Republicans And The Environment

[add]

Isn't it possible that part of the reason we are in this mess is partly because of all the industrialization a hundred years ago? The earth is very large, so it doesn't get destroyed or disrupted within a day; it takes time for things to take their full effect.

 

even if that were true one hundred years ago or today, and i don't believe it is, how is it the fault of republicans?

 

what would you have society do, give up trains , planes, and automobiles, computers, cell phones, indoor plumbing, air conditioning, heated buildings, modern farming (as we know it) and all the other  evil conveniences of technology? 

 

would that be an improvement somehow?

[4588686]

even if that were true one hundred years ago or today, and i don't believe it is, how is it the fault of republicans?

 

what would you have society do, give up trains , planes, and automobiles, computers, cell phones, indoor plumbing, air conditioning, heated buildings, modern farming (as we know it) and all the other  evil conveniences of technology? 

 

would that be an improvement somehow?

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/its-not-too-late-to-reverse-the-alarming-trend-of,34896/

 

GENEVA—With the implementation of tighter carbon emissions caps and more responsible household energy use, it is not too late to reverse the dire course of global warming, a panel of scientists who know full well that it is far too late and we are all doomed told reporters today. “If we all do our part right now to design and enforce more responsible business and environmental practices, there’s still a good chance we can avoid the calamitous consequences of worldwide climate change,” said climatologist Dr. Kevin Little, a man who, deep in his heart, knows all too acutely that it’s over, there’s not a damned thing we can do, and so we might as well just start preparing now for what is certain to be the unprecedented destruction of human civilization at the hands of a ravaged ecosystem. “It will take massive investment and cooperation on a global scale, but I’m optimistic we can be in good shape by around 2030 or so.” The researchers who awake each morning with the grim realization that they are bearing witness to mankind’s sad, inevitable endgame also suggested there is still very much a chance of stabilizing the rapid loss of Arctic sea ice.

[4588686]

Here is what I don't get...  The post was measured at best, muddled at worst, so how is it possible to get offended by it?  

 

You have people on this thread that don't understand what analogies or metaphors are, others that are getting offended by posts that they obviously haven't read.    If you can't have a conversation, then it just devolves into one-liners and zingers and is no better than any other place on the internet.  

 

Now this is all just for your amusement, please don't get offended:

 

 

 

Right.  Well, if Time magazine wrote an article contradicting an earlier article that they wrote in the 70s then that must mean that the global scientific community is wrong this time.  Because Time Magazine lolz hahahhahahaha pwnd checkmate, atheists

[Socrates]

Predicated, of course, on the assumption that we also need to stop subsidizing current conventional energy sources so that we can finally start from an undistorted market for energy.

 

Exactly.

[dells_of_bittersweet]

Dells, take a chill pill and actually READ MY POST before you get offended and reply.  I'm not going to walk you through everything, because I'm tired, in a hotel, in the middle of nowhere, but let's start with your following question:

 

"Do you deny that corporations would take advantage of both people and the environment without a government to protect us from such extremes?" 

 

Can you read from my post where I said the following? 

 

 

What do you think that means?  Do you think you have the answer to your question from that?  It's pretty clear that you do. 

 

Now maybe you can re-read the rest of the post see that I'm not saying what you think I am saying. 

 

What then are you calling marxism? I think it is grossly unfair to label criticism of the Republican party, even unfair criticism, as marxism. No one on this thread has openly advocated for any form of marxism or socialism. We are not in a binary world where you are either a libertarian or a marxist. Please don't paint other members of phatmass into intellectual camps to which they do not belong. 

[NotreDame]

What then are you calling marxism? I think it is grossly unfair to label criticism of the Republican party, even unfair criticism, as marxism. No one on this thread has openly advocated for any form of marxism or socialism. We are not in a binary world where you are either a libertarian or a marxist. Please don't paint other members of phatmass into intellectual camps to which they do not belong. 

 

What then are you calling marxism >>>  I'd be onboard with the wikipedia definition. 

 

I think it is grossly unfair to label criticism of the Republican party, even unfair criticism, as marxism. >>>  Never did that.

 

We are not in a binary world where you are either a libertarian or a marxist >>>  Not binary, more of a linear continuuum which applies in some cases, but not in all

 

Please don't paint other members of phatmass into intellectual camps to which they do not belong. >>>  Never my intent.

[PhuturePriest]

What then are you calling marxism >>> I'd be onboard with the wikipedia definition.

I think it is grossly unfair to label criticism of the Republican party, even unfair criticism, as marxism. >>> Never did that.

We are not in a binary world where you are either a libertarian or a marxist >>> Not binary, more of a linear continuuum which applies in some cases, but not in all

Please don't paint other members of phatmass into intellectual camps to which they do not belong. >>> Never my intent.

The environment and political labels aside, I like having you around the phorum, and I hope you weren't offended at any time and that no one crossed any lines.

[NotreDame]

The environment and political labels aside, I like having you around the phorum, and I hope you weren't offended at any time and that no one crossed any lines.

 

Awwwww.. That's really sweet FP.  Dont' think I've been avoiding anyone here.  I've just been interviewing and drinking heavily (in that order.)  Apparently I wasn't cocky enough today (I know, huh?) so I get another shot at it tomorrow.  I plan to bring the hammer down and close the deal.  We'll see.

[CrossCuT]

Here is what I don't get...  The post was measured at best, muddled at worst, so how is it possible to get offended by it?  

 

You have people on this thread that don't understand what analogies or metaphors are, others that are getting offended by posts that they obviously haven't read.    If you can't have a conversation, then it just devolves into one-liners and zingers and is no better than any other place on the internet.  

 

Now this is all just for your amusement, please don't get offended:

 

 

You should watch the video I posted.

 

Global Climate change simply means that climates with change. Ice will melt in some places, ice will form in some places, rain will stop in some places, rain will happen more frequently in others.

 

The warming part simply refers to the GLOBE in general although local temperatures can do whatever they want. You wont even be able to NOTICE a global temperature increase on a local scale. So you cant take your own personal observation of your immediate surroundings as evidence.

 

Also, the best thing about Science is that it is impartial and changes as new evidence is found. What they thought in 1977 may not be what they think in 2006 and they will FULLY say "Hey based on what we knew then we know NOW that it was incorrect. Here is our new understanding based on new evidence brought about by better inquiry and technology."

 

At one point in time they used to think that you could drain the an illness out of someone by draining their blood. Notice how they dont do that anymore....

[fides' Jack]

Why are so many republicans against the environment, and favor industrialization and destruction of ecosystems, and make fun of people who take a moral objection to that? I'm conservative economically, but I am adamantly pro-environment and pro-conservation. People don't consider me a real conservative and think I'm a liberal hippie because I don't favor killing ecosystems for money and believe in climate change (Climate change doesn't mean it's going to get super hot, which is why the polar vortex (something that happens all the time every single year) doesn't disprove it in the slightest).

 

Republican and conservative do not always go hand-in-hand.  But I think in general this specific case is becoming more and more rare.

 

I'm all for protecting the environment, but not at the cost of knowledge or intelligence. 

 

 

I love how people say "Alaska has the resources to power America for over 200 years!" Yes, it does. But don't they realize how adversely it would affect the environment if we took all of its resources?

 

Do you know how adversely it would affect the environment if we took all its resources?  I don't know if you're thinking about what would happen if we used all its resources, which is a different matter.  But in that case, it wouldn't make a difference.  We would simply be using our own resources instead of another country's - which is far better economically, and no worse environmentally.

 

 

I'm not trolling, it's a fact. I've never met or seen a republican who supports the environment and conservation efforts. I'm not saying they aren't out there, but everyone in the media who is a republican makes fun of conservationists and environmentalists.

 

Hi, I'm Jack.  Nice to meet you.

[fides' Jack]

I would just like to point out that because one denies or is skeptical of 'Global Warming', doesn't not mean necessarily that the person is pro-pollution, or against having a clean environment. I don't know anyone that would call themselves Republican or identify with any similar group who is pro-pollution, or against having a clean environment.

 

This, exactly.

[cartermia]

I just want to say if we started putting up windmills around the country to get energy from them then Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, and other states would have hardly in energy. This is a big issue in Kentucky right now because the liberals are saying coal is bad for the environment and we should put up windmills. It just doesn't work with all of these dag-on hills and mountains every where. Maybe it would work in some parts of the country but not in all, so we do need to use what is the most abundant energy sources in certain regions.   

[PhuturePriest]

I just want to say if we started putting up windmills around the country to get energy from them then Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, and other states would have hardly in energy. This is a big issue in Kentucky right now because the liberals are saying coal is bad for the environment and we should put up windmills. It just doesn't work with all of these dag-on hills and mountains every where. Maybe it would work in some parts of the country but not in all, so we do need to use what is the most abundant energy sources in certain regions.   

 

I think it should be a gradual and steady change from coal to an alternative energy. Otherwise, if you go on as you are right now, what will you do when the coal is gone?

[cartermia]

My father's job has to do with the coal industry and trust me, we have plenty of coal, more than the 200 year oil supply in Alaska as you stated earlier. People always underestimate  the coal industry since it has been around for so long in the eastern part of the US but it is still going strong. China has started some companies that only by coal from West Virginia. Coal is good for the economy and will sustain us for a long time. 

[PhuturePriest]

My father's job has to do with the coal industry and trust me, we have plenty of coal, more than the 200 year oil supply in Alaska as you stated earlier. People always underestimate  the coal industry since it has been around for so long in the eastern part of the US but it is still going strong. China has started some companies that only by coal from West Virginia. Coal is good for the economy and will sustain us for a long time. 

 

That's wonderful. But what happens when it runs out?