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.
If cleaning the air or cleaning the water or keeping areas natural would make people rich, liberals would be first in line demanding it be done. The problem is, it doesn't so the incentive is no longer there. Yeah, some liberals, the true greens want it and are willing to fight for it, but they are a small minority among the left and get drowned out by other social issue demands.
One could hope that true conservatives would realize the value of clean air, clean water and maintianing healthy environments and ecosystems. They make use of them and benefit from them more than liberlas, many of whom are urbanites who never leave the cities and only pay lip service to environmental issues to keep the greens happy.
Clean bays and clean oceans mean healthy fish populations which means a thriving fish industry which translates to business for restaturants and consumers. Clean protected natural areas means recreational business, which conservatives get more use of. Clean air makes for less healthcare costs which keeps down insurance costs.
Right now global warming has become the scam of choice for the far left because it is a way to get rich. Carbon credits are ridiculous, carbon footprints just stupid and green technology is sucking tax dollars and then fails when the money stops.
Theres craziness and ignorance on both the far left and far right but its money that motivates them both.
I think it is a stereotype to think of most liberals as being urbanites who dont enjoy nature. And I think that liberals are more vocal in their outrage against the rape and defilement of the earth and its natural resources than conservatives. Conservatives are the first to cry for more drilling especially in areas of pristine natural beauty. They want to deregulate industries and reduce damages that corporations can be sued for. They seem to believe that corporations come first over the average citizen. Romney made the claim that corporations are people too- so lets hold them accountable for their actions in polluting the environment. It is not just in this country that they pollite and poison people-Texaco from 1964 through 1992 in Ecuador left behind 600 unlined oil pits in pristine rainforest and dumped 18 billion gallons of toxic production water into rivers used for bathing by locals who suffered health problems including cancer, skin lesions, birth defects, and spontaneous abortions in pregnant women. Corporations seem to get away with this sort of pollution without much outcry from the rightwingers, who usually attack anyone who dares to bring up such instances as 'looney greenies' or 'tree huggers'. There have been too many such instances and we are the ones, or more likely the future generations who will be sufferingfrom the cancers, birth defects and other ailments that these corporations leave in their wake, and we still wont have good health care to get help treating all of these sicknesses.
do you intend to address the question of the nexus between earthquakes and hurricanes and anti-environmentalists?
No.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Icy Tea
If cleaning the air or cleaning the water or keeping areas natural would make people rich, liberals would be first in line demanding it be done. The problem is, it doesn't so the incentive is no longer there. Yeah, some liberals, the true greens want it and are willing to fight for it, but they are a small minority among the left and get drowned out by other social issue demands.
One could hope that true conservatives would realize the value of clean air, clean water and maintianing healthy environments and ecosystems. They make use of them and benefit from them more than liberlas, many of whom are urbanites who never leave the cities and only pay lip service to environmental issues to keep the greens happy.
Clean bays and clean oceans mean healthy fish populations which means a thriving fish industry which translates to business for restaturants and consumers. Clean protected natural areas means recreational business, which conservatives get more use of. Clean air makes for less healthcare costs which keeps down insurance costs.
Right now global warming has become the scam of choice for the far left because it is a way to get rich. Carbon credits are ridiculous, carbon footprints just stupid and green technology is sucking tax dollars and then fails when the money stops.
Theres craziness and ignorance on both the far left and far right but its money that motivates them both.
Them.. they.. liberals.. concervatives...
We all know these oppinions on others.. views.. standpoints...airy explanations ABOUT OTHERS. AND blablabla. who cares.
Unless you speak for yourself the discussion gets really dull.
Please tell me what your reasons to stand on one side or another are. Do not tell anyone how to feel or think. Do not turn this thread into another boring stupid troll battle.
You really have not given any reasons yourself. I read you OP, and it was essentially, you want clean air and water.
Really now? Who wants to breath dirty air and drink poisoned water; no one does, so I guess we are all environmentalists now.
why are you people so angry with environmentalists and what are your personal reasons to be against protecting environment?
NOW, THIS IS NOT A THREAD WHETHER OR NOT GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS!
I ask everyone please, do not feed the trolls if any will come!
My question is why do some people take this side or the other?
Just curious.
Here is my reasons:
I like to breath fresh air. I think cities that pollute air less have more sunny days. I like to ride my bike and to be fit. I hate the amount of huge SUVs on the roads, that take a lot of space and polute a lot of air.
I like travel to places and see wilderness. I lik to bird watch. I am upset to see that more and more wild spieces dissapear from earth.
I want to know that the water I drink is not polluted.
I am upset to see to many natural catastrophs, like hurricanes, earthquakes, forest fires , floods... that occure recently.
I like hiking and seeing beautiful places. I am upset to know that mountain tops are being cut (to mine coal, granit etc).
I like diving and snorkelling. I am upset that beauful marine life is being destroyed when the water is polluted. That corals die because of hotel development and boats. that fish die because corals die, and because plastic stuff and other dirt gets to the sea.
I am upset to see so much precious land on the planet is devoted to garbage fields.
What are your reasons to support one side or another?
i dont have a problem with protecting the environment. i too like to breath clean air and drink clean water. however we need to balance the protection of the environment with what is good for business. we CAN do both with reasonable regulations, and proper enforcement of those regulations.
the problem i have is not with the average environmentalist, but rather the radical ones that decide that SUVs are killing the planet and they decide to burn them to the ground at the dealership. i also dont like it when the radicals spike trees that are destined to be cut down because they are diseased and dying. or that the park service decides to do some clearing of excess trees to help reduce the intensity of possible forest fires.
why are you people so angry with environmentalists and what are your personal reasons to be against protecting environment?
NOW, THIS IS NOT A THREAD WHETHER OR NOT GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS!
I ask everyone please, do not feed the trolls if any will come!
My question is why do some people take this side or the other?
Just curious.
Here is my reasons:
I like to breath fresh air. I think cities that pollute air less have more sunny days. I like to ride my bike and to be fit. I hate the amount of huge SUVs on the roads, that take a lot of space and polute a lot of air.
I like travel to places and see wilderness. I lik to bird watch. I am upset to see that more and more wild spieces dissapear from earth.
I want to know that the water I drink is not polluted.
I am upset to see to many natural catastrophs, like hurricanes, earthquakes, forest fires , floods... that occure recently.
I like hiking and seeing beautiful places. I am upset to know that mountain tops are being cut (to mine coal, granit etc).
I like diving and snorkelling. I am upset that beauful marine life is being destroyed when the water is polluted. That corals die because of hotel development and boats. that fish die because corals die, and because plastic stuff and other dirt gets to the sea.
I am upset to see so much precious land on the planet is devoted to garbage fields.
What are your reasons to support one side or another?
This is a troll thread. No one is against any of the things you listed. However most people are not for killing the economy for dubious environmental improvements.
I want a more balanced approach. It was environmentalist who once pushed to save the trees and had fast food places switch from cardboard to styrofoam and grocery stores switch from paper bags to plastic bags. You have environmentalist celebrities preaching about conserving oil by driving a hybrid and then hop into their limo on their way to their private jet. Some practical environmental practices seem to be common sense except that it's not so common anymore. It's as if some live within their own little bubble and only see the evil others do while ignoring their own actions. Treat your home and yard as your personal environment to save. Some neighbors will follow your example. Extend your environment to your vehicle. Keep garbage inside your vehicle until you reach your destination or service station where you can throw out your garbage in a trash can instead of out the window.
i dont have a problem with protecting the environment. i too like to breath clean air and drink clean water. however we need to balance the protection of the environment with what is good for business. we CAN do both with reasonable regulations, and proper enforcement of those regulations.
the problem i have is not with the average environmentalist, but rather the radical ones that decide that SUVs are killing the planet and they decide to burn them to the ground at the dealership. i also dont like it when the radicals spike trees that are destined to be cut down because they are diseased and dying. or that the park service decides to do some clearing of excess trees to help reduce the intensity of possible forest fires.
Or those who burn down a family's home because of where it's built.
This is a troll thread. No one is against any of the things you listed. However most people are not for killing the economy for dubious environmental improvements.
Thanks for sharing how you feel about the environment, and what is happening to it.
Way to miss the point.
I appreciate the tone of honest inquiry in your original post.
I like most of the things that you like, and am concerned about most of the same things that you are concerned about. I thank environmentalists for pushing The Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, which have dramatically improved the environment. Our rivers do not catch on fire anymore, and smog has been drastically reduced.
However, current initiatives to make more improvements have costs: lost jobs, lost capital, lower incomes, higher expenses. A cleaner environment would improve national health, but increased poverty and reduced wealth would cause a deterioration in health.
So the EPA's expansion of the Clean Air Act, which will shut down 20% of our electrical generating capacity, 10% of our cement plants, and untold other industrial and manufacturing concerns, while driving up the cost of energy, is too much. IN the case of cement, we'll lose the capital investment and the jobs, then import the shortfall in production from countries that care less about the environment. So the environmentalists will give us a triple loss.
The propozed ozone regs, which the EPA ought to defer until their own scientific study is complete, take all these issues a step further.
So it boils down to costs and benefits. You could distill our tap water and virtually eliminate all impurities, but the water bills would be so high we would not be able to afford food. That would not be too good for our health. Balance, moderation, middle of the road approaches make more sense than the war on the economy being waged by some in the administration and some in the environmentalist camp.
The OP sounds like an adult, so let's tell the OP the truth...
The USA is losing or has lost its edge. We are no longer the innovators or the peope that support innovation. Factions in government (and there is no need to mention names as we all know who they are) have seen to it that the major corporations and Wall Street get served. If anything interferes with the bottom line of the puppet masters is it is quickly blown out of the water. We are indebted to China out of greed and worship for the almighty buck and the bottom line. We used to be a nation that led the world, but that has bit the dust, just as the middle class and education get sacrificed.
Rhetoric such as "envornmental regulation kills jobs" is ad nauseam. As if someone is not making billions by killing the regulations. And the ones that are killing the regulations via a corrupt government, are proliferating the propaganda and trickle down economics is a memo that they have not yet received.
Quote:
This video is fascinating in light of BYD’s remarkable but brief history. Since 1995, it has evolved from a manufacturer of cell-phone batteries into one of China’s largest automobile companies and it is now making a major push into clean energy, both with the manufacturing of solar panels and utility-scale batteries to store energy. (For more on BYD’s energy storage plans and MidAmerican Energy, see Warren Buffett’s Big Battery Play at GreenBiz. Recently, the city of Los Angeles’s Department of Water and Power (LADWP) and BYD said they would work together to develop a grid-scale battery project for renewable energy storage.
That being said, there's absolutely no doubt that renewable energy is still going to grow faster than any other energy sector over the next 20 to 30 years.
Just last week, BP released a new industry forecast indicating renewable sources will grow dramatically as global energy demand surges nearly 40% by 2030.
Most of this will come from China, India, Russia, and Brazil — with renewable energy sources increasing their contribution from 5% to almost 20%. At the same time, coal and oil are likely to lose market share.
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.
Who wants to breath dirty air and drink poisoned water; no one does, so I guess we are all environmentalists now.
