What's wrong w/ protecting the environment?

leaningright said:
That's nice. Most of the families around here drive 250-500 miles a week to go to work. I drove, as some still do, 900 miles a week to go to college the last two years. $4 gas is a killer for these folks.
Click to expand...
Oh I realize that..20 mpg @ $2 /gallon = 100 miles for maybe $10 or less?- still a budgetable cost.
but if it went back up to $4/gallon - costs would double!
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
You're lucky on the petrol lol.

$4/gallon gasoline is a budget buster for millions of working class families though. And when it's not busting the budget it causes them to not purchase that new car or what have you.

It has a dreadful ripple effect that affects the whole economy.
Click to expand...
yep..we have gotten used to cheap energy. And that's great.
What we need to do is pre-plan so if/when energy costs go back up they don't kill growth again
 
Your premise, Thing1, is too Moonbat; too pro-government. The government and the tree huggers together have spread plenty of tyranny already. Anyone who argues for the environment in this day and age is, unfortunately, a fucking lunatic dictator. Don't be a fucking lunatic dictator.

Now, what makes a shit load more sense is to rally behind something truly worthy, like the Constitution. It's been fucked with for so long that America is barely even recognizable. Bring something worthy like that to the table, and you should get a lot more support.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Certainly government departments grow, they are inefficient and they do over reach but they also provide very valuable public services. I sure as hell don't want to go back to what it was like before Nixon signed the Environmental Protection Act into Law.
Click to expand...

and why the fuck do you pretend anyone is even considering it......you say its a strawman that this issue might be politicized WHILE you politicize it....
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Certainly government departments grow, they are inefficient and they do over reach but they also provide very valuable public services. I sure as hell don't want to go back to what it was like before Nixon signed the Environmental Protection Act into Law. In fact over the years, despite the claims of the far right or business interest more concerned about their profits than the public interest, the EPA has had wide bilateral support politically and broad support by the public. It has largely been a model of what a public agency can be despite the bitching of a handful of industries that are also our nations biggest polluters. Are you advocating that we should go back to pre-seventies era of pollution?
Click to expand...

You always do this, there is not a binary choice here. The EPA should concentrate on its remit and not going looking for new responsibilities. All government agencies will do this given half a chance so that's when the pruning shears are needed.




Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
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 seriously need an education on this. Without profit, industry can't make environmental improvements.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Straw man. Any issue can be politicized and if anyone is politicizing the issue it's the coal and petroleum industries as viable alternatives are being developed and the markets are traveling away from these energy sources, particularly coal, as cleaner, more efficient, less dirty and renewable sources become available.

This is why they attack the science or anyone who threatens their vested interest and to sit here and tell me that the major oppositions to our markets moving on to new forms of energy isn't being opposed by these industries to protect their vested economic interest is a naïve fool.
Click to expand...

Funny as Hell....first you attempt to present a false premise, that being the truth that is documented via reality and testable observation is a "straw man" argument...then in the next breath you proceed to introduce a "genuine" Straw argument. The straw argument made by you? The false premise that someone is attacking science and the environment because they don't agree with your position. Priceless. LMAO

1. A straw arguement must be an argument made in retort of a position not addressed or taken by the individual presenting an argument.

2. The question was asked and answered by detailing a reality observed in recent history.

3. And the qualifying position made in the original argument was addressed very clearly....THE REASON these new green energy policies were being attacked by the fossil fuel industry....Answer: not because these producers of energy don't care about the environment but because fossil fuel is of vital importance to both the economy and defense of this nation and that reality is to important to even suggest that all forms of fossil fuel energy should be closed down entirely in order to introduce Green Energy that is exponentially more costly and less efficient at this time which indeed is a danger to the requirements of the United States Defense system.

Do you comprehend what a real Straw Man argument is? Or do you simply wish to deflect away from a truth that you can't address...like the majority of socialist air heads? :)
 
Last edited:
No one really knows when we run low on oil. Some say it will never run out; others say centuries; others say 50 years.

We use a lot of it, and there are more of us. There will be over 2 billion more of us by 2050. This is one area where waiting for "market forces" is a risky business, because our entire economy & infrastructure is built around fossil fuels. We can't transition everything in the course of a few years.
 
Thing1 said:
No one really knows when we run low on oil. Some say it will never run out; others say centuries; others say 50 years.

We use a lot of it, and there are more of us. There will be over 2 billion more of us by 2050. This is one area where waiting for "market forces" is a risky business, because our entire economy & infrastructure is built around fossil fuels. We can't transition everything in the course of a few years.
Click to expand...
By 2050, electricity will be produced from fracked gas, both 3rd and 4th gen nuclear and renewables assuming that they've cracked the storage problem by then. Oil will still be needed for pharmaceuticals, fertilisers and plastics. However most transport will run on batteries and supercapacitors so won't need oil.

Actually I was reading something the other day and it predicted that millions will lose their jobs when electric cars become mainstream as they will far fewer parts and require far less labour and support industries. An electric motor only needs around 20 components whereas an internal combustion engine needs thousands. I just thinking about all these claims for new green jobs and thinking what about all the existing jobs?

Sent from my Lenovo K52e78 using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
^interesting. progress marches onward. Electric cars are already becoming more feasible ; longer ranges /faster charging times.
And green will phase in with improvements in renewables.

Where the Dems screw up is always trying to use government to force markets to exist or decay.
Humanity ( R&D)always looks to problem-solve; but for technology to be practical it has to be cost effective too.
 
anatta said:
^interesting. progress marches onward. Electric cars are already becoming more feasible ; longer ranges /faster charging times.
And green will phase in with improvements in renewables.

Where the Dems screw up is always trying to use government to force markets to exist or decay.
Humanity ( R&D)always looks to problem-solve; but for technology to be practical it has to be cost effective too.
Click to expand...

In a nutshell.
 
Milagro said:
I was reading something the other day and it predicted that millions and will lose their jobs when electric cars become mainstream as they have far fewer parts and require far less labour and support industries.
Click to expand...
There are more parts in an electric car, as a practical matter. With the exception of changing oil, oil filters and air filters, most internal combustion engines run without adjustment or repair for 200k miles or more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top