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 cares more about the environment: Liberals or conservatives?
Beyond a shadow of a doubt liberals care more about the environment.
Interestingly I find liberals are willing to learn from their mistakes and adjust, so while they may engage in practices which defeat their core values they are much more likely to adapt once they realize the seriousness of an issue or learn of a better way.
Conservatism by it's very nature is a resistance to change, and in it's most extreme form is reactionary.
Would be good if you at least listed examples like I did.
Not all liberals are Tesla owning vegan hips, as much as we wish we did...
That is a different question than the OP, it appears the goal is to somehow draw a correlation between liberals and cities as somehow anti-environment. The thing is, cities use mass transportation, tend to recycle and set higher environmental standards, just as examples.
Seattle, where I live, is a city that borders the beautiful Puget Sound, where we have whales, seals and completely adorable sea otters. Trump and his anti-environmental policies could not be more hated by Seattle, where he only got 8% of the vote.
"STAR Communities announced today that Seattle has been awarded a 5-STAR Community Rating for national leadership in sustainability. The City achieved the highest score to date..."
“Sustainable cities provide a healthy environment, support a strong economy, and continually improve the well-being of the whole community..."
In California, the CA air resources board has a hotline for citizens to call in and report vehicular gross polluters. Shortly after Gov Brown was elected in 2010, he signed an executive order wherein if a complaint came in on the gross polluter line and the vehicle owner turned out to be undocumented, the complaint was to be ignored. I wonder how much more damage this has done to the environment since 2011 than what Trump has supposedly done thus far.
This is an interesting and creative question, but it uses some strange examples, such as:
Traffic jams: Aren't conservatives more likely to live in the suburbs or rural areas where they're driving more and contributing more to traffic? And if liberals are more likely to be in big cities, they have better access to mass transit, which usually has less of an environmental impact per capita.
Hunting: If people are hunting for food (excluding those who hunt solely for the sport of killing something to show off their high powered rifle), why is that somehow worse for the environment than buying meat at a fancy organic grocery store or restaurant, which also often requires driving to get there? Especially considering the food miles that food travels- often by big rig, the environmental costs of elaborate processing, etc.?
Generally speaking, liberals put more emphasis on protecting the environment as a stated priority BUT they don't have a monopoly on doing so, as we have had some environmentally progressive Republican Presidents (but not in our most recent history), such as President Bush, Sr. and Richard Nixon (who advocated for sweeping clean air/water legislation). Recent Republican leadership? It's a different era now.
Most ironically, the EPA was founded under president Richard Nixon, a Republican. A real paradox .
One of the best things he ever did.
That's why I say Trump is the worst, even among Republicans. Trump is setting the worst environmental policy in my lifetime and as we have seen, Republicans never oppose Trump, so this is happening and will only get worse.
Most of the USA lives in urban areas.
Urban living consumes less in resources than country or suburban living.
"Liberal states" use much less energy than conservative ones. https://www.eia.gov/state/rankings/
The ten on the bottom are the most efficient. So, someone in WY uses 4X as much energy (creates 4x as much pollution based on that, etc.) and also creates less value (GDP) with it.
Would you ever have guessed NY was the most efficient state? I'll bet not!
Most all important car environmental regs have come out of CA.
I don't even think this one is a toss-up. In WV and KY they dump trash into creek ravines. Yes, I lived there (WV).
I have been in the energy biz for 35+ years. It's quite complicated - the entire supply chain for our ways of life. But the basics are very clear - the less energy used per person generally means cleaner and/or more environmental. One may be fooled by large open spaces in some states, but that is largely a function of low population density. If I move to WY it doesn't automatically make me environmental (usually the opposite since I will have to drive more, etc.)....
And so, the states with the lowest per capita energy use, in a general sense, win this game. Another measurement would be to take energy use per capita and also figure in what their GDP is based on Energy Use.
In other words, are they efficient - do they do more with less?
This isn't even a subject worthy of debate. Just a few years back the rallying cry of the right was "don't force us to use anything other than 100 watt light bulbs". Only conservatives could think up such anti-environmental stuff. When I heard that BS repeated over and over again I thought it was fiction...but, no, it was evidence of lack of education on the subject and "we will do the opposite of what is right and stick it in your face".
I truly believe the future belongs to the efficient. True conservatives should be thankful for progressive advances such as safer and cleaner cars (Nader, CA, MA) and such. Like it or not...or appreciate it or not, you are all saving money and energy and pollution due to all of these advances (I'll bet conservatives use LED bulbs too!).
Note - one of the big movers of the needle on energy efficiency is the military. They are smart enough to know that the future belongs to the efficient. This makes it doubly strange when some conservative take a stance opposite to common sense.
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.
.
I don't follow...
