The Environment: What should conservatives do?

[MrSanity]

Should we...

A. Overturn as many regulations as possible.
B. Support some regulations if they benefit humanity.
C. Withdrawl our support for ANWR drilling and hold people accountable.
__________________________________________________ ___________

For me, B.

First, let me state that I dislike the way the EPA has abused their power in for fearmongering on minerals such as asbestos, which are safe in small quanities. Yes, there are health hazards that come with the job if you are a miner, and that's where public awareness serves a purpose. But overall, the EPA functions as a state-sponsored pressure group. There are arguments that suggest that asbestos could have saved the Challenger and the Twin Towers, although I don't know how credible they are.

The ban on DDT has led to millions of deaths due to malaria and typhus. While there are alternatives to DDT, there aren't any known to be any more environmentally friendly or safer to use than DDT.

I am in favor of drilling in ANWR, even though I understand the controversy. It's a good thing that a variety of plant and animal life is protected, because they help us find cures for diseases, among other benefits. But we can't enforce hybrid cars on the average income in order to promote energy dependence. We should have to right to drill in our own land due to the fact that in order to accumulate oil, you have to drill, whether it threatens habitat in the Middle East or habitat here at home.

That concludes my conservative credentials.

Here's where I differ from the majority of conservatives. I recognize the tropical rainforest's right to exist. The tropical rainforest is known as the "world's largest pharmacy" because nearly half of the natural medicine we use has been discovered there. This includes quinine, most notably a cure for malaria, although it poses risks for children of pregnant mothers. It should also be told that coffee, chocolate, bananas, mangoes, papayas, avocados and sugar cane - all came from the tropical rainforest. I do believe that human intervention poses a greater threat to the survival of future generations, due to the fact that only 6% of the rainforest is left. I don't think it's too much to ask to cut back on human intervention.

[DoctorDoom]

Environmentally aware Conservatives should be good stewards of the planet, NOT Gaia worshippers who value bugs and weeds almost infinitely more than human beings.

God gave man the world to care for and use. He did NOT demand that we live in grass huts and spend our days bowing to trees and flowers. He also gave us dominion over dumb animals, which means that we have authority over liberals.

[Rhino]

While there are alternatives to DDT, there aren't any known to be any more environmentally friendly or safer to use than DDT.DDT isn't environmentally unfriendly or unsafe. That was the fictional hype used to prompt the ban, which has been soundly refuted.

We should have to right to drill in our own land due to the fact that in order to accumulate oil, you have to drill, whether it threatens habitat in the Middle East or habitat here at home.Drilling in ANWR won't threaten habitat. First, there is no habitat where they want to drill. It's a strip of gravel pretty much devoid of wildlife. Second, we have drilled in numerous places where said habitat does exist, and the wildlife is thriving there.

Here's where I differ from the majority of conservatives. I recognize the tropical rainforest's right to exist.No, you apparently differ from the majority of conservatives in that you seemingly have no clue what the majority of conservatives think. I've never heard a single conservative voice an opinion that rainforests should not exist. Study your subject better next time.

I do believe that human intervention poses a greater threat to the survival of future generations, due to the fact that only 6% of the rainforest is left. I don't think it's too much to ask to cut back on human intervention.I believe in preservation of rainforests, smartly, but I seriously question the 6% figure. Sounds like an envirowacko figure. If only 6% were left, South America would be a barren wasteland by now.

[Naturalized-Texan]

If, as the envirowackos claim, CO2 emissions are causing global warming, one major way to reduce CO2 emissions is to gradually clear cut the rainforests and replace them with new growth forests. After all, the rainforests are net producers of CO2, while new growth forests are net absorbers of CO2 and producers of Oxygen.

[MrSanity]

Environmentally aware Conservatives should be good stewards of the planet, NOT Gaia worshippers who value bugs and weeds almost infinitely more than human beings.

God gave man the world to care for and use. He did NOT demand that we live in grass huts and spend our days bowing to trees and flowers. He also gave us dominion over dumb animals, which means that we have authority over liberals.I favor the priorities in the same order that most conservatives favor:

1. God
2. Man
3. Animals
4. Nature

I think there are times when preserving nature pleases God, benefits man, and benefits animals. The Rainforest is a perfect example, in my opinion.

Are you in agreement with "B."?

I think that environmentally aware conservatives are a small minority. Most "Ditto-heads" and "Great Americans" - in other words, bandwagon conservatives who believe that Limbaugh and Hannity tell the whole story - seem to have this view that we can run a bulldozer over any given forest because we are superior to animals. It seems that people like Sean Hannity either have little grasp on the ANWR controversy, or they have a lot to hide in order to promote conservative causes. They would have a lot more credibility in my opinion, if they empathetically disagreed with left-wing environmentalists on such issues. I would also contend that too many liberals favor BIG environment to the point where it defeats the purpose of their cause.

To paraphrase Hannity, he said something along the lines of "instead of cutting off our dependence on foreign oil, the liberals are throwing a fit because we might disturb the mating habitat for porcupines."

Like I said, I favor ANWR drilling, but I can see why Hannity might look like an idiot to an environmentalist. I hope he was trying to inhumor his audience, rather than indoctrinate them to become anti-environmental conservatives.

[MrSanity]

No, you apparently differ from the majority of conservatives in that you seemingly have no clue what the majority of conservatives think. I've never heard a single conservative voice an opinion that rainforests should not exist.I did not make that claim - but wouldn't you agree that by contrast, conservatives show less concern for the rainforest?

I believe in preservation of rainforests, smartly, but I seriously question the 6% figure. Sounds like an envirowacko figure. If only 6% were left, South America would be a barren wasteland by now.The figure was from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_rainforest#Threats.

I was not claiming that 6% of the rainforest is left, but that only 6% of the earth belongs to the rainforest.

[Peachdiane]

I do my part with recycling but I know my priorities. I'll be damned if I get compared to a tree humper. They litter and leave garbage around. It's been my experience true conservatives like hunters and fishermen always clean up after themselves.

Hannity is no idiot. Liberals DO throw fits. They are the very same ones that put farmers out of jobs over animal in the ground.

[DoctorDoom]

Second, we have drilled in numerous places where said habitat does exist, and the wildlife is thriving there.http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Energy-Eco/Alaska1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Energy-Eco/Alaska2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Energy-Eco/Alaska3.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v349/DocDoom777/Energy-Eco/Alaska4.jpg

[Rhino]

I did not make that claim - but wouldn't you agree that by contrast, conservatives show less concern for the rainforest?Everybody shows less concern than envirowackos. Conservatives seem to be more cognizant of facts as opposed to rhetoric, so they don't fall prey to the 'Chicken Little' mentality as much. I don't see that as having less concern, but rather as being better educated and using common sense. Besides, you weren't portraying it as "less" concerned. You were portraying it as "no" concern. That indicates either severe ignorance or a serious lack of the ability to recognize hyperbole. You appear to have fallen for the hype, and you're attempting to argue it as fact, when it is nothing of the sort. Conservatives are quite aware of the environment and care quite deeply about it. They just aren't paranoid and stupid about it as many on the other side of the fence are. It would be a huge mistake to consider that "less concern".

The figure was from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tropical_rainforest#Threats.

I was not claiming that 6% of the rainforest is left, but that only 6% of the earth belongs to the rainforest.That sounds more plausible, though I'd like to know how much it occupied before. Also, since anyone can edit Wikipedia, I'd still like to know the source of the figure.

[DoctorDoom]

I think there are times when preserving nature pleases God, benefits man, and benefits animals. The Rainforest is a perfect example, in my opinion.The worst thing we ever allowed the ecowackos to do is legitimize the abominable term, "Rainforest". They're frigging jungles, overgrown, unmanaged, vermin-infested and dangerous. And as NT pointed out, the "rainforests" are net producers of CO2.

IAC, Q: who is destroying the "rainforests"? It's not Americans.

And God never told man that there were to be millions of acres of nature that man was to be forbidden to exploit or even to visit.

I did not make that claim - but wouldn't you agree that by contrast, conservatives show less concern for the rainforest?If by that you mean that we don't worship it, then that's quite true. Conservatives believe in careful, constructive management of natural resources. Liberaloonies and ecodipshits would rather let forests die and burn than permit man to use proper forestry techniques to optimize them.

[Rhino]

If, as the envirowackos claim, CO2 emissions are causing global warming, one major way to reduce CO2 emissions is to gradually clear cut the rainforests and replace them with new growth forests. After all, the rainforests are net producers of CO2, while new growth forests are net absorbers of CO2 and producers of Oxygen.You forgot about methane.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181513,00.html

Or maybe you were just going slow to allow things to sink in. :D

[Phil Osophical]

The United States needs to become totally energy independent and tell foreign suppliers to do to themselves what is anatomically impossible. Absolutely no issue is more important than being free from the oil tentacles of other nations.

Contrary to all the wicked liberal lies, the United States has an infinite supply of its own oil. Democrats, out of pure spite and hate for conservative America, won't allow it to be drilled. America needs to go full-bore after all the oil. It also should build nuclear power plants and mine more coal. I used to be a little pro-environment, but because of all the hateful, stubborn, spiteful, self-serving liberals and "environmentalists," I have almost become an anti-environmentalist.

There's enough available oil in the Gulf of Mexico alone to supply America forever -- but Democrats won't allow it to be harvested. Other nations are already carelessly drilling in the Gulf and making a big mess.

If America would go after its own available oil, millions of new, high-paying jobs would be instantly created.

Actually, America wouldn't even have to drill its oil. All it would have to do is convince OPEC that it plans and will do so unless OPEC lowers its prices by 80 percent. OPEC would cave in.

What should conservatives do to cause this to happen? Show up at Congress with about five million men and women and conduct a noisy, shrill and threatning street demonstration -- you know, just like Hispanics and other minorities do whenever they want something -- they always get what they want ... why shouldn't we?

Screw the environment and all the bleeping bugs and birds 'n stuff! Screw the Sierra Club! The Sierra Club really doesn't give a patootie about the environment. It just wants foolish, propagandized Americans to make donations to it in the name of protecting the environment.

And by the way, the levees, dikes and stuff failed in New Orleans because "environmentalists" wouldn't let the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers build proper levees in the first place. Marsh lands, endangered minnows, ducks, etc., etc. Bah!

[Rhino]

Oh, yeah.

ANWR = 29,680 square miles.
Proposed drilling area = 3.3 square miles.

[MrSanity]

Drilling in ANWR won't threaten habitat. First, there is no habitat where they want to drill. It's a strip of gravel pretty much devoid of wildlife. Second, we have drilled in numerous places where said habitat does exist, and the wildlife is thriving there.If this is true, then I would agree that it exonerates Hannity's comments on the mating habitat for porcupines.

[MrSanity]

That sounds more plausible, though I'd like to know how much it occupied before. Also, since anyone can edit Wikipedia, I'd still like to know the source of the figure.Wikipedia, I agree, deserves some skepticism. Although they have written about Venona, giving information that even the government won't give - that the declassification exonerated Joe McCarthy. I ran a search on the topic on the History Channel website, and nothing came up.

I will be back on tomorrow, and I'll see if I can find a different source that suggests similar statistics.

[Naturalized-Texan]

About the concern for the environment, the major difference between leftists and us conservatives is that the leftists want draconian BIG GOVERNMENT FORCE while we conservatives support free-market solutions. For example, William F. Buckley, Jr., and Milton Friedman have long supported free-market means to reduce pollution that has been adopted by the Bush Administration - the purchase and trading of pollution credits - and it's working. Pollution is diminishing.

[MrSanity]

About the concern for the environment, the major difference between leftists and us conservatives is that the leftists want draconian BIG GOVERNMENT FORCE while we conservatives support free-market solutions. For example, William F. Buckley, Jr., and Milton Friedman have long supported free-market means to reduce pollution that has been adopted by the Bush Administration - the purchase and trading of pollution credits - and it's working. Pollution is diminishing.I don't doubt that some conservatives in power are helping reduce pollution. I probably lean right of center on environmental issues - I recognize pollution to be a problem, but on the other hand, I think we should keep the dictatorship to a minimum. I think the left is divided between people who genuinely care about the environment and practice what they believe in, and of course the phony liberals like Barbara Streisand who apparently favor environmental totalitarianism because it forces them to practice what they preach.

I think the United States is overregulated, while much of the Tropical Rainforest has zero regulation.

Ahh, here we go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_environmentalism

I frown on the left when they use the environment as an excuse to push class warfare. I know BP uses a fair share of solar energy at their stations, and has taken on an environmentally friendly image in recent years.

These are interesting links that I threw at a pro-drug liberal a long time ago who bashed the Religious Right for their supposed ignorance of the environment:
http://www.freevibe.com/Drug_Facts/drugs_enviorn.asp
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2384303.stm
http://www.justthinktwice.com/costs/DamagetoEnvironment.cfm

While we're on topic, I'd also like to point out that I've been in the water treatment business. There's a reason why people are taking responsibility for their own water. Almost all water is used outside of the home, and less than 1% is used for drinking and cooking. That is why the government doesn't treat water. It wouldn't make any sense, it would make a water bill look like a mortgage payment. When I hear an environmentalist talk about what we can do to have cleaner water, I roll my eyes. There's nasty stuff in city water, no matter what you do with it. Unless you spend thousands of dollars to treat your water, you are taking in environmental pollution, industrial pollution, and human pollution. That's why the industry exists in the first place.

[Rhino]

I probably lean right of center on environmental issues - I recognize pollution to be a problem, but on the other hand, I think we should keep the dictatorship to a minimum.So, why is it that you seem to think that most conservatives don't feel the same way? In my experience, they do. But you seem to have fallen prey to the leftist propaganda that most conservatives could care less about the environment. It simply isn't true, nor has it ever been.

[MrSanity]

That sounds more plausible, though I'd like to know how much it occupied before. Also, since anyone can edit Wikipedia, I'd still like to know the source of the figure.
http://www.ladatco.com/rf-qf.htm

"rain forests cover less than 6% of the earth's total land surface "

http://www.rainforestlive.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=214

"Tropical rainforests cover 6% of the earth's surface and contain over 50% of the earth's species. "

http://www.hrdq.com/products/rainforest_facts.htm

"Rainforests once covered 14% of the earth's land surface; now they cover just 6% and experts estimate that the last remaining rainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years."

Can I have my credibility back? :biggrin:

[MrSanity]

So, why is it that you seem to think that most conservatives don't feel the same way? In my experience, they do. But you seem to have fallen prey to the leftist propaganda that most conservatives could care less about the environment. It simply isn't true, nor has it ever been.I know what the leftists are up to - they're trying to push socialism through environmental regulations and taking on the issue to blame big business for any problems that society has to face. I would say that I haven't heard too many real solutions on either side of the aisle. The libs want to enforce hybrid cars, when it is economically unfeasable. The conservatives have little to say about the tropical rainforest or healthy old growth redwoods. I favor limited government, but I'm not a right-wing anarchist, if you get my drift. If you look at the benefits of the tropical rainforest, it makes you think twice about those who are using it as a source for wood. I'm not so quick as to dismiss ALL self-proclaimed environmentalists as whackjobs, although I see many of them as hypocrites.

[Rhino]

http://www.ladatco.com/rf-qf.htm

"rain forests cover less than 6% of the earth's total land surface "From that site:

"SOME QUICK FACTS found in a variety of places, simplified and organized, and sometimes with diverse stats and certainly NOT meant to be a definitive guide"

http://www.rainforestlive.org.uk/index.cfm?articleid=214

"Tropical rainforests cover 6% of the earth's surface and contain over 50% of the earth's species. "Looks like a somewhat partisan site, but I'll generally accept it.

http://www.hrdq.com/products/rainforest_facts.htm

"Rainforests once covered 14% of the earth's land surface; now they cover just 6% and experts estimate that the last remaining rainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years."Now that's what I was looking for, the amount of loss. Although they also don't say where those figures are derived from.

Can I have my credibility back? :biggrin:I didn't question your credibility re that figure. I questioned the figure itself when it appeared you were saying there was only 6% of the original rainforest remaining. 6% coverage of the earth was more plausible, and I said so. I was just curious where the figures came from, i.e. an empirical source. I assumed you were supplying the figure in good faith, and never meant to imply you were attempting a deception, or anything like that.

In the grand scheme of things, one must ask the impact of such a loss of rainforests. Throughout history, the earths' topography has been changed, both by man and by natural causes. I certainly don't think we should lose all rainforest, but I'm also not convinced that the loss of some of it is necessarily a catastrophe. Determining what would be an acceptable amount of loss, and enforcing it, is a very difficult question though.

[Rhino]

I know what the leftists are up to - they're trying to push socialism through environmental regulations and taking on the issue to blame big business for any problems that society has to face. I would say that I haven't heard too many real solutions on either side of the aisle. The libs want to enforce hybrid cars, when it is economically unfeasable. The conservatives have little to say about the tropical rainforest or healthy old growth redwoods. I favor limited government, but I'm not a right-wing anarchist, if you get my drift. If you look at the benefits of the tropical rainforest, it makes you think twice about those who are using it as a source for wood. I'm not so quick as to dismiss ALL self-proclaimed environmentalists as whackjobs, although I see many of them as hypocrites.I would agree with all of that except "The conservatives have little to say about the tropical rainforest or healthy old growth redwoods." Just because you don't hear it as much doesn't mean they don't say it. Additionally, the prophets of doom and gloom are always going to get far more play in our media than a common sense, logical approach. Don't mistakenly assume that conservatives don't care about the environment, or have ideas to help save it, just because you don't see it in the media much. Conservatives care more about the middle class, but you almost never hear that in the media either. The environment really isn't any different.

[MrSanity]

I would agree with all of that except "The conservatives have little to say about the tropical rainforest or healthy old growth redwoods." Just because you don't hear it as much doesn't mean they don't say it. Additionally, the prophets of doom and gloom are always going to get far more play in our media than a common sense, logical approach. Don't mistakenly assume that conservatives don't care about the environment, or have ideas to help save it, just because you don't see it in the media much. Conservatives care more about the middle class, but you almost never hear that in the media either. The environment really isn't any different.I'd sure like to see a link that explains in depth how free-market economics can protect the environment. I've seen plenty of examples on how environmentalists are digging their own graves. On the other hand, it would be nice if conservative talk shows spent more time defending free-market environmentalism by explaining how it benefits us in the long run. I agree overall though, the logic of conservative viewpoints is largely underrepresented. I think the average American has the view that the left owns the issue because of this.

[Rhino]

I think the average American has the view that the left owns the issue because of this.In effect, they do. The left keeps this issue so embedded in sensationalism that much of the effort of the right is devoted to simply countering it. That takes time and effort away from the ability to engage in common sense discussion on the issue, just as you mentioned. That, and the aforementioned fact that the media will always play up the sensationalism and play down the common sense discussions, which they see as either out of touch with their personal positions, or simply boring.

[neglesaks]

If, as the envirowackos claim, CO2 emissions are causing global warming, one major way to reduce CO2 emissions is to gradually clear cut the rainforests and replace them with new growth forests. After all, the rainforests are net producers of CO2, while new growth forests are net absorbers of CO2 and producers of Oxygen.

Yes, if the felled wood is stored and used (say - furniture - i woudn't mind a good mahogny table set!), and not burned or left to rot.

Mind you, more than 50% of the earth's biological carbon sinks are in the ocean, not the rain forest!

[neglesaks]

The ban on DDT has led to millions of deaths due to malaria and typhus. While there are alternatives to DDT, there aren't any known to be any more environmentally friendly or safer to use than DDT.


http://timlambert.org/2005/12/ddt-ban-myth-bingo/

DDT has become largely ineffective, because the mosquitoes have become resistant to it. There are other and far better alternatives available today.