The Environment: Quit taking the party line!

[Stunt]

I read this post in the latest copy of the economist, I thought the man had some great points...and I wanted to show fiscal conservatives out there that being conservationists with regards to our fragile ecosystem is nothing to be ashamed of. Somehow over the course of our lives we have decided that environmentalist thoughts are for the left and the right has no business advocating good environmental policies. The way our world is going, the way of life we have become accustomed to is (or will be) unsustainable, admitting this rather than denying is not a left/right wing concept but simple logic. The ways we address this problem is what separates the different ideologies.

(From The Economist - July 16, pg.18)

George Bush's hot air

George Bush has explicitly acknowledged that global warming is real and human activities are contributing to the problem. That is progress of sorts, but the president is holding stubbornly to his position thta greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced without setting standards and timetables for measuring performance - a curious stance for someone with an MBA degree. His classroom work at Harvard Business School should have taught him that any enterprise must set targets if it's going to deliver anything of value. Mr. Bush should review his textbooks, then develop meaningful climate policy that sets measurable benchmarks for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.
-Jim Dipeso (Republicans for Environmental Protection)

 

[Rainsford]

I tend to agree, but I think the reason we don't see a lot of fiscal conservatives interested in the environment is that there is a tendency to equate fiscal conservatism with short term thinking in their minds. In other words, something that could make more money for them now, at the cost of destroying their ability to make money 50 years from now, is better than something that makes less money now, but is still doing so 50 years in the future. The environment is not going to help them in the short term, so why bother?

Actually, to be fair, that's only part of the reason. The other side is that most environmental groups are populated with total goobers, people who advocate solving our oil issues by "not driving" or something else that would save the environment at the cost of destroying our economy. Alternatives for people who want to intelligently approach the problem, while also realizing that we have to live in the real world, are few and far between.

 

[cwjerome]

Ridiculous Stunt. You can declare that the "environment" is not a Left or Right issue, but that won't change the fact that's there's various -often opposing- views, assumptions, ideas, solutions, and conlusions. Like a true Pragmatic, you approach an issue like this with an astounding naivete and lack of any background knowledge in the principles and concepts that guide ideological differences.

And what's even more unsettling, you have bought into the idea that environmentalist thoughts are for the Left, as if the Right doesn't care :roll: You have been socialized that way, not surprising living in Canada, but don't assume people on the Right ignore the issue or don't care. Just because a lot of nutty Leftwing kooks have co-opted the term "environmentalist" and turned it into a loaded, liberal anti-concept doesn't mean people on the Right don't care about those issues.

Checkhere for an average take on environment policy from a Right perspective.

 

[Stunt]

This is true Rainsford. It is the extremists in our society that is ripping it apart.
The environuts are not thinking about logical solutions and coming off as stupid, turning people off what they are fighting. Some of these people and organizations need to start considering if they are actually helping the cause or pushing people away.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Ridiculous Stunt. You can declare that the "environment" is not a Left or Right issue, but that won't change the fact that's there's various -often opposing- views, assumptions, ideas, solutions, and conlusions. Like a true Pragmatic, you approach an issue like this with an astounding naivete and lack of any background knowledge in the principles and concepts that guide ideological differences.

And what's even more unsettling, you have bought into the idea that environmentalist thoughts are for the Left, as if the Right doesn't care :roll: You have been socialized that way, not surprising living in Canada, but don't assume people on the Right ignore the issue or don't care. Just because a lot of nutty Leftwing kooks have co-opted the term "environmentalist" and turned it into a loaded, liberal anti-concept doesn't mean people on the Right don't care about those issues.

Checkhere for an average take on environment policy from a Right perspective.

In my experiences, fiscal conservatives do not tend to support government initiated environmental policy, maybe you are taking a more optimistic approach...but you are naive to the mainstream conservative mindset allong with it.

The environment HAS become a left and right issue, this is blatently obvious in every environmental thread on this board.

 

[cwjerome]

It IS a Left and Right issue.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
It IS a Left and Right issue.

There is no sides on the environment, who the hell votes FOR ruining the environment? Conservatives need to learn our unsustainable path and quit looking to their party for answers, Liberals need to lay off the crack pipe and think of implementable solutions, and not take us back to the stone age.

 

[cwjerome]

There are sides on the environment. This is based on deeps beliefs of Man, Nature, and Morality. Huge bodies of thought that deal with economics, politics, and metaphysics. You're taking the perspective of a philosophical newbie, snapping your fingers and judging an entire issue based on a superfical partisan snapshot of the present.

There are REAL differences in how we see things today, how we could improve, and what the ultimate goals are.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: cwjerome
It IS a Left and Right issue.

There is no sides on the environment, who the hell votes FOR ruining the environment? Conservatives need to learn our unsustainable path and quit looking to their party for answers, Liberals need to lay off the crack pipe and think of implementable solutions, and not take us back to the stone age.

:thumbsup:

 

[Zebo]

I'm leftish and never been much an envriomentalist..Burn my own trash after my fouth of July party, love two-stroke smell and generally believe you can dump nuke waste in the ocean and be just fine..

(Ha just noitced how lucky I was not to catch my dock on fire..Tommy Collins is evil)

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: cwjerome
It IS a Left and Right issue.

who the hell votes FOR ruining the environment?

Republicans do all the time because the dollar is more important than anything else.

 

[cwjerome]

Dave, Dave, Dave....

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: cwjerome
Dave, Dave, Dave....

His point is a bit blunt, but that has been the tendency in most recent history...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: cwjerome
It IS a Left and Right issue.

who the hell votes FOR ruining the environment?

Republicans do all the time because the dollar is more important than anything else.

Darn regulations. Affecting those bottom lines. People can get used to mercury.

 

[BoberFett]

Maybe if lefties like the Sierra Club would stop trying to remove nuclear power as an option...

http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/progr...sphere-energy/nuclear-free/index.shtml

http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=203

Or if you prefer, a liberal website:

http://www.commondreams.org/news2005/0622-23.htm

 

[Stunt]

Liberals against nuclear might as well be called Liberals for dirty a$$ coal

 

[Proletariat]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Liberals against nuclear might as well be called Liberals for dirty a$$ coal

Ya some of those protestors can get out of hand, but I think they have good in their hearts.

I think a lot of liberals are traumatized by America's past - genocide of Native Americans, slavery etc. and just can't deal with facing the future. They adopt this reversal strategy. It may not be the best but I don't think they are as bad as the corporate bigwigs who only care about profits.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Liberals against nuclear might as well be called Liberals for dirty a$$ coal

Now there's an intelligent comment. :roll: Your great great great grandchildren will be long gone before the waste we have now stops glowing... Unless you've been hanging around the stuff, in which case, you can forget about kids.

Word.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: cwjerome
It IS a Left and Right issue.

who the hell votes FOR ruining the environment?

Republicans do all the time because the dollar is more important than anything else.

Darn regulations. Affecting those bottom lines. People can get used to mercury.

Are the liberals willing to pay more for cleaner energy and more expensive consumer products that comes with environmental regulation? You can talk the talk, now walk the walk.

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Stunt
Liberals against nuclear might as well be called Liberals for dirty a$$ coal

Now there's an intelligent comment. :roll: Your great great great grandchildren will be long gone before the waste we have now stops glowing... Unless you've been hanging around the stuff, in which case, you can forget about kids.

Word.

So what energy source do you support? Not nuclear, not oil, not coal, not natural gas. And you aren't willing to take the cost and inefficencies of solar and wind and such?

 

[Zebo]

Hydro is the only real solution and that only works in canada, russia, and scandinavian countries who have year round powerful snow melt to drive the damns.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Stunt
Liberals against nuclear might as well be called Liberals for dirty a$$ coal

Now there's an intelligent comment. :roll: Your great great great grandchildren will be long gone before the waste we have now stops glowing... Unless you've been hanging around the stuff, in which case, you can forget about kids.

Word.

Consider the alternatives Harvey...
I'd rather a few ponds of nuclear waste than the crap coal plants spew out! I think garbage and landfills are far more reckless than the tiny volume of nuclear waste.

You love the earth, so do i. I'll tell you one thing, with nuclear, the world will look like your picture; with coal (the alternative through blocking nuclear) will not.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Hydro is the only real solution and that only works in canada, russia, and scandinavian countries who have year round powerful snow melt to drive the damns.

Only in some areas, east and west coasts are totally hydro...but ontario is largely nuclear, coal, gas and import.
We too need energy solutions, some areas of Ontario will start to have energy shortages this winter i believe.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: cwjerome
It IS a Left and Right issue.

who the hell votes FOR ruining the environment?

Republicans do all the time because the dollar is more important than anything else.

Darn regulations. Affecting those bottom lines. People can get used to mercury.

Yes those damn republicans adding smokestack mercury regulations where non existed before.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: Stunt
Liberals against nuclear might as well be called Liberals for dirty a$$ coal

Now there's an intelligent comment. :roll: Your great great great grandchildren will be long gone before the waste we have now stops glowing... Unless you've been hanging around the stuff, in which case, you can forget about kids.

Word.

Most nuclear waste is fairly cool after about 50 years. Remember the more radioactive it is, the shorter than 1/2 life.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I'd rather a few ponds of nuclear waste than the crap coal plants spew out!

I'd like to know where you get the figure of "a few pounds" and whether you have any idea how deadly "a few pounds" of nuke waste can be and how long it will stay that way.

I'd also be interested in your ideas about what it would cost to make sure it never gets loose, seeps into the soil where it can migrate into water tables or making 100% sure it never falls into the hands of a dirty bomber.

The bad news is, there isn't any one solution that solve the world's energy needs. The good news is, if we're lucky, we have time to go after viable alternatives.

That will have to include a lot more recycling than we're doing, now. Like metal cans and plastic bottles, some energy can be recycled, as well. It's as much about efficient energy usage as well as generation.

Any one technology won't be enough, but combinations of wind, solar, and other "green" technologies, along with some further out possiblities I only read about and hope for in publications like Nasa Tech Briefs and others, can make a difference.

The point is not to give up or give into the idea that we're doomed to continue consuming ourselves into oblivion. Take the clue from the OP's title:

The Environment: Quit taking the party line!