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.
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?
Or, why can't we just discuss green living, and enjoy sharing info? Why does it have to be a polemic? Shouldn't polemics be taken to the Politics forum? I thought this was a forum for people who wanted to share enthusiasm for green living, contribute ideas, and discuss scientific findings in a positive way. The "hobbies" forum doesn't have people heckling their hobbies.
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?
It started to happen in the 50s and 60s when environmental regulation was seen as a threat to corporations.
Before that, Republicans were generally more interested in conservation than Democrats. Teddy Roosevelt, a republican, created the forest service, established much of the federal lands that the current republican platform is looking to liquidate, and heavily expanded the National Park Service.
But when regulation started to effect the bottom line, sides were chosen. Democrats generally chose regulation to protect environmental resources, Republicans generally chose supporting corporations especially giving tax breaks to the fossil fuel industry. The oil/gas companies routinely defer their tax burdens and end up paying an effective tax rate of less than 12% which is much less than what most corporations pay of about 35%. Meanwhile one of the most profitable businesses in the world is still being subsidized by the US taxpayer. I am sure that while the regulations are loosened, the tax subsidies will not stop, and when the inevitable disaster happens, the tax payer will be left with the majority of that bill as well.
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 would say that the problem is with labeling people, not so much that green living is politicized. I dislike being called a Democrat even though I mostly vote that way, but I don't identify with that party, or any party. Same with religion - I refuse to tell people what I follow (or don't) and just say I have some beliefs but they are private. Labels carry too much baggage. They just create ways to divide us into camps, which is not a good thing.
So, just tell people you prefer to not be associated with either major political party, that you have your own set of beliefs that don't align with any party.
It happened with our culture of consumerism started clashing with concerns about the environment. It also started when our self-identity became attached to consumerism. You can thank corporate marketing departments for that. They sliced and diced up the population into categories and used focus groups to see how they could sell specifically to each group, which diversified their product lines and and made them desirable to a wider range of the population. It's kinda gross.
You gotta see this documentary to see my point.... especially around 2:26 mark.
[url=http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/]The Century of the Self - Top Documentary Films[/url]
So what happens is when you tell people they have to consume less or consume differently in a very real way you are attacking their culture and their identity.
Watch that documentary and you'll understand so much. It's one of the best I've ever seen.
Whatever the reason, it is not a good thing. There is no question that green living has spawned numerous new technologies and advanced some old ones. Because of politics, however, these technologies are periodically blocked, impeded or rolled back. This is not productive. We have always been united in support of new technologies. The auto industry did not have to worry about presidential elections when they were designing new cars. Boeing builds planes without worrying about who is going to be in the White House. This is not the case for renewables. Their existence is dependent on the whims of politicians who can be manipulated any number of ways, both for and against. I believe the industry and the industry alone can take politics out of their business. If there is a genuine market for the technology, nobody can stop it.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,714 posts, read 81,563,799 times
Reputation: 58038
Green living is inconvenient, and costs jobs, a lot of them. Local regulations for separating various types of trash, recycling and compostable waste is a nuisance for many people, who do it reluctantly only because they have to. Coal is a nasty, hazardous way to produce energy, but thousands of people made a good (nearly 6 figure) income in the mines. The auto industry cannot make as much on EVs because of the high cost of research and development, rushing to build them to meet the EPA Cafe mileage standards. So, to maintain profits, they have been forced to use cheaper labor by building more cars in Mexico. I think everyone is aware of how the environmental regulations have put loggers out of work. Consider the 2015 protests of the offshore oil drilling rig in Seattle, where the kayakers (in plastic kayaks made from oil) attempted to stop the rig from leaving for Alaska. I don't think there were many republicans among them.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,529,686 times
Reputation: 12192
Didn't used to be. My grandma was the one who taught me to recycle. She was a diehard Republican who listened to Rush Limbaugh daily and wrote letters to Ted Kennedy urging him to "repent".
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?
There's no necessary reason. In many countries, it isn't politicized. But once a US political party gets an (endangered) bee in its bonnet about some green living thing then boom - its all down to the binary thought pattern of Dem V Rep...
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.
