Why don't Americans care more for the environment?

[Muse]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
I am the only America in the office where I work. The issue that is #1 to them is Kyoto/the environment, and they hate the fact that Americans could care less!

So why don't we sign the Kyoto treaty? What don't Americans care at all?

Some Americans do, but unfortunately George W. Bush and his administration have this as a lower priority than enriching their backers. Enriching their backers is often at odds with environmental issues and that takes a back seat in George Bush's America.

I took a little walk outside this morning and was appalled at the litter on the street. I don't do that stuff. I don't litter, and I have to pick up stuff people drop in front of my house all the time. People who do things like that are part of the problem, period. Like a guy said on the radio station I DJ at: "You are either part of the solution or you are part of the pollution."

 

[IamElectro]

On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". Disregarding the Senate Resolution, on November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification.

The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the general idea, but because he is not happy with the details of the treaty. For example, he does not support the split between Annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:

The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Eli

Originally posted by: Amused

Actually, he's correct. Clear cutting was rampant and logging companies were not replacing trees they harvested. Because of smart logging and planting, the US has more trees and more forestland now than it did in the early part of the 20th century. Loggers realized that instead of culling, they needed to be farming.

The US is in no danger of running out of wood. Unlike what Europe and Britain did to itself over the centuries.

I was kinda thinking on a worldwide scale...

Forests are extremely complex ecosystems. When you clear cut a forest, it has been killed.

You do not simply plant a douglas fir every 8 feet and call it a forest again. Have you ever seen or been in a replanted "forest"? It is an abysmal sight, to say the least. The trees are tall and spindly. The lower branches are dead and diseased. It isn't natural... It doesen't feel like a forest. It doesen't smell like a forest.. it's bizarre.

Maybe they're getting better about replanting with more of the natural diversity of trees and plants found in a true old-growth forest, but we'll never be able to make it like it was before it was logged.

I suppose I agree with you at the core, though. I never thought we were in danger of running out of wood, it is the destruction of ecosystems that gets me. They are never the same again....... well, at least not for several thousand years. It's good that we're trying, though.

In most places they are not clear cutting and replanting farm style. They are selectively cutting and replacing with minimal impact on secondary plants and animals.

Yes, there are many places that are tree farms, but those places were already clear cut, or not supporting trees to begin with.

It would do you good to study up on the new logging techniques and not listen to the enviro-wackos who won't be happy until no trees ever are cut.

 

[brigden]

Originally posted by: kreb
...whoops..I thought this was another amusing RobCur thread..

LOL. Me too.

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: her209
Because the right has stigmatized the environmentalists as tree-hugging hippy liberals.

And you know, I still don't get it. Why is it a stigma to be called a "liberal?" Tell me. You call a person something, acting like it's a badge of disgrace, you don't even have to explain why after a while. In America, it becomes disgraceful. What's the deal? Tell me! Bush called Kerry a "flip-flopper" over and over until people believed it, true or not, it didn't matter, he was branded. What's wrong with changing? If you don't adjust and change in life you are as dead as a rock. I don't understand how they made it OK to be a "conservative," to be frank. Who did that and how? What's good about being conservative and what does that mean? To me it only means being against change, against progress, against social and economic advancement of disadvantaged people. And that would be tantamount to being instead for keeping some people rich at the expense of the exploited, which was the knock that the Democrats had on the Republicans this year, and I didn't notice the Republicans even trying to refute that.

I myself have met a lot of great people who I guess could have been called "hippies." So what? In their day, they were generally doing much more interesting things than the more conservative people. If you think that's awful, you are worse than a fool. If you don't love trees, at least sometimes, you are equally a fool. What could be more disgusting than attacking people for doing wonderful things?

 

[Eli]

Originally posted by: Amused

In most places they are not clear cutting and replanting farm style. They are selectively cutting and replacing with minimal impact on secondary plants and animals.

Yes, there are many places that are tree farms, but those places were already clear cut, or not supporting trees to begin with.

It would do you good to study up on the new logging techniques and not listen to the enviro-wackos who won't be happy until no trees ever are cut.

Yeah, you're right, I should.. It would be interesting.

Unfortunately, Oregon is surprisingly one of the places where clear cutting is OK. I wish they didn't.... It's so ugly and depressing... lol

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: Muse
What's good about being conservative and what does that mean? To me it only means being against change, against progress, against social and economic advancement of disadvantaged people.

Fair enough. But progress is a matter of opinion. After trying to fight drug usage, now pot should be legalized? After the "sexual revolution", now we need to fight all of these st-diseases and make safe sex the #1 priority in schools? After setting up a welfare system for the disadvantaged, now we need to add more beurocracy to combat welfare fraud? After building this country on religious freedom and freedom of speech, we need to penalize teachers for wearing a cross?

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Muse
What's good about being conservative and what does that mean? To me it only means being against change, against progress, against social and economic advancement of disadvantaged people.

Fair enough. But progress is a matter of opinion. After trying to fight drug usage, now pot should be legalized? After the "sexual revolution", now we need to fight all of these st-diseases and make safe sex the #1 priority in schools? After setting up a welfare system for the disadvantaged, now we need to add more beurocracy to combat welfare fraud? After building this country on religious freedom and freedom of speech, we need to penalize teachers for wearing a cross?

In my opinion pot should not be treated the same as heroin and methedrine and crack. I am in favor or legalizing marijuana. I think that the laws against it are repressive and oppressive in intent, essentially. ST diseases are part of sex, unfortunately. The sexual revolution predated the advent of AIDs. Hopefully, the epidemic can be brought under control and eradicated with the development of vaccines. Safe sex is currently necessary but it should not be sought by destroying the populace's libido. Helping the disadvantaged should extend far beyond any welfare system, and welfare fraud is disgusting. The aim should be to help the disadvantaged to escape their status and climb out of poverty and permanently, not just the bandaid of welfare. My own position on teachers wearing a cross? Hell, let them wear them. Hopefully our teachers can see beyond the shortsightedness of their personal situations, no matter what they are, including how they may happen to dress. Telling people how to dress (or not to dress, within reason) strikes me as oppressive.

 

[daniel1113]

Probably because the United States is home to the cleanest environment in the world compared to every other industrialized country.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: Muse
What's good about being conservative and what does that mean? To me it only means being against change, against progress, against social and economic advancement of disadvantaged people.

Fair enough. But progress is a matter of opinion. After trying to fight drug usage, now pot should be legalized? After the "sexual revolution", now we need to fight all of these st-diseases and make safe sex the #1 priority in schools? After setting up a welfare system for the disadvantaged, now we need to add more beurocracy to combat welfare fraud? After building this country on religious freedom and freedom of speech, we need to penalize teachers for wearing a cross?

i dunno, women no longer forced to endure widespread discrimination and allowed votes is real progress. not "opinion". blacks and civil rights.... minorities like asians finally able to vote and become citizens... interracial marriage... etc. all have been opposed by conservatives. its very real progress, and conservatives have always been defenders of the oppressors.

as for your quibbles, they are only quibbles. lets see, jim crow vs welfare fraud? lol as for teachers wearing crosses, thats fine, they just cant lead the class in prayer and std's? freedom sometimes comes with risks, but its better to be free then live in a padded room all your life.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i dunno, women no longer forced to endure widespread discrimination and allowed votes is real progress. not "opinion". blacks and civil rights.... minorities like asians finally able to vote and become citizens... interracial marriage... etc. all have been opposed by conservatives. its very real progress, and conservatives have always been defenders of the oppressors.

Give me some solid evidence of that. Show me some real history that can contribute those freedoms to the democratic party. The current democratic party is using the minority vote to keep themselves in power, but they're not helping them in the slightest.

The Democratic Party and Race

 

[Muse]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
i dunno, women no longer forced to endure widespread discrimination and allowed votes is real progress. not "opinion". blacks and civil rights.... minorities like asians finally able to vote and become citizens... interracial marriage... etc. all have been opposed by conservatives. its very real progress, and conservatives have always been defenders of the oppressors.

Give me some solid evidence of that. Show me some real history that can contribute those freedoms to the democratic party. The current democratic party is using the minority vote to keep themselves in power, but they're not helping them in the slightest.

The Democratic Party and Race

Blacks voted 90% for Gore, don't know the figures for Kerry, but they are overwhelmingly high as well, I'm sure. Blacks will tell you that the Democrats do court them when it's election time very especially, but they know that they are still better off voting for Democrats than Republicans.

SagaLore: Your link strikes me as trite invective, no more.

 

[0roo0roo]

and i dont know what planet he lives on. what reason did he think the democrats lost the south anyways? perhaps civil rights? hell even today we have repubs who wish for the era of jim crow. remember when trent lott(a certain prominant republican senator) said america would have been better off if strom thurmond had been president? the man who screamed "And I want to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there?s not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the n1gger race into our theatres, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches.?" when facing integration?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
and i dont know what planet he lives on. what reason did he think the democrats lost the south anyways? perhaps civil rights? hell even today we have repubs who wish for the era of jim crow. remember when trent lott(a certain prominant republican senator) said america would have been better off if strom thurmond had been president? the man who screamed "And I want to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there?s not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the n1gger race into our theatres, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches.?" when facing integration?

You're forgetting about the Dixiecrats.

In fact, it was Southern Democrats that opposed intergration. Not Republicans.

Let's look at two of the biggest names in the fight against civil rights, shall we?

George Wallace was a Democrat until he split off in 68 to run for president

Orval Eugene Faubus.

Oh, and when Strom said and did those things, guess what party he was part of? That's right. Democrat.

Don't drop that crap at the door of Republicans. They had nothing to do with it.

 

[Amused]

At any rate, social progression is fine. Socialism is not. You do not achieve economic freedom and legal equality by taking it away from others.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
and i dont know what planet he lives on. what reason did he think the democrats lost the south anyways? perhaps civil rights? hell even today we have repubs who wish for the era of jim crow. remember when trent lott(a certain prominant republican senator) said america would have been better off if strom thurmond had been president? the man who screamed "And I want to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there?s not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the n1gger race into our theatres, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches.?" when facing integration?

You're forgetting about the Dixiecrats.

In fact, it was Southern Democrats that opposed intergration. Not Republicans.

Let's look at two of the biggest names in the fight against civil rights, shall we?

George Wallace was a Democrat until he split off in 68 to run for president

Orval Eugene Faubus.

Oh, and when Strom said and did those things, guess what party he was part of? That's right. Democrat.

Don't drop that crap at the door of Republicans. They had nothing to do with it.

thats amusing indeed. do you remember what happened to the dixiecrats? yes, they left the democrats because of civil rights and became republicans nothing to be proud of at all.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
and i dont know what planet he lives on. what reason did he think the democrats lost the south anyways? perhaps civil rights? hell even today we have repubs who wish for the era of jim crow. remember when trent lott(a certain prominant republican senator) said america would have been better off if strom thurmond had been president? the man who screamed "And I want to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there?s not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the n1gger race into our theatres, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches.?" when facing integration?

You're forgetting about the Dixiecrats.

In fact, it was Southern Democrats that opposed intergration. Not Republicans.

Let's look at two of the biggest names in the fight against civil rights, shall we?

George Wallace was a Democrat until he split off in 68 to run for president

Orval Eugene Faubus.

Oh, and when Strom said and did those things, guess what party he was part of? That's right. Democrat.

Don't drop that crap at the door of Republicans. They had nothing to do with it.

thats amusing indeed. do you remember what happened to the dixiecrats? yes, they left the democrats because of civil rights and became republicans nothing to be proud of at all.

One person, Strom Thurmond, became a Republican. Hardly sounds like a Republican civil rights conspiracy. Interesting to note that traditionally it seems that it is the Republicans putting non-white and female people in greater positions of power.

Go go go warping the facts.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
and i dont know what planet he lives on. what reason did he think the democrats lost the south anyways? perhaps civil rights? hell even today we have repubs who wish for the era of jim crow. remember when trent lott(a certain prominant republican senator) said america would have been better off if strom thurmond had been president? the man who screamed "And I want to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there?s not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the n1gger race into our theatres, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches.?" when facing integration?

You're forgetting about the Dixiecrats.

In fact, it was Southern Democrats that opposed intergration. Not Republicans.

Let's look at two of the biggest names in the fight against civil rights, shall we?

George Wallace was a Democrat until he split off in 68 to run for president

Orval Eugene Faubus.

Oh, and when Strom said and did those things, guess what party he was part of? That's right. Democrat.

Don't drop that crap at the door of Republicans. They had nothing to do with it.

thats amusing indeed. do you remember what happened to the dixiecrats? yes, they left the democrats because of civil rights and became republicans nothing to be proud of at all.

Actually, most accepted intergration and civil rights. The very recent change in the South to Republican majority came about because of disgreements over socialism and values. Carter's failed presidency had a lot to do with that change.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Babbles

One person, Strom Thurmond, became a Republican. Hardly sounds like a Republican civil rights conspiracy. Interesting to note that traditionally it seems that it is the Republicans putting non-white and female people in greater positions of power.

Go go go warping the facts.

Also, by the time Strom switched to Republican he had changed his tune on racism and integration. He became one of the most racially progressive politicians in the South.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
and i dont know what planet he lives on. what reason did he think the democrats lost the south anyways? perhaps civil rights? hell even today we have repubs who wish for the era of jim crow. remember when trent lott(a certain prominant republican senator) said america would have been better off if strom thurmond had been president? the man who screamed "And I want to tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there?s not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the n1gger race into our theatres, into our swimming pools, into our homes and into our churches.?" when facing integration?

You're forgetting about the Dixiecrats.

In fact, it was Southern Democrats that opposed intergration. Not Republicans.

Let's look at two of the biggest names in the fight against civil rights, shall we?

George Wallace was a Democrat until he split off in 68 to run for president

Orval Eugene Faubus.

Oh, and when Strom said and did those things, guess what party he was part of? That's right. Democrat.

Don't drop that crap at the door of Republicans. They had nothing to do with it.

thats amusing indeed. do you remember what happened to the dixiecrats? yes, they left the democrats because of civil rights and became republicans nothing to be proud of at all.

Actually, most accepted intergration and civil rights. The very recent change in the South to Republican majority came about because of disgreements over socialism and values. Carter's failed presidency had a lot to do with that change.

your kidding, the dixiecrat defection to the republican party was pivotal to nixons southern strategy and the rise of the republicans in the south. it is not disputed.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo


your kidding, the dixiecrat defection to the republican party was pivotal to nixons southern strategy and the rise of the republicans in the south. it is not disputed.

Well, even if you go with that, civil rights was long over by then. The meat of the civil riights struggle was the late fifties to the mid-late 60s.

Nixon took office in '69.

I guess the democrats were reacting a little late, huh?

And Democrat was the majority party in the South until the late 70s. Check your numbers.