relations, and ecosystems?

Or resolved by common respect for people of other values, regardless if we agree or not.
Isn't making collaborative decisions with communities affected
good enough to stop destruction and agree on better solutions
WITHOUT relying on belief or arguments concern "Global Warming."

[I believe this issue has become the new God, and it is not necessary to argue about "the existence of God"
in order to agree on relations and actions in Life.]

Yo, Hi Emily, your first sentence gave you away? My belief is, that "Mother Nature" takes care of the earth, and humans can think they are right by taxing us again for nothing, will solve the problem, but no, just more lies for more money!!! Get a Grip?

"GTP"
View attachment 37989
See emilynghiem? This is the kind of intellectual powerhouse we're dealing with. :cool:

1stRambo and I have found other issues we agree on.
That is full time work to pursue those key points, and we don't have any time to waste fighting.
Why can't this approach work for environmental issues and corporate responsibility?
Why can't Greens collaborate with Libertarians and check against corporate abuses of public funds to destroy environment and wildlife. isn't there enough to fix that we AGREE should be corrected.
Why not focus there instead of deflecting onto issues that go around in circles fighting and diverting resources?
I think the reason the fight exists at all is that there ISN'T enough to fix that we agree on. Especially because many conservatives believe that God gave us this world to do with as we please and there's nothing we can do to harm it that isn't already in God's plan.

Actually TheOldSchool there is a whole movement, religious coalitions
led by Christians who see this as a battle between God and Mammon or material greed.

Why aren't you giving any credit to these Christians?
Why is the Christian left allowed to be trampled in the media where only the Christian right gets any visibility?

You don't have to be part of this censorship.

National Religious Partnership for the Environment - Home
About Us Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life COEJL
Mission Statement of the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life GreenFaith

When my website was started to help a Jewish activist lobbying to save Headwaters Redwood Forest,
she pushed for Corporate Responsibility as a unifying factor, and even the Jewish tradition that Trees are sacred.

The coalition in Houston unified both liberal and conservative groups that signed on.

I wrote an entire musical series on the connection with this green progressive movement
and the spiritual stewardship over Creation as a Gift from God.

WILDLIFE PRAYER (after Maddona's Like a Prayer)
God made Headwaters Grove - full of creatures great and small
He gave us Redwood Trees - 40 stories tall . . .
Then Maxxam bought the land - and tried to cut them all
The loggers came in droves - and made the Garden fall . . .

How many of these - endangered species
Live in the redwood trees - C'mon and count with me:
Bald eagles and hawks - Salamanders and frogs
Wild Murrelets - How many are there left?

We have a choice, to follow God or Mammon
We have a choice, to hear the Voice Of Compassion
It's not God's will, to harm His own Creation
Why should our forest life be killed By corporations?

How many of these - endangered species Live in the redwood trees - c'mon and answer me:
Bald eagles and hawks - Salamanders and frogs Wild Murrelets - How many are there left?

After the Flood, God's creatures multiplied
He didn't let one species die He made a promise
It takes all kinds, to build an ecosystem,
Each color shade, each "Ray of Light" To fill the spectrum


O Father in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy name:
Stop war and destruction, End this corporate game.
Deliver us from Mammon, World famine and greed.
Teach Love and Compassion. Save the redwood trees!

God made Headwaters Grove, full of creatures great and small
By reaching out with love, we can save - them - all

[bridge]
Life is a gift from God We must obey His Laws
To live in Harmony That is our destiny
Each creature needs a home A place to grow - and - thrive
The Earth cannot be owned By Grace alone The world survives.

Life is a gift From God above That only He can give
Live simply that The beauty of The world can simply live

God gave us Redwood Trees - Over 40 stories tall
Now Mother Nature needs - our help to save them all
Well God Bless them. If I get the chance I'll give them some money.

Edit: P.S. they're an exception to the rule.
 
emilynghiem ask
It's the old argument of Conservationism vs. Environmentalism. I believe far more in conservation than environmentalism, but the same people oppose both. The 2 have many of the same goals, and republicans will oppose both equally. Ask a republican about drilling in ANWR. Or about stopping plastic use.

Hi TheOldSchool, why add another layer like Global Warming to argue about?

If it's that hard just to resolve issues of pollution and waste, in themselves, why not address that first?
Why pick a new fight to fight ON TOP of the CORE issues going on. Do you see what I'm asking, and why?
I see what you're asking but conservation is an issue that is opposed by the same people who oppose climate science. The core issues are basically air, land and water pollution, and destruction of forests and ecosystems. The people who are opposed to climate science are inherently opposed to dealing with those things as well. Like I said, ask them about drilling in ANWR, plastic use, rain forest destruction, etc.

Dear TheOldSchool
What about approaches to conservation like Conservation International.
That's a conservative idea to OWN the land so it can be preserved.
The venture that celebrities like Harrison Ford were supporting
involved CEO's pooling resources together on a corporate level
to protect entire migration patterns across land for the sake of wildlife and ecosystems.

Sting started Rainforest International to help with African and South American rainforests
destroyed by logging roads disrupting the ecosystems and native village cultures.

Why aren't these SOLUTIONS getting the same publicity and funding as POLITICAL CONFLICTS.

That's what makes it look like a political conflict of interest, to get votes and capital deals to the politicians pushing their agenda.

Even the Green movements and organizations have complained of being sold out to political hijacking.

Why aren't the grassroots levels supported, where the people actually AGREE and can work together?
Why is that being sold as "impossible"? Just so politicians can take over and claim to be in charge?
Sure if private citizens want to own land to preserve it then great! But it's a tiny tiny fraction of land that's owned for the sake of preserving it. Those programs, btw, are started by liberals and made fun of by most conservatives.

If we took away government control of land and put it up for sale to the public then a handful of corporations would snatch it all up and use whatever means necessary to suck all the resources out of it that they could. Ecosystems be damned.

Why are you deifying corporations? These are made of people and affect people.
by communicating directly between people, these issues can be "broken down" addressed and resolved.

We need to humanize not demonize situations or it just escalates to war.
Have you ever seen how nonviolence training and mediation works?
True INCLUSION? This is how all the powerful movements have ever overcome injustice.
it wasn't by fear, it was by putting conflicts in perspective where they can be resolved rationally.
Fear is what makes politics and war. Peace and justice is about solving problems equally and inclusively.
 
Yo, Hi Emily, your first sentence gave you away? My belief is, that "Mother Nature" takes care of the earth, and humans can think they are right by taxing us again for nothing, will solve the problem, but no, just more lies for more money!!! Get a Grip?

"GTP"
View attachment 37989
See emilynghiem? This is the kind of intellectual powerhouse we're dealing with. :cool:

1stRambo and I have found other issues we agree on.
That is full time work to pursue those key points, and we don't have any time to waste fighting.
Why can't this approach work for environmental issues and corporate responsibility?
Why can't Greens collaborate with Libertarians and check against corporate abuses of public funds to destroy environment and wildlife. isn't there enough to fix that we AGREE should be corrected.
Why not focus there instead of deflecting onto issues that go around in circles fighting and diverting resources?
I think the reason the fight exists at all is that there ISN'T enough to fix that we agree on. Especially because many conservatives believe that God gave us this world to do with as we please and there's nothing we can do to harm it that isn't already in God's plan.

Actually TheOldSchool there is a whole movement, religious coalitions
led by Christians who see this as a battle between God and Mammon or material greed.

Why aren't you giving any credit to these Christians?
Why is the Christian left allowed to be trampled in the media where only the Christian right gets any visibility?

You don't have to be part of this censorship.

National Religious Partnership for the Environment - Home
About Us Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life COEJL
Mission Statement of the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life GreenFaith

When my website was started to help a Jewish activist lobbying to save Headwaters Redwood Forest,
she pushed for Corporate Responsibility as a unifying factor, and even the Jewish tradition that Trees are sacred.

The coalition in Houston unified both liberal and conservative groups that signed on.

I wrote an entire musical series on the connection with this green progressive movement
and the spiritual stewardship over Creation as a Gift from God.

WILDLIFE PRAYER (after Maddona's Like a Prayer)
God made Headwaters Grove - full of creatures great and small
He gave us Redwood Trees - 40 stories tall . . .
Then Maxxam bought the land - and tried to cut them all
The loggers came in droves - and made the Garden fall . . .

How many of these - endangered species
Live in the redwood trees - C'mon and count with me:
Bald eagles and hawks - Salamanders and frogs
Wild Murrelets - How many are there left?

We have a choice, to follow God or Mammon
We have a choice, to hear the Voice Of Compassion
It's not God's will, to harm His own Creation
Why should our forest life be killed By corporations?

How many of these - endangered species Live in the redwood trees - c'mon and answer me:
Bald eagles and hawks - Salamanders and frogs Wild Murrelets - How many are there left?

After the Flood, God's creatures multiplied
He didn't let one species die He made a promise
It takes all kinds, to build an ecosystem,
Each color shade, each "Ray of Light" To fill the spectrum


O Father in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy name:
Stop war and destruction, End this corporate game.
Deliver us from Mammon, World famine and greed.
Teach Love and Compassion. Save the redwood trees!

God made Headwaters Grove, full of creatures great and small
By reaching out with love, we can save - them - all

[bridge]
Life is a gift from God We must obey His Laws
To live in Harmony That is our destiny
Each creature needs a home A place to grow - and - thrive
The Earth cannot be owned By Grace alone The world survives.

Life is a gift From God above That only He can give
Live simply that The beauty of The world can simply live

God gave us Redwood Trees - Over 40 stories tall
Now Mother Nature needs - our help to save them all
Well God Bless them. If I get the chance I'll give them some money.

Edit: P.S. they're an exception to the rule.

Gandhi, King, Einstein, Buckminster Fuller were all "exceptional"
and different from the rest of the crowd. We need to find and fund the solutions buried under the problems.
The Diamonds that are priceless among the rocks that are cut away.
 
emilynghiem ask
It's the old argument of Conservationism vs. Environmentalism. I believe far more in conservation than environmentalism, but the same people oppose both. The 2 have many of the same goals, and republicans will oppose both equally. Ask a republican about drilling in ANWR. Or about stopping plastic use.

Hi TheOldSchool, why add another layer like Global Warming to argue about?

If it's that hard just to resolve issues of pollution and waste, in themselves, why not address that first?
Why pick a new fight to fight ON TOP of the CORE issues going on. Do you see what I'm asking, and why?
I see what you're asking but conservation is an issue that is opposed by the same people who oppose climate science. The core issues are basically air, land and water pollution, and destruction of forests and ecosystems. The people who are opposed to climate science are inherently opposed to dealing with those things as well. Like I said, ask them about drilling in ANWR, plastic use, rain forest destruction, etc.

Dear TheOldSchool
What about approaches to conservation like Conservation International.
That's a conservative idea to OWN the land so it can be preserved.
The venture that celebrities like Harrison Ford were supporting
involved CEO's pooling resources together on a corporate level
to protect entire migration patterns across land for the sake of wildlife and ecosystems.

Sting started Rainforest International to help with African and South American rainforests
destroyed by logging roads disrupting the ecosystems and native village cultures.

Why aren't these SOLUTIONS getting the same publicity and funding as POLITICAL CONFLICTS.

That's what makes it look like a political conflict of interest, to get votes and capital deals to the politicians pushing their agenda.

Even the Green movements and organizations have complained of being sold out to political hijacking.

Why aren't the grassroots levels supported, where the people actually AGREE and can work together?
Why is that being sold as "impossible"? Just so politicians can take over and claim to be in charge?
Sure if private citizens want to own land to preserve it then great! But it's a tiny tiny fraction of land that's owned for the sake of preserving it. Those programs, btw, are started by liberals and made fun of by most conservatives.

If we took away government control of land and put it up for sale to the public then a handful of corporations would snatch it all up and use whatever means necessary to suck all the resources out of it that they could. Ecosystems be damned.

Why are you deifying corporations? These are made of people and affect people.
by communicating directly between people, these issues can be "broken down" addressed and resolved.

We need to humanize not demonize situations or it just escalates to war.
Have you ever seen how nonviolence training and mediation works?
True INCLUSION? This is how all the powerful movements have ever overcome injustice.
it wasn't by fear, it was by putting conflicts in perspective where they can be resolved rationally.
Fear is what makes politics and war. Peace and justice is about solving problems equally and inclusively.
I'm not demonizing corporations. Just pointing out common sense. Do you think BP cared about the Gulf oil spill beyond what investors and board members thought about it?

And yes corporations are just people. Go ask any average Joe if he'd accept a huge raise to go tear down a forest somewhere.
 
I believe all the same arguments for restoring and preserving the environment,
by stopping destruction, waste and pollution by people/corporations/etc.
can be made WITHOUT pushing or agreeing on Global Warming.

Can anyone give or explain points that "absolutely rely" on Global Warming
and cannot be based on stopping pollution and destructive of land, air, water, wildlife and natural resources, harmonious relations, and ecosystems?

Or resolved by common respect for people of other values, regardless if we agree or not.
Isn't making collaborative decisions with communities affected
good enough to stop destruction and agree on better solutions
WITHOUT relying on belief or arguments concern "Global Warming."

[I believe this issue has become the new God, and it is not necessary to argue about "the existence of God"
in order to agree on relations and actions in Life.]

Yo, Hi Emily, your first sentence gave you away? My belief is, that "Mother Nature" takes care of the earth, and humans can think they are right by taxing us again for nothing, will solve the problem, but no, just more lies for more money!!! Get a Grip?

"GTP"
View attachment 37989
See emilynghiem? This is the kind of intellectual powerhouse we're dealing with. :cool:

1stRambo and I have found other issues we agree on.
That is full time work to pursue those key points, and we don't have any time to waste fighting.
Why can't this approach work for environmental issues and corporate responsibility?
Why can't Greens collaborate with Libertarians and check against corporate abuses of public funds to destroy environment and wildlife. isn't there enough to fix that we AGREE should be corrected.
Why not focus there instead of deflecting onto issues that go around in circles fighting and diverting resources?
I think the reason the fight exists at all is that there ISN'T enough to fix that we agree on. Especially because many conservatives believe that God gave us this world to do with as we please and there's nothing we can do to harm it that isn't already in God's plan.

Actually TheOldSchool there is a whole movement, religious coalitions
led by Christians who see this as a battle between God and Mammon or material greed.

Why aren't you giving any credit to these Christians?
Why is the Christian left allowed to be trampled in the media where only the Christian right gets any visibility?

You don't have to be part of this censorship.

National Religious Partnership for the Environment - Home
About Us Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life COEJL
Mission Statement of the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life GreenFaith

When my website was started to help a Jewish activist lobbying to save Headwaters Redwood Forest,
she pushed for Corporate Responsibility as a unifying factor, and even the Jewish tradition that Trees are sacred.

The coalition in Houston unified both liberal and conservative groups that signed on.

I wrote an entire musical series on the connection with this green progressive movement
and the spiritual stewardship over Creation as a Gift from God.

WILDLIFE PRAYER (after Maddona's Like a Prayer)
God made Headwaters Grove - full of creatures great and small
He gave us Redwood Trees - 40 stories tall . . .
Then Maxxam bought the land - and tried to cut them all
The loggers came in droves - and made the Garden fall . . .

How many of these - endangered species
Live in the redwood trees - C'mon and count with me:
Bald eagles and hawks - Salamanders and frogs
Wild Murrelets - How many are there left?

We have a choice, to follow God or Mammon
We have a choice, to hear the Voice Of Compassion
It's not God's will, to harm His own Creation
Why should our forest life be killed By corporations?

How many of these - endangered species Live in the redwood trees - c'mon and answer me:
Bald eagles and hawks - Salamanders and frogs Wild Murrelets - How many are there left?

After the Flood, God's creatures multiplied
He didn't let one species die He made a promise
It takes all kinds, to build an ecosystem,
Each color shade, each "Ray of Light" To fill the spectrum


O Father in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy name:
Stop war and destruction, End this corporate game.
Deliver us from Mammon, World famine and greed.
Teach Love and Compassion. Save the redwood trees!

God made Headwaters Grove, full of creatures great and small
By reaching out with love, we can save - them - all

[bridge]
Life is a gift from God We must obey His Laws
To live in Harmony That is our destiny
Each creature needs a home A place to grow - and - thrive
The Earth cannot be owned By Grace alone The world survives.

Life is a gift From God above That only He can give
Live simply that The beauty of The world can simply live

God gave us Redwood Trees - Over 40 stories tall
Now Mother Nature needs - our help to save them all

Yo, WOW, that was good, but the last sentence was wrong? Mother Nature needs no help Dear!!!

"GTP"
download (1).jpg
 
emilynghiem ask
Hi TheOldSchool, why add another layer like Global Warming to argue about?

If it's that hard just to resolve issues of pollution and waste, in themselves, why not address that first?
Why pick a new fight to fight ON TOP of the CORE issues going on. Do you see what I'm asking, and why?
I see what you're asking but conservation is an issue that is opposed by the same people who oppose climate science. The core issues are basically air, land and water pollution, and destruction of forests and ecosystems. The people who are opposed to climate science are inherently opposed to dealing with those things as well. Like I said, ask them about drilling in ANWR, plastic use, rain forest destruction, etc.

Dear TheOldSchool
What about approaches to conservation like Conservation International.
That's a conservative idea to OWN the land so it can be preserved.
The venture that celebrities like Harrison Ford were supporting
involved CEO's pooling resources together on a corporate level
to protect entire migration patterns across land for the sake of wildlife and ecosystems.

Sting started Rainforest International to help with African and South American rainforests
destroyed by logging roads disrupting the ecosystems and native village cultures.

Why aren't these SOLUTIONS getting the same publicity and funding as POLITICAL CONFLICTS.

That's what makes it look like a political conflict of interest, to get votes and capital deals to the politicians pushing their agenda.

Even the Green movements and organizations have complained of being sold out to political hijacking.

Why aren't the grassroots levels supported, where the people actually AGREE and can work together?
Why is that being sold as "impossible"? Just so politicians can take over and claim to be in charge?
Sure if private citizens want to own land to preserve it then great! But it's a tiny tiny fraction of land that's owned for the sake of preserving it. Those programs, btw, are started by liberals and made fun of by most conservatives.

If we took away government control of land and put it up for sale to the public then a handful of corporations would snatch it all up and use whatever means necessary to suck all the resources out of it that they could. Ecosystems be damned.

Why are you deifying corporations? These are made of people and affect people.
by communicating directly between people, these issues can be "broken down" addressed and resolved.

We need to humanize not demonize situations or it just escalates to war.
Have you ever seen how nonviolence training and mediation works?
True INCLUSION? This is how all the powerful movements have ever overcome injustice.
it wasn't by fear, it was by putting conflicts in perspective where they can be resolved rationally.
Fear is what makes politics and war. Peace and justice is about solving problems equally and inclusively.
I'm not demonizing corporations. Just pointing out common sense. Do you think BP cared about the Gulf oil spill beyond what investors and board members thought about it?

And yes corporations are just people. Go ask any average Joe if he'd accept a huge raise to go tear down a forest somewhere.

Well the way to get people to work together is to address them as people.

What I suggest for address large corporate interests is to address
(1) the parties and candidates they fund and hold them responsible for settling out the costs of damages
and cost to restore the environment (not just what Obama did by capping the damages for these big interests t6o get some kind of tax pay off to govt, or whatever deal was made behind closed doors)

(2) the states that register and license collective institutions to operate
and instill some checks and balances, such as ethics policies based on the same standards Govt is
supposed to be held to in order to protect individual rights and due process, like the Bill of Right,
Fourteenth Amendment, and Code of Ethics for Govt Service.

This can be worked out through the parties that should also be Checked under Constitutional principles.
If "all parties" agreed to enforce these, then citizens and corporations could all agree to follow equal standards.
By recognizing each other with respect as people equal under law. That's the only way I've seen people held accountable, by taking responsibility for our words and actions. if we don't do our part, we can't ask others to!
 
Yo, Hi Emily, your first sentence gave you away? My belief is, that "Mother Nature" takes care of the earth, and humans can think they are right by taxing us again for nothing, will solve the problem, but no, just more lies for more money!!! Get a Grip?

"GTP"
View attachment 37989
See emilynghiem? This is the kind of intellectual powerhouse we're dealing with. :cool:

1stRambo and I have found other issues we agree on.
That is full time work to pursue those key points, and we don't have any time to waste fighting.
Why can't this approach work for environmental issues and corporate responsibility?
Why can't Greens collaborate with Libertarians and check against corporate abuses of public funds to destroy environment and wildlife. isn't there enough to fix that we AGREE should be corrected.
Why not focus there instead of deflecting onto issues that go around in circles fighting and diverting resources?
I think the reason the fight exists at all is that there ISN'T enough to fix that we agree on. Especially because many conservatives believe that God gave us this world to do with as we please and there's nothing we can do to harm it that isn't already in God's plan.

Actually TheOldSchool there is a whole movement, religious coalitions
led by Christians who see this as a battle between God and Mammon or material greed.

Why aren't you giving any credit to these Christians?
Why is the Christian left allowed to be trampled in the media where only the Christian right gets any visibility?

You don't have to be part of this censorship.

National Religious Partnership for the Environment - Home
About Us Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life COEJL
Mission Statement of the Coalition on the Environment and Jewish Life GreenFaith

When my website was started to help a Jewish activist lobbying to save Headwaters Redwood Forest,
she pushed for Corporate Responsibility as a unifying factor, and even the Jewish tradition that Trees are sacred.

The coalition in Houston unified both liberal and conservative groups that signed on.

I wrote an entire musical series on the connection with this green progressive movement
and the spiritual stewardship over Creation as a Gift from God.

WILDLIFE PRAYER (after Maddona's Like a Prayer)
God made Headwaters Grove - full of creatures great and small
He gave us Redwood Trees - 40 stories tall . . .
Then Maxxam bought the land - and tried to cut them all
The loggers came in droves - and made the Garden fall . . .

How many of these - endangered species
Live in the redwood trees - C'mon and count with me:
Bald eagles and hawks - Salamanders and frogs
Wild Murrelets - How many are there left?

We have a choice, to follow God or Mammon
We have a choice, to hear the Voice Of Compassion
It's not God's will, to harm His own Creation
Why should our forest life be killed By corporations?

How many of these - endangered species Live in the redwood trees - c'mon and answer me:
Bald eagles and hawks - Salamanders and frogs Wild Murrelets - How many are there left?

After the Flood, God's creatures multiplied
He didn't let one species die He made a promise
It takes all kinds, to build an ecosystem,
Each color shade, each "Ray of Light" To fill the spectrum


O Father in Heaven, Hallowed be Thy name:
Stop war and destruction, End this corporate game.
Deliver us from Mammon, World famine and greed.
Teach Love and Compassion. Save the redwood trees!

God made Headwaters Grove, full of creatures great and small
By reaching out with love, we can save - them - all

[bridge]
Life is a gift from God We must obey His Laws
To live in Harmony That is our destiny
Each creature needs a home A place to grow - and - thrive
The Earth cannot be owned By Grace alone The world survives.

Life is a gift From God above That only He can give
Live simply that The beauty of The world can simply live

God gave us Redwood Trees - Over 40 stories tall
Now Mother Nature needs - our help to save them all

Yo, WOW, that was good, but the last sentence was wrong? Mother Nature needs no help Dear!!!

"GTP"
View attachment 37992

Thanks 1stRambo. C'mon you know what it means.
We need to learn to wipe our own butts and quit fouling our own nests.

We can't expect Mother Nature to clean up millions of tons of dirty diapers dumped in landfills
and random patches of plastic shreds killing ocean life in suffocating layers.
Great Pacific garbage patch - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Any mother would tell her kids, go clean up your room. Clean up your old messes and don't start new ones!!!

If you like Nine Inch Nails, I took Closer and changed the lyrics. I had a friend sing it who's a Trent Reznor/NIN fan. She couldn't get through the song without crying. She said she could feel the chainsaws cutting into the hear of the forest and it just changed the meaning of the song for her. She had a spiritual experience just trying to record this:

Creation song (to Closer by NIN)

The love of God's Creation Cries out in desperation
To end the devastation By global corporations

Help me - They've gutted out my insides
Help me - To cut more trees to sell
Help me - The wildlife that used to thrive
Can not survive someplace else

I want to save endangered animals
Create a haven in the redwoods
I want to keep the forest virginal
Before the beauty is gone
And too much damage is done

You can -- help with preservation You can help - purchase the land
We - can be - the salt of the earth We can fund a better plan

Help me - Don't tear down my redwoods
Help me - For lumber to sell
Help me - Don't kill off - indigenous life
You'll never find anywhere else

We've got to save endangered animals We must protect the ancient redwoods
And stop environmental criminals Before the damage is done
And - every species is gone

[SPOKEN: Save Headwaters Forest, and the redwood trees
From mass destruction, by corporate greed
We have no reason, we have no right
To take God's own Creation, and kill it overnight
]

Help us out - Help save the redwoods, help save the trees
Help us now - Help free the forest, from corporate greed
Help us out - Help buy the redwoods, help save the land
Help us now - Help make a difference, who says you can't

Mother Earth - is on her knees - help save - her redwood trees
Mother Earth - is crying please - help save - my redwood trees
 
Last edited:
emilynghiem ask
I see what you're asking but conservation is an issue that is opposed by the same people who oppose climate science. The core issues are basically air, land and water pollution, and destruction of forests and ecosystems. The people who are opposed to climate science are inherently opposed to dealing with those things as well. Like I said, ask them about drilling in ANWR, plastic use, rain forest destruction, etc.

Dear TheOldSchool
What about approaches to conservation like Conservation International.
That's a conservative idea to OWN the land so it can be preserved.
The venture that celebrities like Harrison Ford were supporting
involved CEO's pooling resources together on a corporate level
to protect entire migration patterns across land for the sake of wildlife and ecosystems.

Sting started Rainforest International to help with African and South American rainforests
destroyed by logging roads disrupting the ecosystems and native village cultures.

Why aren't these SOLUTIONS getting the same publicity and funding as POLITICAL CONFLICTS.

That's what makes it look like a political conflict of interest, to get votes and capital deals to the politicians pushing their agenda.

Even the Green movements and organizations have complained of being sold out to political hijacking.

Why aren't the grassroots levels supported, where the people actually AGREE and can work together?
Why is that being sold as "impossible"? Just so politicians can take over and claim to be in charge?
Sure if private citizens want to own land to preserve it then great! But it's a tiny tiny fraction of land that's owned for the sake of preserving it. Those programs, btw, are started by liberals and made fun of by most conservatives.

If we took away government control of land and put it up for sale to the public then a handful of corporations would snatch it all up and use whatever means necessary to suck all the resources out of it that they could. Ecosystems be damned.

Why are you deifying corporations? These are made of people and affect people.
by communicating directly between people, these issues can be "broken down" addressed and resolved.

We need to humanize not demonize situations or it just escalates to war.
Have you ever seen how nonviolence training and mediation works?
True INCLUSION? This is how all the powerful movements have ever overcome injustice.
it wasn't by fear, it was by putting conflicts in perspective where they can be resolved rationally.
Fear is what makes politics and war. Peace and justice is about solving problems equally and inclusively.
I'm not demonizing corporations. Just pointing out common sense. Do you think BP cared about the Gulf oil spill beyond what investors and board members thought about it?

And yes corporations are just people. Go ask any average Joe if he'd accept a huge raise to go tear down a forest somewhere.

Well the way to get people to work together is to address them as people.

What I suggest for address large corporate interests is to address
(1) the parties and candidates they fund and hold them responsible for settling out the costs of damages
and cost to restore the environment (not just what Obama did by capping the damages for these big interests t6o get some kind of tax pay off to govt, or whatever deal was made behind closed doors)

(2) the states that register and license collective institutions to operate
and instill some checks and balances, such as ethics policies based on the same standards Govt is
supposed to be held to in order to protect individual rights and due process, like the Bill of Right,
Fourteenth Amendment, and Code of Ethics for Govt Service.

This can be worked out through the parties that should also be Checked under Constitutional principles.
If "all parties" agreed to enforce these, then citizens and corporations could all agree to follow equal standards.
By recognizing each other with respect as people equal under law. That's the only way I've seen people held accountable, by taking responsibility for our words and actions. if we don't do our part, we can't ask others to!
Well that would be nice and all, but you do realize that what you're suggesting is a huge increase in government involvement which is what I thought you were against at the beginning of the thread?
 

Forum List

Back
Top