What's wrong w/ protecting the environment?

C

Cancel 2020.1

Canceled
I don't really understand why this is a negative for conservatives.

And it is - Trump was talking about appointing this guy to the EPA, who wants to get rid of the EPA and deregulate, and then added that they will still ensure clean air & clean water.

Sorry, but you can't have one without the other. If no one has been paying attention, the environment is LOSING - even with all of those onerous regulations. Set aside climate change, which I think is impossible to prove either way. We have 7,000 miles of "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico, where nothing can live. We have huge loss of habitat. We have coral reefs disappearing, poisoned waterways, cities with 'breathable air' indexes and an oceanic food supply that is on the brink.

And we've done this in just 200 years. After hundreds of thousands of years of human life on the planet, and within 200 years we have portions of the planet in dire crisis.

What is wrong with promoting alternatives? Do conservatives understand that a robust alternative energy program domestically means jobs? Do they get that it is good for our national security? I know some do - but most do not.

And we can drill, baby, drill at the same time...but it is well past time that we learned to live symbiotically with our planet, instead of just draining its resources wantonly & without regard to future generations. We only get one of these earths. The debate on environment has become too ideological. It should be something we can all rally behind.
 
Trump was talking about appointing this guy to the EPA, who wants to get rid of the EPA and deregulate, and then added that they will still ensure clean air & clean water.
Click to expand...
where did you come up with this idea?? He wants to roll back excessive/non-competative regs.
 
This is what happens when almost half the country routinely votes for the benefit of none but the superwealthy.

Babies are born conservative, being liberal must be learned.
Stupid fuckers all believe that conservatism is about fiscal conservation. It isn't.
It is about conserving the status quo, the oligarchy (truly an Aristocracy if one checks the genetics even vaguely).
 
Nothing wrong with it until you start calling mud puddles wetlands, co2 pollution and open up timberland for foreign exploitation.
Then you have ceased to be interested in conservation.
 
Thing1 said:
That's called deregulating.
Click to expand...
yes it is -it's not called "getting rid of the EPA". WOTUS is a travesty against federalism,and economic growth.
When the feds start regulating pond water -no matter if it it's part of headwaters ( and ever water source is connected)-
you know the agency is out of control.

same thing with Ozone -trying to drive it into levels lower then even naturally occuring ozone on summer days
 
anatta said:
yes it is -it's not called "getting rid of the EPA". WOTUS is a travesty against federalism,and economic growth.
When the feds start regulating pond water -no matter if it it's part of headwaters ( and ever water source is connected)-
you know the agency is out of control.

same thing with Ozone -trying to drive it into levels lower then even naturally occuring ozone on summer days
Click to expand...

Can you even read idiot?
Trump's pick to run the EPA wants to end the EPA and you clearly know dangerously little about ozone.
Best if you just shutup about now.
 
The problem is that government agencies have gone all in with respect to CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming). The climate models are too simplistic and treat the earth as a flat plane instead of a spheroid and ignore cloud influence and the factors such as sunspots and the cosmic rays that are modulated by said sunspots and are influential in cloud formation. The government agencies have ignored criticism of the climate science and they try to silence skeptical viewpoints by declaring dissent to be denial of science. They resort to name calling instead of addressing the scientific points and continue to peddle the narrative that anthropogenic CO2 will cause a catastrophe.

What you are conflating is people with the desire to end the scientific bias with some imaginary evil collective that wants to cause all the streams to die and the air to be filled with thick black smoke. OK, I am being a bit hyperbolic, but you you do seem to be saying there are anti-environmentalists who want to cause pollution. I think that from an environmental viewpoint any emissions can be seen as pollution. But seeing CO2 as pollution is weak science. We know from stomatal density studies that plants operate more efficiently and use water more effectively when CO2 levels are greater than the levels we are at now. Plants adapt by reducing the the density of their stomata when there is abundant CO2 and increasing the density when in a CO2 starved environment like we have now.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1995.tb03067.x/abstract

Climate alarmism has ruined science as we used to know it. When confirmation bias became the MO for climate scientists they destroyed the credibility. We saw it in the emails that were released back some years ago where we saw discussions about hiding the decline (in correlation of tree ring density with CO2 concentration after the 1960's) and Mike's Nature trick (Mann's graph for a Nature article spliced actual temp data after the 1960's because the proxy-derived temps from the tree ring studies did not show the spike in temps. The proxy temp data is inferred by the density and width of rings. Recent tree rings do not return the known high temps we have in the record when the same scientific process is used to derive proxy temps. This is referred to as the divergence problem)
 
Rune said:
Can you even read idiot?
Trump's pick to run the EPA wants to end the EPA and you clearly know dangerously little about ozone.
Best if you just shutup about now.
Click to expand...
find a quote Pruitt wants to "end the EPA"..:palm:

I understand ozone,and I understand it's naturally occuring, but aggravated by smog.
It's when the EPA calls for parts per billion in the mid 70's is where it becomes economically disadvantaged vs. returns.
 
Thing1 said:
I don't really understand why this is a negative for conservatives.

And it is - Trump was talking about appointing this guy to the EPA, who wants to get rid of the EPA and deregulate, and then added that they will still ensure clean air & clean water.

Sorry, but you can't have one without the other. If no one has been paying attention, the environment is LOSING - even with all of those onerous regulations. Set aside climate change, which I think is impossible to prove either way. We have 7,000 miles of "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico, where nothing can live. We have huge loss of habitat. We have coral reefs disappearing, poisoned waterways, cities with 'breathable air' indexes and an oceanic food supply that is on the brink.

And we've done this in just 200 years. After hundreds of thousands of years of human life on the planet, and within 200 years we have portions of the planet in dire crisis.

What is wrong with promoting alternatives? Do conservatives understand that a robust alternative energy program domestically means jobs? Do they get that it is good for our national security? I know some do - but most do not.

And we can drill, baby, drill at the same time...but it is well past time that we learned to live symbiotically with our planet, instead of just draining its resources wantonly & without regard to future generations. We only get one of these earths. The debate on environment has become too ideological. It should be something we can all rally behind.
Click to expand...
You don't get it. It's because they have a religious devotion to private property. Theirs that is. Your property, public or private is meaningless to them as is your life and well being of pretty much everyone else.

Actually that's rather unfair of me as environmental enforcement has had bilateral support since a Republican President singned the Environmental Protection Act into law. It's pathological right wing ideologues who don't get it.
 
tinfoil said:
The problem is that government agencies have gone all in with respect to CAGW (catastrophic anthropogenic global warming). The climate models are too simplistic and treat the earth as a flat plane instead of a spheroid and ignore cloud influence and the factors such as sunspots and the cosmic rays that are modulated by said sunspots and are influential in cloud formation. The government agencies have ignored criticism of the climate science and they try to silence skeptical viewpoints by declaring dissent to be denial of science. They resort to name calling instead of addressing the scientific points and continue to peddle the narrative that anthropogenic CO2 will cause a catastrophe.

What you are conflating is people with the desire to end the scientific bias with some imaginary evil collective that wants to cause all the streams to die and the air to be filled with thick black smoke. OK, I am being a bit hyperbolic, but you you do seem to be saying there are anti-environmentalists who want to cause pollution. I think that from an environmental viewpoint any emissions can be seen as pollution. But seeing CO2 as pollution is weak science. We know from stomatal density studies that plants operate more efficiently and use water more effectively when CO2 levels are greater than the levels we are at now. Plants adapt by reducing the the density of their stomata when there is abundant CO2 and increasing the density when in a CO2 starved environment like we have now.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1995.tb03067.x/abstract

Climate alarmism has ruined science as we used to know it. When confirmation bias became the MO for climate scientists they destroyed the credibility. We saw it in the emails that were released back some years ago where we saw discussions about hiding the decline (in correlation of tree ring density with CO2 concentration after the 1960's) and Mike's Nature trick (Mann's graph for a Nature article spliced actual temp data after the 1960's because the proxy-derived temps from the tree ring studies did not show the spike in temps. The proxy temp data is inferred by the density and width of rings. Recent tree rings do not return the known high temps we have in the record when the same scientific process is used to derive proxy temps. This is referred to as the divergence problem)
Click to expand...

I hate the AGW debate - it has made the whole thing much more ideological than it needs to be, and has undermined efforts at just simply protecting our environment.

I wish people wouldn't focus on it. The worst part about it is that even if it could be 100% proven that man's activities are a significant factor, there is literally nothing we could do about it. The whole world could go cold turkey on emissions today, and it would be centuries - perhaps over 1,000 years - before there was any discernible difference in the atmosphere.

People should just get back to common sense discussion of preserving clean air, clean water & habitat.
 
Thing1 said:
I don't really understand why this is a negative for conservatives.

And it is - Trump was talking about appointing this guy to the EPA, who wants to get rid of the EPA and deregulate, and then added that they will still ensure clean air & clean water.

Sorry, but you can't have one without the other. If no one has been paying attention, the environment is LOSING - even with all of those onerous regulations. Set aside climate change, which I think is impossible to prove either way. We have 7,000 miles of "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico, where nothing can live. We have huge loss of habitat. We have coral reefs disappearing, poisoned waterways, cities with 'breathable air' indexes and an oceanic food supply that is on the brink.

And we've done this in just 200 years. After hundreds of thousands of years of human life on the planet, and within 200 years we have portions of the planet in dire crisis.

What is wrong with promoting alternatives? Do conservatives understand that a robust alternative energy program domestically means jobs? Do they get that it is good for our national security? I know some do - but most do not.

And we can drill, baby, drill at the same time...but it is well past time that we learned to live symbiotically with our planet, instead of just draining its resources wantonly & without regard to future generations. We only get one of these earths. The debate on environment has become too ideological. It should be something we can all rally behind.
Click to expand...

Nobody is against a clean environment you hysterical twat

We don't need the EPA.

You act as if we will run out of resources. They are renewable. Tell me again about "peak oil"

Is it Hysteria Sunday in JPP today?
 
Death Watch said:
Nobody is against a clean environment you hysterical twat

We don't need the EPA.

You act as if we will run out of resources. They are renewable. Tell me again about "peak oil"

Is it Hysteria Sunday in JPP today?
Click to expand...

I'm sure everyone WANTS a clean environment. Only some are actually interested in doing something about that.

Fossil fuels are a finite resource. Sorry.
 
Thing1 said:
I don't really understand why this is a negative for conservatives.
Click to expand...

what a silly conclusion.....where did you come up with such a silly idea.....simply because they weren't stupid enough to fall for your anthropomorphic global warming propaganda?.......
 
anatta said:
where did you come up with this idea?? He wants to roll back excessive/non-competative regs.
Click to expand...
You're wrong. Pruitt wants to end EPA's enforcement powers and return those to the States. That would not only have the net affect of ending EPA it would end environmental protections all together.

The point being is that hiring someone who is inimical to that agencies very existence pretty much guarantees you will not see competent governing from that agency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top