Do Republicans care as much for the environment as Democrats do?

[rightwinger]

To Republicans, the environment is a commodity to be bought and sold

 

[SSDD]

Really? When I was a kid, there were few worries over eating fish out of farm ponds....today, you only eat fish out of those ponds if you are looking to get some form of cancer...

And the problems with land use are legion...how about places like miami that are sinking because so much concrete is being poured there...fires blazing out of control over hundreds of thousands of acres because of liberal policy banning practices that would clear underbrush...and on and on...

there have been fires on the Earth for centuries !!!!!!!
Volcanoes spewing all kinds of crap into the air
etc

Of course there have been fires...but in nature, fires tend to burn themselves out...reducing underbrush such that when fires happen again, there isn't enough fuel on the ground to generate enough heat to actually burn the tops of the trees. Liberal policies that prevent clearing underbrush...and building homes in areas where fire is part of the natural ecology and as a result, putting out the fires to protect homes which allows more fuel to form in the form of underbrush results in fires of a sort that were never seen in nature.

it is all related to land use.

so humans shouldn't live in homes???--you live in a home, don't you?
...now we have to get the OK on where to build homes???!!

My home is not built on a flood plain...or a fault line, or in a local where fire is an integral part of the ecology, or on a beach...and if it were...I would expect the sorts of disasters which happen to people who build their homes in such areas...

....please give examples/go into detail on where fire is needed

I am short on time right now so I will only give you one example...I will provide more later if you are unable to look the information up yourself under the heading of "fire ecology"...one of the problems of being an environmentalist rather than a conservationist...conservationists actually take the time to learn something about nature.

Lodge pole pines....fire has been such an internal part of their environment that they actually require fire in order for their seeds to germinate...soil conditions after a fire are ideal for seedling growth and as a result, the cones they produce are covered with a hard waxy substance that must be melted off in order for seeds to disperse and germinate...

 

[hadit]

“Do Republicans care as much for the environment as Democrats do?”

Clearly this is rhetorical.

Since they obviously do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Republicans couldn't care less about the environment, save to exploit and destroy it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So I was watching some news show and there was a Republican on there who I never saw before and he acted offended and said that Republicans care just as much for the environment as Democrats do.

Is that true?

I find it very hard to believe.

"Because we care about the environment!" - Vote democrat 2020

 

[petro]

Republicans couldn't care less about the environment, save to exploit and destroy it.

Post is a ignorant hasty generalization fallacy.


Figured you would understand that.

 

[harmonica]

there have been fires on the Earth for centuries !!!!!!!
Volcanoes spewing all kinds of crap into the air
etc

Of course there have been fires...but in nature, fires tend to burn themselves out...reducing underbrush such that when fires happen again, there isn't enough fuel on the ground to generate enough heat to actually burn the tops of the trees. Liberal policies that prevent clearing underbrush...and building homes in areas where fire is part of the natural ecology and as a result, putting out the fires to protect homes which allows more fuel to form in the form of underbrush results in fires of a sort that were never seen in nature.

it is all related to land use.

so humans shouldn't live in homes???--you live in a home, don't you?
...now we have to get the OK on where to build homes???!!

My home is not built on a flood plain...or a fault line, or in a local where fire is an integral part of the ecology, or on a beach...and if it were...I would expect the sorts of disasters which happen to people who build their homes in such areas...

....please give examples/go into detail on where fire is needed

I am short on time right now so I will only give you one example...I will provide more later if you are unable to look the information up yourself under the heading of "fire ecology"...one of the problems of being an environmentalist rather than a conservationist...conservationists actually take the time to learn something about nature.

Lodge pole pines....fire has been such an internal part of their environment that they actually require fire in order for their seeds to germinate...soil conditions after a fire are ideal for seedling growth and as a result, the cones they produce are covered with a hard waxy substance that must be melted off in order for seeds to disperse and germinate...

the trees and earth are fine.....please see the before and after St Helens pictures

 

[SSDD]

Of course there have been fires...but in nature, fires tend to burn themselves out...reducing underbrush such that when fires happen again, there isn't enough fuel on the ground to generate enough heat to actually burn the tops of the trees. Liberal policies that prevent clearing underbrush...and building homes in areas where fire is part of the natural ecology and as a result, putting out the fires to protect homes which allows more fuel to form in the form of underbrush results in fires of a sort that were never seen in nature.

it is all related to land use.

so humans shouldn't live in homes???--you live in a home, don't you?
...now we have to get the OK on where to build homes???!!

My home is not built on a flood plain...or a fault line, or in a local where fire is an integral part of the ecology, or on a beach...and if it were...I would expect the sorts of disasters which happen to people who build their homes in such areas...

....please give examples/go into detail on where fire is needed

I am short on time right now so I will only give you one example...I will provide more later if you are unable to look the information up yourself under the heading of "fire ecology"...one of the problems of being an environmentalist rather than a conservationist...conservationists actually take the time to learn something about nature.

Lodge pole pines....fire has been such an internal part of their environment that they actually require fire in order for their seeds to germinate...soil conditions after a fire are ideal for seedling growth and as a result, the cones they produce are covered with a hard waxy substance that must be melted off in order for seeds to disperse and germinate...

the trees and earth are fine.....please see the before and after St Helens pictures

I saw them...You left out one... Clearly there was an actual forest around St. Helens, as opposed to the green scrub ground cover your picture shows. As I said...nature doesn't replenish itself on a generational scale. The forest that got knocked down might regrow to its original state in a hundred years or so.

While the forest will regrow...the resource is off the table for a century and probably more. This was a volcano, and there was nothing we could have done to prevent the loss of the resource...wildfires, on the other hand that grow beyond the sorts of fires typically seen in nature due to our ineffective land use are our fault and when they happen, they take a valuable resource off the table that need not have been had we simply thought ahead a bit to the logical, and inevitable result of our actions.

Do you need further information on the ecology of land use, and the problems associated with building homes in areas that are prone to events that are disastrous to humans but simply part of the natural landscape for the flora and fauna of the area....or are you so blinded by your "the trees and the earth are fine" mantra that you are unable to see or understand that better management of the resources would improve their state.

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans couldn't care less about the environment, save to exploit and destroy it.

Republicans sell off our environment to the highest bidder

 

[SSDD]

Republicans couldn't care less about the environment, save to exploit and destroy it.

Republicans sell off our environment to the highest bidder

Examples? Or are you just repeating slogans that you have been given to say? Some of the worst pollution in the nation was found in the North East which has been controlled by liberal democrats as far back as living memory goes.

 

[SSDD]

Correction...I should have said some of the worst pollution in the nation was found in the Northwest East which has been controlled by liberal democrats as far back as living memory goes...and indeed some of the worst pollution in the world is found in socialist and communist countries which is, intact, the logical result of the political philosophy...

 

[gipper]

So I was watching some news show and there was a Republican on there who I never saw before and he acted offended and said that Republicans care just as much for the environment as Democrats do.

Is that true?

I find it very hard to believe.

Neither party gives a shit about the environment. As usual your posts are illogical and nonsensical.

 

[Flash]

I am a Conservative and an Environmental Engineer. In my 30 year career I cleaned up more pollution than ten thousand of these stupid Environmental Wacko activist will see in their lives.

Liberals spout off their mouths a lot and bitch a lot but never really do anything of substance.

 

[hadit]

Liberals talk about the environment, conservatives actually clean it up.