Earth Day: Finding Common Ground

[Birdsfan]

Okay, before this thread flies off into a battle of radical ideologies, its sole purpose is to seek some kind of compromise.

 

On one end of the spectrum, we have radical environmentalists, who want to take drastic actions to save the air, land, water and animals from what they perceive as mankind's willful abuse and destruction.

 

At the other end of the spectrum we find those that think any environmental concerns are just hogwash, made up to serve someone or some group's self-interest. They hold economic stability, energy supply, and personal freedom in high regard and see any environmental legislation or effort that infringes on them as foolish.

 

So my question is this: Can't we find some middle ground on this?

 

Can the environmentalists admit that some things aren't necessarily as bad as they make them out to be? And can they agree that some of the actions they espouse are far too radical and imprudent?

 

Can the hardcore capitalists and (for lack of a better word) right-wingers admit that we are, in fact, doing ecological harm? Can they agree that there are environmental and wildlife protection issues that need to be addressed?

 

If we all hide in our respective corners, nothing will get done. If we put on our ideological blinders, we'll never see the truth. How can we find a responsible and ethical way to be better stewards of this world that we've been given and all the creatures that share it with us?

 

Let's hear what you have to say. But please refrain from the usual attacks aimed at the other side or labeling everyone with a differing opinion as crazy radicals.

 

 

Warning: This thread has been officially designated as a "Gore Free" zone!

[cch5432]

As a hardcore capitalist, I have never denied that we do some ecological harm. I don't think that we are causing global warming, but I think there are certainly some things that we can do help the environment. But some regulations are just too much. I agree that compromise should be made.

[Hearsay]

Perhaps it would be best to start with some specific examples of what you consider "ecological harm." For instance, our very existence impacts the ecosystem we live in, the question is whether you classify the impact as negative or positive. Is all consumption negative? I am a conservationist. I lament the loss of pure wilderness land to development, for example (and not because of the so-called "evils" of development, but because I would like my children to enjoy the pristine landscapes I have enjoyed throughout my youth), but I also recognize that if I want to preserve it I need to pay for it myself. So I join in with groups like The Nature Conservancy to buy up large chunks of land to be donated to residual land trusts, like the Jackson Hole Land Trust, so the land can't be touched.

 

I also despise, with every fiber of my being, the governmental taking and regulatory management of private property through back-door pretenses, such as NHA's, and until the environmentalists back down on those there will be no commond ground.

[5wide]

I'm not sure what I think right now...for a long time I was highly, highly skeptical of all the global warming propaganda. I've seen a lot of information more recently that has caused me to seriously re-think that position. I certainly believe that the earth's climate goes in cycles of warming and cooling, but there is some serious information that suggests we are adding significantly to the problem. The opposing view could offer something to rebut those claims, but I haven't seen them yet.

 

By the time everyone is convinced we have a problem, it's probably going to be too late to do much about it. As of now, I'm more inclined to agree that we are significantly increasing the problem and approaching a point where it's going to be really difficult to do anything to fix it...

 

...and I never thought I'd find myself on this side of the argument.

[Hearsay]

I would be willing to concede that carbon dioxide emissions, as a general statement, negatively impact the atmosphere and should be scaled back if it can be done without significantly eroding world economies of scale, if the greens people will concede that human carbon dioxide emissions are not the sole cause of the change in atmospheric conditions, and that there are cyclical factors that are just as prominent.

[HHSDad]

I think the changes many environmentalists want us (the U.S.) to make are misguided. I'm all for energy efficiency, clean water and air. We're still cleaning up some problems of the past, but we're also finding better ways to clean up. I think one of the biggest problems in the U.S. is that we're such a disposable nation. Our landfills are full of wasted and little used resources.

 

I think we need to focus more on megaprojects like reforestation and irrigation of wastelands. Deforestation has done much harm to the planet and continues in Africa and South America. Rising industrial nations like China and India pour out pollution like 19th century London. The United States continues to make progress, but frankly I think the returns are limited here without doing great harm to both our economy and society. That's why I'm in favor of replanting and putting a halter on new development. I think there are lots of fixes that could and should be done and research should continue on how we can do it better. We also need to realize that some things are beyond our control.

[Hearsay]

I think the changes many environmentalists want us (the U.S.) to make are misguided. I'm all for energy efficiency, clean water and air. We're still cleaning up some problems of the past, but we're also finding better ways to clean up. I think one of the biggest problems in the U.S. is that we're such a disposable nation. Our landfills are full of wasted and little used resources.

 

I think we need to focus more on megaprojects like reforestation and irrigation of wastelands. Deforestation has done much harm to the planet and continues in Africa and South America. Rising industrial nations like China and India pour out pollution like 19th century London. The United States continues to make progress, but frankly I think the returns are limited here without doing great harm to both our economy and society. That's why I'm in favor of replanting and putting a halter on new development. I think there are lots of fixes that could and should be done and research should continue on how we can do it better. We also need to realize that some things are beyond our control.

 

Question #1: Are environmental and energy issues matters of national security, and if so, which issues?

 

Question #2: If those issues are matters of national security, and actions taken by foreign countries are impacting them and thereby impacting our national security, would we be justified in armed conflict and occupation in order to exercise control over the environmental issues?

 

Friedman would have a field day with that question.

[MoreheadEagle]

I believe that we are putting too much CO2 in the atmosphere and it is accelerating global warming. This is one of the biggest threats to the world since climate change affects so many difference facets of civilization. We're deforesting large portions of the world that would be carbon sinks and could offset C02 emissions if they were left alone. I believe we are incredibly wasteful and more people should make an effort to recycle or do without certain things. Plastic, for example, never rots and is a huge environmental problem. If we recycle plastic or do without certain types of plastics (bottled water) it can be beneficial to the planet. I think we have some catching up to do when compared to our peers in Europe when it comes to the environment. We have big business pay "scientists" to tow the company line and that frankly needs to stop.

[HT721]

I don't believe Global warming necessarily is because of CO2 emissions jury is still out on that as far as I'm concerned. However, I do feel we owe it to future generations to have some oil left and to have some trees and rain forests to enjoy. There are plenty of places I can find middle ground with environmentalist here. I still don't buy the global warming argument, but I think we owe it to future generations to not litter, not waste natural resources when we can develop new technologies to conserve resources, and the need to preserve other species on the planet to keep a balanced ecosystem.

[cch5432]

Okay, before this thread flies off into a battle of radical ideologies, its sole purpose is to seek some kind of compromise.

 

On one end of the spectrum, we have radical environmentalists, who want to take drastic actions to save the air, land, water and animals from what they perceive as mankind's willful abuse and destruction.

 

At the other end of the spectrum we find those that think any environmental concerns are just hogwash, made up to serve someone or some group's self-interest. They hold economic stability, energy supply, and personal freedom in high regard and see any environmental legislation or effort that infringes on them as foolish.

 

So my question is this: Can't we find some middle ground on this?

 

Can the environmentalists admit that some things aren't necessarily as bad as they make them out to be? And can they agree that some of the actions they espouse are far too radical and imprudent?

 

Can the hardcore capitalists and (for lack of a better word) right-wingers admit that we are, in fact, doing ecological harm? Can they agree that there are environmental and wildlife protection issues that need to be addressed?

 

If we all hide in our respective corners, nothing will get done. If we put on our ideological blinders, we'll never see the truth. How can we find a responsible and ethical way to be better stewards of this world that we've been given and all the creatures that share it with us?

 

Let's hear what you have to say. But please refrain from the usual attacks aimed at the other side or labeling everyone with a differing opinion as crazy radicals.

 

 

Warning: This thread has been officially designated as a "Gore Free" zone!

BTW, Birdsfan, where is your input. Which respective corner are you hiding in? :sssh: :lol:

[Birdsfan]

BTW, Birdsfan, where is your input. Which respective corner are you hiding in? :sssh: :lol:

I'm in the middle. That's why I wanted to start this dialog. When it come to our environment and wildlife, we have too much finger pointing and ear plugging going on in this country. If we don't start talking about these issues, nothing will ever happen.

[Run To State]

All I can say is

 

 

BF, you need to lose that avatar!

[Run To State]

BTW, I believe environmentalists will NEVER be happy with how much we clean the air, rivers etc...

I also think environmentalists in general are nuts if they seriously think we have anywhere near the impact on this earth as they claim we do.

 

Just my opinion, not trying to get anyone in an uproar.

[Birdsfan]

BTW, I believe environmentalists will NEVER be happy with how much we clean the air, rivers etc...

I also think environmentalists in general are nuts if they seriously think we have anywhere near the impact on this earth as they claim we do.

 

Just my opinion, not trying to get anyone in an uproar.

You seem to have missed the point of the thread. :irked:

 

This isn't for spouting the same out rhetorical baloney. It's about finding ways to make responsible progress.

[Birdsfan]

All I can say is

 

 

BF, you need to lose that avatar!

The avatar is the logo of a group of moderate, Republicans who want to find practical, workable solutions to our ever-growing environmental and wildlife protection issues. I'm proud to be a member, and hope everyone will at least check them out. :thumb:

 

http://www.rep.org/