Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There are many Conservatives and Republicans who are believers in climate change and proponents of renewable energy. George Bush when governor of Texas put in place a system of transmission lines and renewable purchases that made Texas to leading state in renewable energy. The difficulty is a number of Republicans have chosen to make this a political issue and like other issues they endorse, ignore or denigrate the science that guides us. This group is so loud that they drown out the voices of good Republicans who understand and follow science.
... I was for solar and wind when I was in my teens (some 60 years ago). And I'm a life long Republican. Your theory, much like that of the media's, doesn't hold water. In fact, your accusatory thread is exactly why folks don't want to listen to your side.
I am curious, you say that as you aged you are no longer in favor of off-grid power. Could you explain why?
In my town there is a group of us who use solar and/or wind and/or hydro power for our homes. It is not a political statement for any of us, rather a practical need for reliable power.
I am curious, you say that as you aged you are no longer in favor of off-grid power. Could you explain why?
In my town there is a group of us who use solar and/or wind and/or hydro power for our homes. It is not a political statement for any of us, rather a practical need for reliable power.
I said nothing of the sort.
And lookie! There's another one!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
There are many Conservatives and Republicans who are believers in climate change and proponents of renewable energy. George Bush when governor of Texas put in place a system of transmission lines and renewable purchases that made Texas to leading state in renewable energy. The difficulty is a number of Republicans have chosen to make this a political issue and like other issues they endorse, ignore or denigrate the science that guides us. This group is so loud that they drown out the voices of good Republicans who understand and follow science.
Talk about drowning out..................................
Why would anyone be opposed to "green living" and yet there are millions who feel threatened by it. Exactly when did the issue become politicized? Why do you have to sign off on solar and wind power and be opposed to fossil fuels if you are a Democrat. Conversely, you have to be for coal and oil if you are a Republican. It wasn't always like this. Why can't we choose whatever makes sense and acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of both?
Because the electorate chooses the wrong people to represent them.
We have ideologs whose sole purpose is to maintain a political career with benefits. They will gerrymander, play to every crease and crack in society and care not for the wake of divisiveness they leave behind.
This breeds extremists who try to deligitimize anyone who does not agree 100% with every aspect of their position.
Losing 500 million taxpayer dollars 'invested' in a clearly known bad option, turns taxpayers off, especially when in hindsight the loss was claimed to be a 'good investment'.
So bad decisions by the government which make 'investments in the future' look more like money laundering, further divide positions.
We can embrace Mother Earth News but not so much the federal government and their infinite supply of conscripted taxpayer money. Universities which live off government grants can no longer be relied upon for objective research.
Green energy options need to be encouraged, but premature economic ejactulation, forced by the feds, defies the economic security of an individual family. The pretext of sacrifice today for tomorrow's future must be held in fine balance, not in an overzealous frenzy of a runaway extremist political convulsion.
I believe it is because of religion. I believe people look for a greater power and cause than themselves to support and believe in. As belief in God has declined many look for something greater than self to give them purpose. Green living to save earth is such a new religion for some. When one oppose the fundamental believes of ones religion things polarize. That is where we are today in my view.
Why else would a party try to outlaw freedom of speech on a scientific theory such as AGW which has many more open questions than solutions or proofs at this point? Questioning and debating AGW and the import of Green living ways threatens some people's religion and that gets personal to many.
Science is not about consensus but is about open debate and questioning models that ignore things we know impact climate such as sun activity and when those models do not do a good job of predicting the climate they are in great need of debate and modifications.
I suspect a minority of scientist may have believed the world was round when it as not proven to be so.
Why would anyone be opposed to "green living" and yet there are millions who feel threatened by it. Exactly when did the issue become politicized? Why do you have to sign off on solar and wind power and be opposed to fossil fuels if you are a Democrat. Conversely, you have to be for coal and oil if you are a Republican. It wasn't always like this. Why can't we choose whatever makes sense and acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of both?
I think you're asking the wrong question in the wrong forum. I think the more important question you should be asking, probably in the politics forum, is "why do Americans politicize EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY?"
Yes, everything and everybody. It is the American thing to do. Politicizing everything has always been the American way of existence right back to the beginning of America's history. Green living is only one of all the other things that are politicized in America.
Why would anyone be opposed to "green living" and yet there are millions who feel threatened by it. Exactly when did the issue become politicized? Why do you have to sign off on solar and wind power and be opposed to fossil fuels if you are a Democrat. Conversely, you have to be for coal and oil if you are a Republican. It wasn't always like this. Why can't we choose whatever makes sense and acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of both?
The left decided to inject pseudo climate science in to "green living" and more then likely soured people on it.
Even though I mostly voted for "R" and one "D" in 2012, I am in to solar, not to save the planet, it is for the "free energy" after wards. Those solar panels aren't as "green" as you think, as hazardous waste is created while manufacturing them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
