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.
You need to be more specific than that. What exactly does it mean for you and me to have less environmental impact?
Do we stop driving our cars? Do we need to get smaller, hybrid cars or electric cars? Should there be a ban on SUVs? What about buses?
Cars? Sure using clean energy vehicles would be a HUGE improvement, but would take decades to phase out fossil fuel cars. So yes we should work towards that, and curb our use of oil until it's not needed. But we need to focus on things which would have immediate impact. Strict regulations on chemical and waste runoff from corporations and commercial farms, regulations on commercial fishing, phasing out/banning the sale of single use plastics.
Basically "we" try and be the best citizens we can given our societies structure, but that will have minimal impact. I understand some peoples fear of big government, but if we elect officials who TRULY represent us, it's much safer then a free market which allows sociopaths with no morals to destroy our home. So strict government regulations on corporations and commercial farming/fishing is the number 1 thing that would turn around our current path. If we pull a 180 now, who knows, maybe our grandchildren won't have to live in a total dystopia.
Science has been politicized by the Left. to deny that fact is naïve or disingenuous. unpopular voices and research are silenced, defunded, and fired from universities for unpopular views and research results.
Oh here we go again. The Left, whoever they are, are engaged in a vast global conspiracy to silence anyone who disagrees with them. Ignore facts, logical thinking and an appreciation of scientific methodology. The world is doomed and the ignorant loons and naysayers have won.
You need to be more specific than that. What exactly does it mean for you and me to have less environmental impact?
Do we stop driving our cars? Do we need to get smaller, hybrid cars or electric cars? Should there be a ban on SUVs? What about buses?
No mention of bicycles -if every car owner took a bike ride for journeys under a mile or two, that alone would have an impact on oil use and air quality.
No mention of bicycles -if every car owner took a bike ride for journeys under a mile or two, that alone would have an impact on oil use and air quality.
Ok, well I can't refute the positive of your idea, but the realism of that being controlled is little to none. I mean that would be fantastic, but it's not realistic to expect that. Currently, where I live, the closest store or business of any kind is 4 miles away, it's just not practical.
Science has been politicized by the Left. to deny that fact is naïve or disingenuous. unpopular voices and research are silenced, defunded, and fired from universities for unpopular views and research results.
Here is an example. Senator "special" Ed Markey (D-Mass).
Ok, well I can't refute the positive of your idea, but the realism of that being controlled is little to none. I mean that would be fantastic, but it's not realistic to expect that. Currently, where I live, the closest store or business of any kind is 4 miles away, it's just not practical.
People are too lazy in general, unconcerned about health and environment, and feeling time poor/stressed.
It is a serious partial solution, and a very simple one.
I live about the same distance from town and do about half of my trips by bike -not practical for work though.
It’s the right that has politicized science. The left generally accepts scientists and what their research tells us.
The right claims the absurd conspiracy view that all scientists doing research on climate change are in some global cabal to falsify results and report inaccurate conclusions.
Which is the more politically charged opinion?
Yours.
What you claim the right believes regarding climate change is silly. No one believes that. Either you're being dishonest, or you're just not listening to people on the right.
The Left are the science deniers. Above all, they deny that evolution produced important differences among human races, or populations if you prefer. They deny differences between the sexes as well.
Everyone is entitled to their own political opinion, it's a vital part of the progress of human kind. I have my opinions, you have yours. What I don't understand is why do so many people consider the environmental impact of human development to be a political issue? It's often written off by people as "leftist politics" when it's merely common sense. We all live on the planet, the better it maintains its natural course the better we fare as a species. If Republicans and Democrats both agreed on that, everything would be so much easier.
Depending on the topic, I may agree with a Republican, Democrat, or any number of third party (from libertarian to socialist). But because environmental impact is the number one threat to human kind, and all species for that matter, I have to vote for the candidate who has a strong stance on environmental impact and who has the best chance of winning with that stance. Unfortunately, this ALWAYS ends up being Democrats, which is just annoying because I rarely agree with majority of the chosen candidates stances.
If we could all just agree that preserving the integrity of our earth is of the utmost importance to every breathing, red blooded human being then I think we as humans would be better off and our political system would be better off.
this is just one example where science is rebuked as leftist politics, and this is likely the most glaringly obvious example, but there are quite a few more.
The irony is that the Republican party was once upon a time quite the environmentalists. Nixon created the EPA, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act. Teddy Roosevelt pushed a federal system of parks, forests, and monuments. Even Lincoln started the first federal land grants that helped create Yellowstone and Yosemite. Now, conservatives refuse to do what their name says... conserve.
Not true. Conservatives are more pro-environment than those on the Left. The number one environmental issue is immigration. Where do you find the opposition to that?
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.
