People don't care about the environment that much

[Avatar4321]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050920/ap_on_re_us/voters_environment

Not really a big surprise. its not a major issue. It doesn't really control many peoples voting habits.

 

[ProudDem]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050920/ap_on_re_us/voters_environment

Not really a big surprise. its not a major issue. It doesn't really control many peoples voting habits.

Hi Avatar. Do you care about the environment? I must admit that I really never thought about it until I met my husband. He does environmental enforcement for the Dept. of Justice, and I hear all about violations of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, CERCLA, etc. Coal-fired power plants will emit carbon dioxide, which has been scientifically shown to increase the number of children who develop asthma and causes premature death in 10s of thousands of people (I forget the number).

I know you support Bush, and I don't believe that I am being biased when I say that he is one of the worst environmental presidents we have had. His father was more environmental friendly than W is.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Hi Avatar. Do you care about the environment? I must admit that I really never thought about it until I met my husband. He does environmental enforcement for the Dept. of Justice, and I hear all about violations of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, CERCLA, etc. Coal-fired power plants will emit carbon dioxide, which has been scientifically shown to increase the number of children who develop asthma and causes premature death in 10s of thousands of people (I forget the number).

I know you support Bush, and I don't believe that I am being biased when I say that he is one of the worst environmental presidents we have had. His father was more environmental friendly than W is.

The environwacko movement is composed primarily of people who just hate business, freedom, and America.

 

[insein]

Environmentalism has cost this country more than most people realize. All this complaining lately about gasoline prices and yet many leftwing thinkers won't admit that environmentalism is the cause of all these high prices. So rather than looking for new oil sources and allowing new refineries to be built in order to increase our supply and thus lower our independence on terrorist regimes and therefore lower prices, envrionmentalists would rather us create stiffer regulations on the already ridiculous policies we have. I don't exactly know what they are thinking in their heads but if stiffer regulations are enforced it only creates a further monopoly on the companies that can afford to pump the oil and those that can't. Therefore we become even further dependant on foreign oil and led into more "wars for Oil" as the left likes to espouse.

Here's some infor for you.

America's oil refining industry is being strangled by environmental regulations.
http://www.ncpa.org/pi/enviro/envpd/pdenv31.html

Electric Vehicles Aren't Earth Friendly
http://www.ncpa.org/pd/pdenv42.html

Regulation Increases Risks
http://www.ncpa.org/studies/s137.html

Just some food for thought there. Envrionmentalism is NOT a good thing. IT has caused more damage to ourselves and the envrionment by slowing our technological progress and preventing us from advancing as a society.

 

[Gunny]

Hi Avatar. Do you care about the environment? I must admit that I really never thought about it until I met my husband. He does environmental enforcement for the Dept. of Justice, and I hear all about violations of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, CERCLA, etc. Coal-fired power plants will emit carbon dioxide, which has been scientifically shown to increase the number of children who develop asthma and causes premature death in 10s of thousands of people (I forget the number).

I know you support Bush, and I don't believe that I am being biased when I say that he is one of the worst environmental presidents we have had. His father was more environmental friendly than W is.

First, I realize you just can't help saying "Bush is the worst ...." In actuality though, he is no worse than any other President except perhaps Jimmy Carter, and he was such a swell guy.

Second, I think both extremes on the issue should be launched into outer space, and let the moderate people with some common sense make the rules.

People care about the environment, just not enough to stymie an entire nation to save one fish. On the other side, you have unscrupulous corporations who would gladly dump toxic waste into the environment to save 20 cents. One side is completely self-serving while the other would bring the progress of mankind to a screeching halt.

We need to use the environment to ur advantage while doing the best we can within reason to protect it from needless destruction.

 

[Nuc]

Just some food for thought there. Envrionmentalism is NOT a good thing. IT has caused more damage to ourselves and the envrionment by slowing our technological progress and preventing us from advancing as a society.

This country is becoming one endless strip mall. Do you really think the US is more appealing now than it was 150 years ago in an aesthetic sense?

 

[CSM]

This country is becoming one endless strip mall. Do you really think the US is more appealing now than it was 150 years ago in an aesthetic sense?

Ever see some of the old pictures of the silver mines out west in the time period you reference? or the gold mines? nothing like a river of mercury flowing down a mountainside to picque your purient interests, eh?

How about some pics of the Harlem River at the height of the industrial revolution? or any river in New England for that matter.

The point is, this country has had environmental concerns since the first settler stepped foot ashore. It is easy to say that the pastoral scenes portrayed 150 years ago are "better" than what we see today.

There has to be a balance here someplace.

 

[Nuc]

Ever see some of the old pictures of the silver mines out west in the time period you reference? or the gold mines? nothing like a river of mercury flowing down a mountainside to picque your purient interests, eh?

How about some pics of the Harlem River at the height of the industrial revolution? or any river in New England for that matter.

The point is, this country has had environmental concerns since the first settler stepped foot ashore. It is easy to say that the pastoral scenes portrayed 150 years ago are "better" than what we see today.

There has to be a balance here someplace.

Some good points here. Personally I think the greatest guaranteed threats to America in this century (exempting terrorism, because we don't know how that will turn out) are traffic/transportation/gridlock and sprawl. Those are both environmental issues. If we don't deal with them in a responsible and yes, environmentally friendly, way we will be fucked. Just think of how much worse traffic has gotten in your lifetime and amplify it and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Regarding sprawl. Currently I am living in Milwaukee. When I was growing up in the 60's and 70's heading south to Chicago there were distinct cities (Racine, Kenosha) with countryside in between. Now it's unrelenting strip malls and fast food joints. Heading west towards Madison, same story. That's just ugly!

 

[ProudDem]

First, I realize you just can't help saying "Bush is the worst ...." In actuality though, he is no worse than any other President except perhaps Jimmy Carter, and he was such a swell guy.

Second, I think both extremes on the issue should be launched into outer space, and let the moderate people with some common sense make the rules.

People care about the environment, just not enough to stymie an entire nation to save one fish. On the other side, you have unscrupulous corporations who would gladly dump toxic waste into the environment to save 20 cents. One side is completely self-serving while the other would bring the progress of mankind to a screeching halt.

We need to use the environment to ur advantage while doing the best we can within reason to protect it from needless destruction.

Gunny, I like your idea. When I said Bush was the worst, I was solely talking about his environmental policies. I would be surprised if you or anyone could prove otherwise.

I know what you're saying about saving animals--my concern about the environment is in the air pollution and what kind of effect is has on HUMANS.

Avenger, not everyone who is pro-environment isn't against business, as usually what the companies are doing it attempting to cut corners to save themselves money, as opposed to worrying about what kind of an effect is has on humans. It's like the tobacco company. They don't care about your health--they care about making money.

 

[dmp]

This country is becoming one endless strip mall.

Do you realize there is more harvestable timberland NOW than there was 100 years ago?

Gunny, I like your idea. When I said Bush was the worst, I was solely talking about his environmental policies. I would be surprised if you or anyone could prove otherwise.

You claim he's 'the worst' yet you don't have data to back that up? Why not at least be HONEST. Say something like this:

"I'm not sure what policies GWB has supported/enacted that adversly affect the environment, so I'll just say I'm not aware of any specific protect-the-environment-type policies since he became president"

 

[Avatar4321]

Hi Avatar. Do you care about the environment? I must admit that I really never thought about it until I met my husband. He does environmental enforcement for the Dept. of Justice, and I hear all about violations of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, CERCLA, etc. Coal-fired power plants will emit carbon dioxide, which has been scientifically shown to increase the number of children who develop asthma and causes premature death in 10s of thousands of people (I forget the number).

I know you support Bush, and I don't believe that I am being biased when I say that he is one of the worst environmental presidents we have had. His father was more environmental friendly than W is.

That is a difficult to question to answer. If you mean do I care about most of the causes the environmental wacko movement supports with their junk science? No. I am not concerned about global warming. The world has a climate of a cyclical nature and there is no evidence that human beings can affect that climate. And I don't think climate change will destroy the world. We will just have to change and adapt.

Same is with the Ozone Layer. It heals itself. We couldnt completely destroy it if we wanted to, so why should we worry if its alittle thin sometimes. Especially when there are good reasons why those areas are thin when you know how ozone is created.

Obviously pollution is a concern. But i dont think you solve that problem by restricting companies from growing. You solve that problem by encouraging them to create technology to deal with those problems. One thing I've always wondered is that we know what chemicals are put into the air and water when pollution occurs, why not find a good use for them? I don't see CO2 as a problem because without it plants would die.

In addition, I think your stats are probably incorrect. I don't doubt that some scientists might believe that, but thinking about problems of causation, i think it would be difficult to prove that CO2 pollution caused the death of anyone. And if causation was easier to prove we would be seeing companies run into the ground with smart lawyers suing the pants off them.

With that said, of course i want clean air. Of course I want clean water. I think the question is who defines clean? Will the air and water ever be clean enough for the Environmental wackos? Do we really have clean water when we add floride?

We need to take care of our actions and clean up after ourselves, but we should as heck shouldnt be using environmental legislation as much as some liberal groups think.

Also, you dont like the Presidents environmental policies. What exactly has he done that is so bad?

 

[Avatar4321]

Second, I think both extremes on the issue should be launched into outer space, and let the moderate people with some common sense make the rules.

If you did that then there wouldnt be any moderates. The whole concept of moderates rests in the fact that being a moderate is defined by the extremes.

 

[ProudDem]

You claim he's 'the worst' yet you don't have data to back that up? Why not at least be HONEST. Say something like this:

"I'm not sure what policies GWB has supported/enacted that adversly affect the environment, so I'll just say I'm not aware of any specific protect-the-environment-type policies since he became president"

LOL dmp. I guess I didn't think that people would be interested to see the evidence that supports my assertion. I do know what his policies are that have adversely affected the environment. I mentioned above that my husband does environmental law, which he has been doing for 13 years. If you want me to provide the specific policies, I can, but I would need a little time to come up with the correct terminology.

 

[dmp]

LOL dmp. I guess I didn't think that people would be interested to see the evidence that supports my assertion. I do know what his policies are that have adversely affected the environment. I mentioned above that my husband does environmental law, which he has been doing for 13 years. If you want me to provide the specific policies, I can, but I would need a little time to come up with the correct terminology.

I believe it's a case of 'let's blame bush' when something goes wrong with the environment; I doubt I could be convinced his specific pollicies are hurting us more than helping us.

 

[Avatar4321]

Gunny, I like your idea. When I said Bush was the worst, I was solely talking about his environmental policies. I would be surprised if you or anyone could prove otherwise.

Well you havent proven that Bush is the worst, so why should we be concerned with disproving you?

Sort of like when libs yell "Bush lied" yet dont provide any other information. Alright, are we supposed to prove that he didnt when you dont even provide us with one?

 

[kurtsprincess]

If you did that then there wouldnt be any moderates. The whole concept of moderates rests in the fact that being a moderate is defined by the extremes.

As a moderate ....... can we smack the extremists up side the head when they wander too far????????? :cof:

 

[Nuc]

Do you realize there is more harvestable timberland NOW than there was 100 years ago?

And less old growth.

I was talking about America becoming an endless monotonous strip mall with the same businesses and restaurants everywhere you look. Do you disagree?

 

[dmp]

I was talking about America becoming an endless monotonous strip mall with the same businesses and restaurants everywhere you look. Do you disagree?

Yes.

 

[Nuc]

Yes.

Drive around a bit.

 

[Gunny]

If you did that then there wouldnt be any moderates. The whole concept of moderates rests in the fact that being a moderate is defined by the extremes.

You are correct. I was thinking more along the lines of culling the herd, so to speak.

If nothing else, it would be environmentally friendly because it would remove a lot of hot air and complete wastes of resources sustaining such individuals. It also would at least for a time, redefine the boundaries of "extreme."