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've apparently already done the research - care to share?
At the beginning of the Bush 2 administration many of Clinton's pro-environmental acts were negated rather quickly and unceremoniously. Clinton had pushed through things at the last minute knowing full well that Bush wouldn't approve of them so this, while not surprising, does address the Republican penchant for anti-environmentalism. The Bush 2 administration routinely played editor with scientific findings on the environment and many other issues. I'm not saying either Dem or Rep is the way to go as it would be foolish to assume the Dems haven't done the same thing on other issues. But since this is an environmental thread, it's clear whenever a Republican is in office, the environment suffers. Bush 2's Clear Sky Initiative actually increased the level of mercury allowed in the air while his Healthy Forest Act added millions of pristine acreage to the loggers' chainsaws. To the environmentalists, the names of these laws were akin to calling depleted uranium "candy". Too bad the public wasn't paying attention.
It's from spending 13 years as a Catholic. Nature is, according to the Bible, created for Man to exploit to his wishes.
It's very surprising to me that people aren't aware of Christianity's role of the planet as subservient to man. They may not preach it from the pulpit today but one can hardly say that over the last 500 years Christians didn't do everything they could to trample nature (and natives) wherever it could be found.
Let me repeat. In Oklahoma Republicans don't care much for the environment because written in their platform it says that animal waste should not be labeled as hazardous. So they believe that businesses should have the right to use as much chicken manure as they feel like. Who cares if excessive use runs off into streams and water wells while causing pollution.
Why is labeling it as hazardous the only solution? The court system should be used to handle property issues. Those that have their property damaged by pollution should seek retribution from those who have polluted their property. If you punish people for making the wrong choice, and the punishment is applied often and in reasonable amounts, it discourages the practice.
More government agencies and more regulations isn't the only answer. Think outside the box my friend...
Why is labeling it as hazardous the only solution? The court system should be used to handle property issues. Those that have their property damaged by pollution should seek retribution from those who have polluted their property. If you punish people for making the wrong choice, and the punishment is applied often and in reasonable amounts, it discourages the practice.
More government agencies and more regulations isn't the only answer. Think outside the box my friend...
Thinking outside the box? What you're encouraging is more litigation, something we surely don't need. How do you compensate a family when their kid has (oh, I don't know) a hoof growing out of his forehead because of the toxins from the plant next door? Do you expect them to wait years while it sloths through the court system? All the plant has to do is say, "Well, it ain't hazardous"...so it's not our fault. I understand your point and I agree in principle, but in the case of public health and safety, lawsuits are not going to accomplish anything quickly. In too many situations, major polluters get off with a hand slap.
I love the environment, that is a stereotype not all Democrats are baby killers.
But i belive if there is oil in alaska we can drill so i dont have to pay 4 bucks a gallon but we can do it clean and clean up are mess once we are done
I love the environment, that is a stereotype not all Democrats are baby killers.
But i belive if there is oil in alaska we can drill so i dont have to pay 4 bucks a gallon but we can do it clean and clean up are mess once we are done
Yeah! Tell you one thing, if there's oil out there to be found, China and Russia are running to go get it. And Nancy Pelosi can't tell me that either of them would be a better steward to the environment than the US.
China is drilling 50 miles off the coast of Florida right now!!
Thinking outside the box? What you're encouraging is more litigation, something we surely don't need. How do you compensate a family when their kid has (oh, I don't know) a hoof growing out of his forehead because of the toxins from the plant next door? Do you expect them to wait years while it sloths through the court system? All the plant has to do is say, "Well, it ain't hazardous"...so it's not our fault. I understand your point and I agree in principle, but in the case of public health and safety, lawsuits are not going to accomplish anything quickly. In too many situations, major polluters get off with a hand slap.
And regulations have solved the problems? There are plenty of polluters right now which are harming their neighbors and they get to hide behind current regulation which doesn't encompass all harmful substances. Sure there has been some good, but at what cost?
I don't see how litigation is a problem. The problem today lies within judgments which are made in a political manner, awarding funds well beyond reasonable. If there were consistent punishments to the wrong doers at reasonable levels it would discourage the practice. But what we have today are too few judgments. What we need to reform is the tort system.
But thanks for at least thinking outside the box. This is how the dialog should be on all issues.... debate on the best method.
I think it's a religious thing. The compassion of Christianity in most sects extends only to Homo sapiens sapiens, as other beings do not have "souls".
I think you are seriously misinformed. I'm a republican and I do care about the environment. I love anything that involves trees, plants, and animals, that's why I choose my s/n. I have even been called a "tree hugger" countless times. I think liberals look at things entirely the wrong way and are too emotional in their thoughts. Many of the hunters that you liberals hate, actually know more about the environment than you do. Did you know one of the greatest threats to the eastern US forest is deer? Deer are so overpopulated that they keep the native flora from regenerating in many areas because of intense browsing. But yet, the same people who claim to care about the environment get angry if a hunter kills a deer. Just look at all of the yacking on here about Alaskans shooting wolves. People won't even take the time to research why some things are done, they just go ahead and react to emotion. Sometimes you have to stand back and look at the whole picture, not just the parts of it that you like.
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.
