Republicans And The Environment

[Anomaly]

Republics are not bad for the environment. There are just a lot of them that don't see taking care of it as a priority. There are of course democrats who tell people they're all about the environment and then once they're elected they do nothing. This isn't a thread about how democrats are better in any way. But a lot of democrats do genuinely care about the environment, whereas a lot of republicans don't, and I was simply wondering why this was.

FP, it may be more enlightening for you to look into what specific instances you can use to show where Republicans don't care about the environment. For the most part, people are just sharing stereotypes.
No reasonable person wants to make themselves or others sick. Nor is it reasonable that others think we should live as simple primitive hunter - gatherers with no impact on the ecology.
For example, does being against the immediate closing all coal fired electric generation for environmental reasons mean one doesn't care about air pollution and you hate people? Edited January 14, 2014 by Anomaly

[KnightofChrist]

Republics are not bad for the environment. There are just a lot of them that don't see taking care of it as a priority. There are of course democrats who tell people they're all about the environment and then once they're elected they do nothing. This isn't a thread about how democrats are better in any way. But a lot of democrats do genuinely care about the environment, whereas a lot of republicans don't, and I was simply wondering why this was.

 

Of course you are free to hold that opinion(s). But how much of is is based on factual data, or empirical evidence of some kind, and how much is based on feeling, and hearsay?

 

My feelings on the matter would be that I don't believe Democrats actually genuinely care about the environment as much as they lead others to believe, they pretend for the sake of votes, I think Republicans do the same for their interest and voters. Most of the time both parties seem just as willing to be bought by Corporations that harm the environment as the other. I also strongly feel that since Democrats so strongly support the mass-murder of children, that they cannot be really concerned with the environment. Most of the babies bodies are burnt in mass, which cannot be good for the environment.

[CrossCuT]

My feelings on the matter would be that I don't believe Democrats actually genuinely care about the environment as much as they lead others to believe, they pretend for the sake of votes, I think Republicans do the same for their interest and voters. 

I think you are very correct here. Although Id go a little further and say that most politicians dont genuinely care about anything besides their pay checks.

[KnightofChrist]

I think you are very correct here. Although Id go a little further and say that most politicians dont genuinely care about anything besides their pay checks.

 

Vanity of vanities, said Ecclesiastes vanity of vanities, and all is vanity.
 

[CrossCuT]

There are great companies and organizations (like NASA) who DO actually care about innovation and what not however their budgets were slashed. :( 

 

Sad panda.

[NotreDame]

The point of all the marxism points is this...

 

In the context of the viewpoint that "we need to rein in companies because they pollute the environment", that is to some extent true in certain cases where there are poor laws or poorly enforced laws.  Yet if we take that statement to the extreme and get rid of all companies, the result has always been ecological disaster. 

 

We can see from this that there is more to it than just the reining in of companies and increasing gov't control and regulation.  Clearly the issue (like most economic issues) is not always intuitive or linear.   Showcasing the ecological disasters in marxist countries is simply a way to make that point, by going all the way in one direction on the X-axis.

 

Someone might see individuals opposing a certain policy and say "they don't care about the environment", but the assumption is that said policy is actually good for the environment, but those opposing that viewpoint may indeed think the policy bad for the environment. 

 

It's important to take each issue in a case by case basis and evaluate it objectively without accusing people on one side of an issue of "not caring about the environment."

Edited January 14, 2014 by NotreDame

[dells_of_bittersweet]

The point of all the marxism points is this...

 

In the context of the viewpoint that "we need to rein in companies because they pollute the environment", that is to some extent true in certain cases where there are poor laws or poorly enforced laws.  Yet if we take that statement to the extreme and get rid of all companies, the result has always been ecological disaster. 

 

We can see from this that there is more to it than just the reining in of companies and increasing gov't control and regulation.  Clearly the issue (like most economic issues) is not always intuitive or linear.   Showcasing the ecological disasters in marxist countries is simply a way to make that point, by going all the way in one direction on the X-axis.

 

Someone might see individuals opposing a certain policy and say "they don't care about the environment", but the assumption is that said policy is actually good for the environment, but those opposing that viewpoint may indeed think the policy bad for the environment. 

 

It's important to take each issue in a case by case basis and evaluate it objectively without accusing people on one side of an issue of "not caring about the environment."

 

I object to the use of the word I bolded in your response. We don't live in a binary world where you are either a free market-ist or a marxist. No one on this thread has advocated any form of marxism. There are however legitimate stances that stand between absolute unrestrained capitalism and marxism and trying to paint everyone into one of these two extreme camps is a logical fallacy. 

 

You sound like Rush Limbaugh when he called Pope Francis a marxist. Supporting restraint on corporate greed is not marxist or socialist per se. Do you doubt that corporate greed exists? Do you deny that corporations would take advantage of both people and the environment without a government to protect us from such extremes?

[Socrates]

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).

 

Know I'm a Johnny-come-lately and I haven't read the entire thread, so pardon me if some of this is redundant.

 

American conservatives (which is not the same thing as the Republican Party) favor economic and individual freedom, property rights, and limited constitutional government, and oppose the needless expansion of the federal leviathon state.

 

The reality is that much of environmentalist legislation does little more than expand the power of the federal government over the lives and freedom of citizens (including granting expansive powers to unelected government bodies such as the EPA, found nowhere in the Constitution.)

 

While I don't have time to go into detail here, I don't think there compelling evidence that man-made global warming will create a secular apocalypse, nor will most existing and proposed environmentalist measures do anything real to actually change the climate.

 

Punitive taxes on energy companies will simply cause them to pass on the cost to consumers - so it won't be the rich Evil Oil Barons that will be hurting, but the "little guy" struggling to pay for his gas and winter fuel bills.

EPA and state environmental regulations hurt farmers, particularly in liberal (socialistic) states like California.

The government forcing the closing of coal mines, and restricting other mining means lots of mine workers losing jobs and fewer high-paying energy jobs and more unemployment and poverty.

Increasing environmental restrictions and penalties on businesses will simply increase the movement of production (and jobs) to China and other places with few environmental restrictions, actually increasing net global pollution.

 

Many environmental measures are little more than thinly disguised crony capitalism, with the government channeling tax dollars to subsidize favored corporations it deems "green," and wastes tax dollars on unproductive or outright fraudulent business.

For instance, government subsidization of ethanol production actually increased net production of CO2 used in the production process, and wasted land.  It was nothing more than government subsidies for corn farmers.

 

 

To have any meaningful debate or discussion of environmental issues, you need to actually discuss the pros and cons of specific environmental legislation or programs, rather than engage in vague sloganeering like "Republicans are against the environment."

 

Asking "Why are Republicans (or conservatives) against the environment?" is a loaded question, and begs the question.

I don't know of a single person (Republican, conservative, or otherwise) who claims to be against "the environment."

It's kind of equivalent to asking, "Why are pro-lifers against choice?"

[Socrates]

Although I do think its becoming less of a problem. We just need to redirect money into research and technology that will bring us new innovative ideas for reducing our dependence on oil etc. And even if there isnt a 100% fix, there will be lots of small fixes that can add up over time. Not only that but discovery and exploration are amesome AND FUN!!! New things are not bad and scary.

 

Or Maybe the government should stop taking other people's money and redirecting it to those corporations it favors.

 

Research and innovation somehow have done just fine before massive government spending and subsidies of favored businesses.

 

A truly viable alternative energy source will not need government subsidies to be successful.  The fact that a business needs government subsidies shows that it is not working, and thus a waste of (other people's) money.

[Socrates]

There are great companies and organizations (like NASA) who DO actually care about innovation and what not however their budgets were slashed. :(

 

Sad panda.

 

Speaking of NASA, here's a cool blog from Dr. Roy Spencer, a climatologist and former NASA scientist, which Apotheoun recently shared with me:  

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

[Nihil Obstat]

Or Maybe the government should stop taking other people's money and redirecting it to those corporations it favors.

Research and innovation somehow have done just fine before massive government spending and subsidies of favored businesses.

A truly viable alternative energy source will not need government subsidies to be successful. The fact that a business needs government subsidies shows that it is not working, and thus a waste of (other people's) money.

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.

[4588686]

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.

 

 

It's not going to be an undistorted market unless negative externalities are integrated into the price.

[Nihil Obstat]

It's not going to be an undistorted market unless negative externalities are integrated into the price.

I felt that was implied.

[4588686]

I felt that was implied.

 

Well, and this is something I'd like to hear your thoughts on, outside of government intervention how would negative externalities become accounted for?

[Nihil Obstat]

Without going into detail I think that common law is typically sufficient, and also typically superior to government intervention.