Kansas bill outlaws sustainability

[Northern Light]

Kansas's Self-Destruct Button: A Bill to Outlaw Sustainability - Bloomberg

Kansas's Self-Destruct Button: A Bill to Outlaw Sustainability

Kansas, the place where I spent my formative years skipping school to go fishing in farm ponds, is populated with thoughtful stewards of the nation’s breadbasket. It also has a habit of turning reason on its head. The state famously dropped evolution from its educational curriculum in 1999, along with the age of the Earth and the history of the universe, for good measure.

Now the state’s “Committee on Energy and Environment” is proposing a law that would prohibit spending on anything that won’t set Kansas on a course to self-destruction. House Bill No. 2366 would ban all state and municipal funds for anything related to “sustainable development,” which it defines as: “development in which resource use aims to meet human needs while preserving the environment so that these needs can be met not only in the present, but also for generations to come."

Kansas' government demonstrates yet again that they would rather live in the dark ages than face reality.

So much for the free market values that their Republicans allegedly espouse.

 

[iacardsfan]

Contradictory conservative rhetoric is something we have all become accustom too. For that matter, democrats are too.

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Kansas's Self-Destruct Button: A Bill to Outlaw Sustainability - Bloomberg



Kansas' government demonstrates yet again that they would rather live in the dark ages than face reality.

So much for the free market values that their Republicans allegedly espouse.

Would sustainability mean you could only have a certain number of children?

 

[Montecresto]

Sustainability, that sounds stupid, why would anybody want to do anything that would insure sustainability?

 

[Northern Light]

^ Thanks you two for completely missing the point. Whether or not you agree with business practices that foster growth of the sustainability model, this bill is telling the free market to go to hell.

Kansas has clearly decided that "sustainability" = liberal = bad, and should therefore be banned. That means green energy projects are banned; reclamation projects are banned; new types of agricultural models are banned.

Basically, unless you are pro-big business and any model that trashes the planet, you can't setup shop in Kansas.

The bill hasn't passed yet though and I'm hoping it won't.

 

[Montecresto]

^ Thanks you two for completely missing the point. Whether or not you agree with business practices that foster growth of the sustainability model, this bill is telling the free market to go to hell.

Kansas has clearly decided that "sustainability" = liberal = bad, and should therefore be banned. That means green energy projects are banned; reclamation projects are banned; new types of agricultural models are banned.

Basically, unless you are pro-big business and any model that trashes the planet, you can't setup shop in Kansas.

The bill hasn't passed yet though and I'm hoping it won't.

Oh no, my apologies, I was being sarcastic, sorry. I'm a proponent of sustainability. I live in a solar powered house, have gardens and orchards, cisterns that catch the rain, I'm all about it!!

 

[ksu_aviator]

^ Thanks you two for completely missing the point. Whether or not you agree with business practices that foster growth of the sustainability model, this bill is telling the free market to go to hell.

Kansas has clearly decided that "sustainability" = liberal = bad, and should therefore be banned. That means green energy projects are banned; reclamation projects are banned; new types of agricultural models are banned.

Basically, unless you are pro-big business and any model that trashes the planet, you can't setup shop in Kansas.

The bill hasn't passed yet though and I'm hoping it won't.

You do understand that it does just the opposite. Basically this bill prevents wasteful spending on things the general public is willing to pay for themselves. Why should the state pay when the citizens are doing it on their own? It is telling the free market...go get it done.

 

[Gipper]

You do understand that it does just the opposite. Basically this bill prevents wasteful spending on things the general public is willing to pay for themselves. Why should the state pay when the citizens are doing it on their own? It is telling the free market...go get it done.

That's basically what I took from it. Let the private sector have at it. Hell, they're already doing it. All those "Big Oil" corporations that people bitch to the skies about are actually energy companies. You don't think they've been spearheading the "clean initiative" for quite some time now? Anyone who doesn't think so is ignorant to a dangerous level.

The public sector everywhere wastes enough money. Let's not add this to the heap.

 

[Fisher]

^ Thanks you two for completely missing the point. Whether or not you agree with business practices that foster growth of the sustainability model, this bill is telling the free market to go to hell.

Kansas has clearly decided that "sustainability" = liberal = bad, and should therefore be banned. That means green energy projects are banned; reclamation projects are banned; new types of agricultural models are banned.

Basically, unless you are pro-big business and any model that trashes the planet, you can't setup shop in Kansas.

The bill hasn't passed yet though and I'm hoping it won't.

It would be hard to maintain sustainability without water. The high plains aquifer is 30% depleted, provides 30% of the nation's groundwater, and is expected to be 69% depleted in the next 50 years. Should people in Kansas start rationing water today or should we start letting the third world die of starvation because they do not have access to America's bread basket?

 

[Deuce]

Would sustainability mean you could only have a certain number of children?

Did you even read the article to get any context?

 

[Deuce]

Sustaining things for future generations? Yeah, doesn't sound like a state interest to me!

 

[sawyerloggingon]

Did you even read the article to get any context?

The more people, the more resources used so it's a legitimate question and a logical conclusion. I notice nobody dares to answer.