• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why is the environment a political issue?

Layla_Z

DP Veteran
Joined
May 24, 2008
Messages
1,440
Reaction score
1,012
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Why is it that some feel if we don't have an immediate, complete replacement for oil, right now, that we should just give up on every alternative fuel source? I'm tired of people choosing one source such as electric cars, wind power, or solar power and stating that since that one option can't replace oil and coal that they are a waste of time. No we can't completely stop using fuel that is damaging our planet now but we'll never be able to if we don't keep trying. Why is is so difficult to see that it would be much better for us and the generations after us to limit and eventually stop the use of finite and polluting resources? Why is it so difficult to see that it would be so much better to develop and use infinite and less or non-polluting resources? Who care if global is real or not or if it is real who cares what has caused it? We are polluting the earth. This is fact, everything else is crap! And lastly, why in the world is this a political issue?
 

obvious Child

Equal Opportunity Hater
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 8, 2008
Messages
19,883
Reaction score
5,120
Location
0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Other
Some people are diametrically opposed to the beliefs of others, even when they are in the best interest of others. Pyschoclown recently called someone who was against alternative funding a traitor to America and he was 100% right in his accusation.

More in tune with your post, I think it's more about not wanting government to expand its role in the economy while not realizing that every power source we have right now is in bed with the government from hydro to nuclear to natural gas. While there are a few people out there who are against all government intervention, they are few and rare. For instance, some of those who will not be named argued for more nuclear over solar because solar required more government funding without realizing that each nuclear plant costs the taxpayers a minimum of $2 billion in loan guarantees not to mention millions in kilowatt per hour subsidies. A big disconnect if you will.

What really bothers me are the neo-cons who want to use military force as the key tool against terrorism yet totally fail to realize that we could cut huge payments to terror friendly nations if we reduced oil and thereby help fight terrorism at the same time.

And for those who blast Obama on jobs, green jobs are picking up more and more market share of total jobs in places like the Netherlands and China. Who make money exporting to the United States.
 

hazlnut

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
11,963
Reaction score
3,543
Location
Naperville, IL
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Why is it that some feel if we don't have an immediate, complete replacement for oil, right now, that we should just give up on every alternative fuel source? I'm tired of people choosing one source such as electric cars, wind power, or solar power and stating that since that one option can't replace oil and coal that they are a waste of time. No we can't completely stop using fuel that is damaging our planet now but we'll never be able to if we don't keep trying. Why is is so difficult to see that it would be much better for us and the generations after us to limit and eventually stop the use of finite and polluting resources? Why is it so difficult to see that it would be so much better to develop and use infinite and less or non-polluting resources? Who care if global is real or not or if it is real who cares what has caused it? We are polluting the earth. This is fact, everything else is crap! And lastly, why in the world is this a political issue?
Because tools like James Inhofe accept huge contributions from the coal industry... Then become shills for that industry.
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Why is it that some feel if we don't have an immediate, complete replacement for oil, right now, that we should just give up on every alternative fuel source? I'm tired of people choosing one source such as electric cars, wind power, or solar power and stating that since that one option can't replace oil and coal that they are a waste of time. No we can't completely stop using fuel that is damaging our planet now but we'll never be able to if we don't keep trying. Why is is so difficult to see that it would be much better for us and the generations after us to limit and eventually stop the use of finite and polluting resources? Why is it so difficult to see that it would be so much better to develop and use infinite and less or non-polluting resources? Who care if global is real or not or if it is real who cares what has caused it? We are polluting the earth. This is fact, everything else is crap! And lastly, why in the world is this a political issue?
It's a political issue because there's money in it. The energy industries have lobbied long and hard to keep their revenue streams healthy. Why do you think our American made cars have been so inefficient for so long? Big oil ownership interests in the American auto industry, that's why. Same for coal and oil....buy the politicians, limit Nuclear and renewable expansion, guarantee income. That easy.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why is it that some feel if we don't have an immediate, complete replacement for oil, right now, that we should just give up on every alternative fuel source? I'm tired of people choosing one source such as electric cars, wind power, or solar power and stating that since that one option can't replace oil and coal that they are a waste of time. No we can't completely stop using fuel that is damaging our planet now but we'll never be able to if we don't keep trying. Why is is so difficult to see that it would be much better for us and the generations after us to limit and eventually stop the use of finite and polluting resources? Why is it so difficult to see that it would be so much better to develop and use infinite and less or non-polluting resources? Who care if global is real or not or if it is real who cares what has caused it? We are polluting the earth. This is fact, everything else is crap! And lastly, why in the world is this a political issue?
\
Follow the money. All the political power behind AGW supports research that backs their power grab.

AGW is BS.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why is it that some feel if we don't have an immediate, complete replacement for oil, right now, that we should just give up on every alternative fuel source? I'm tired of people choosing one source such as electric cars, wind power, or solar power and stating that since that one option can't replace oil and coal that they are a waste of time. No we can't completely stop using fuel that is damaging our planet now but we'll never be able to if we don't keep trying. Why is is so difficult to see that it would be much better for us and the generations after us to limit and eventually stop the use of finite and polluting resources? Why is it so difficult to see that it would be so much better to develop and use infinite and less or non-polluting resources? Who care if global is real or not or if it is real who cares what has caused it? We are polluting the earth. This is fact, everything else is crap! And lastly, why in the world is this a political issue?
\
Follow the money. All the political power behind AGW supports research that backs their power grab.

AGW is BS.
 

the makeout hobo

Rockin' In The Free World
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2006
Messages
7,102
Reaction score
1,504
Location
Sacramento, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
\
Follow the money. All the political power behind AGW supports research that backs their power grab.

AGW is BS.
If we go by that logic, we'll find that all anti AGW work is funded by industries with a vested interest in people not believing in AGW, while neutral sources like universities often publish work supporting AGW.
 

iangb

Lurker
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2009
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
2,112
Location
Birmingham, UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
\
Follow the money. All the political power behind AGW supports research that backs their power grab.

AGW is BS.
Chlorofluorocarbon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Daily Doc: TI, Jan 4, 1954: The 'Frank Statement' of 1954

'Follow the money' is certainly true - but you're looking at the wrong side. Billions could be made... but billions could be lost - and it's those people who risk losing out who already have the money.

As for a 'power grab' - global warming doesn't happen to liberals only. If there really is 'power' there to be grabbed, it's potentially anyone's. Alligning yourself against scientific reality will only hurt your cause, as the mountain of evidence behind AGW rises and rises. And no, no-one's paying me to say this.
 
Last edited:

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,107
Reaction score
32,318
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Well, if we believe Conservapedia, the Theory of Relativity has a liberal spin, so perhaps other physics concepts do as well!

:p
 

American

Constitutionalist
Bartender
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
88,571
Reaction score
27,832
Location
SE Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why is it that some feel if we don't have an immediate, complete replacement for oil, right now, that we should just give up on every alternative fuel source? I'm tired of people choosing one source such as electric cars, wind power, or solar power and stating that since that one option can't replace oil and coal that they are a waste of time. No we can't completely stop using fuel that is damaging our planet now but we'll never be able to if we don't keep trying. Why is is so difficult to see that it would be much better for us and the generations after us to limit and eventually stop the use of finite and polluting resources? Why is it so difficult to see that it would be so much better to develop and use infinite and less or non-polluting resources? Who care if global is real or not or if it is real who cares what has caused it? We are polluting the earth. This is fact, everything else is crap! And lastly, why in the world is this a political issue?
I thought is was going to be a discussion about why GW is a political issue, not a pro-environazi rant.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I thought is was going to be a discussion about why GW is a political issue, not a pro-environazi rant.
That's all that's down here lately are the warmer ranters. It's like walking into a cult den really. There is their line, and any deviation is met the most silly tripe. Most of us that used to post down here just got bored. Besides, it's summer time, the natural breeding ground for warmers. "OMG ITS SO HOT MAN!!!"
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,107
Reaction score
32,318
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I think the problem stems from a general selfishness/shortsightedness issue that is so common in our species. From an evolutionary standpoint, being greedy and selfish is a beneficial survival trait. That instinct translates into modern life by how we try to improve our own quality of life, consuming as many resources as we are able. Unfortunately, now that our technological capabilities take away a lot of the immediate, short-term survival problems, this instinct is becoming counterproductive to the larger picture: survival of the species as a whole. (no, I'm not saying we're going extinct)

So how does that relate to politics? People want to consume. It's just the way we are. Anything that runs contrary to that desire will be met with resistance. This is especially prevalent in America partially due to our culture of independence and individualism. We tend to resist being told what to do, especially when it comes from a government body. It takes a pretty powerful reason or influence to get us to accept limitations on what we can do or buy.

Adding to all of this is money. A cleaner planet is going to cost money. Lots of it. We don't like that idea. Worse, some very powerful people have a very powerful financial stake in the status quo. They can throw a lot of money towards delaying the changeover to renewables, and every year they manage to do so is worth billions of dollars to them.

So, I'd say it's a combination of culture, psychology, manipulation, and some good old fashioned team rivalry. Them damned liberals support global warming science, therefore I must oppose it!
 

mac

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2010
Messages
22,499
Reaction score
4,266
Location
DC Metro
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
I think the problem stems from a general selfishness/shortsightedness issue that is so common in our species. From an evolutionary standpoint, being greedy and selfish is a beneficial survival trait. That instinct translates into modern life by how we try to improve our own quality of life, consuming as many resources as we are able. Unfortunately, now that our technological capabilities take away a lot of the immediate, short-term survival problems, this instinct is becoming counterproductive to the larger picture: survival of the species as a whole. (no, I'm not saying we're going extinct)

So how does that relate to politics? People want to consume. It's just the way we are. Anything that runs contrary to that desire will be met with resistance. This is especially prevalent in America partially due to our culture of independence and individualism. We tend to resist being told what to do, especially when it comes from a government body. It takes a pretty powerful reason or influence to get us to accept limitations on what we can do or buy.

Adding to all of this is money. A cleaner planet is going to cost money. Lots of it. We don't like that idea. Worse, some very powerful people have a very powerful financial stake in the status quo. They can throw a lot of money towards delaying the changeover to renewables, and every year they manage to do so is worth billions of dollars to them.

So, I'd say it's a combination of culture, psychology, manipulation, and some good old fashioned team rivalry. Them damned liberals support global warming science, therefore I must oppose it!
I always picture those that bitch about taking care of the environment as hoarders that live four feet deep in crap.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I think the problem stems from a general selfishness/shortsightedness issue that is so common in our species. From an evolutionary standpoint, being greedy and selfish is a beneficial survival trait. That instinct translates into modern life by how we try to improve our own quality of life, consuming as many resources as we are able. Unfortunately, now that our technological capabilities take away a lot of the immediate, short-term survival problems, this instinct is becoming counterproductive to the larger picture: survival of the species as a whole. (no, I'm not saying we're going extinct)

So how does that relate to politics? People want to consume. It's just the way we are. Anything that runs contrary to that desire will be met with resistance. This is especially prevalent in America partially due to our culture of independence and individualism. We tend to resist being told what to do, especially when it comes from a government body. It takes a pretty powerful reason or influence to get us to accept limitations on what we can do or buy.

Adding to all of this is money. A cleaner planet is going to cost money. Lots of it. We don't like that idea. Worse, some very powerful people have a very powerful financial stake in the status quo. They can throw a lot of money towards delaying the changeover to renewables, and every year they manage to do so is worth billions of dollars to them.

So, I'd say it's a combination of culture, psychology, manipulation, and some good old fashioned team rivalry. Them damned liberals support global warming science, therefore I must oppose it!
Whatever. It's about people wanting feel like their lives are meaningful, that they are part of something important? What's more important than saving the Earth?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,107
Reaction score
32,318
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I always picture those that bitch about taking care of the environment as hoarders that live four feet deep in crap.
Whatever. It's about people wanting feel like their lives are meaningful, that they are part of something important? What's more important than saving the Earth?
Or, you know, people who care about people other than themselves.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
Or, you know, people who care about people other than themselves.
That's actually a bit of the old BS. It's petty arrogance and egotism that "I'm helping so I MUST be right" going on... no different then one of the angry church ladies chasing people around with their canes telling people they are wrong.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,107
Reaction score
32,318
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's actually a bit of the old BS. It's petty arrogance and egotism that "I'm helping so I MUST be right" going on... no different then one of the angry church ladies chasing people around with their canes telling people they are wrong.
I'd say the arrogant view is the one that our actions have no consequences.
 

Renae

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
48,389
Reaction score
18,084
Location
San Antonio Texas
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Conservative
I'd say the arrogant view is the one that our actions have no consequences.
No one's ever claimed man doesn't impact his environment, but thanks for proving you aren't an honest person.

We are saying MAN isn't having a global impact in the way you people do, and further more that man can impact the climate in any meaningful way through political actions.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,107
Reaction score
32,318
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
No one's ever claimed man doesn't impact his environment, but thanks for proving you aren't an honest person.

We are saying MAN isn't having a global impact in the way you people do, and further more that man can impact the climate in any meaningful way through political actions.
I was just following your example in assigning beliefs to my opposition that they don't actually hold. Annoying, isn't it?
 

Civil1z@tion

Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2010
Messages
247
Reaction score
105
Location
US
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Global warming is a political issue because of the argument over government intervention in the economy. Those opposed to global warming suspect that it is just a back door means to put ever increasing restrictions on economic action, possibly ending in a government take-over of the economy. Some of the more extreme parts of the green movement only reinforce this suspicion.

Of course, I think it is possible to be in favor of smaller government in general and still acknowledge the global warming problem. However, I also think that if we're going to do things like subsidize alternative energies we need to be careful not to unduly bias certain forms over others. Technological advancement is unpredictable and which energy source will end up being the best is best determined by the market, so the typical green opposition to nuclear is a problem for me. Also I'm actually in favoring of slowing down global warming not stopping it entirely. This is because the end result of global warming is good for life on Earth in general as decreasing the amount of arctic and sub-arctic climate means its replacement with temperate zone (and possibly an expansion of sub-tropical north and south, though the areas closer to the equator are not receiving much warming) which are areas that produce more life and more biodiversity than the colder climates. The problem is the transition. A fast transition produces all kinds of problems for both humans and other species. The current rate is too fast and should be slowed, but a more gradual warming would probably be a boon to humanity and likely life in general in the long run.
 

ZGM

Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2010
Messages
122
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
We need more trees because they consume carbon dioxide, right? Wouldn't they also neutralize carbon dioxide?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,107
Reaction score
32,318
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Global warming is a political issue because of the argument over government intervention in the economy. Those opposed to global warming suspect that it is just a back door means to put ever increasing restrictions on economic action, possibly ending in a government take-over of the economy. Some of the more extreme parts of the green movement only reinforce this suspicion.

Of course, I think it is possible to be in favor of smaller government in general and still acknowledge the global warming problem. However, I also think that if we're going to do things like subsidize alternative energies we need to be careful not to unduly bias certain forms over others. Technological advancement is unpredictable and which energy source will end up being the best is best determined by the market, so the typical green opposition to nuclear is a problem for me. Also I'm actually in favoring of slowing down global warming not stopping it entirely. This is because the end result of global warming is good for life on Earth in general as decreasing the amount of arctic and sub-arctic climate means its replacement with temperate zone (and possibly an expansion of sub-tropical north and south, though the areas closer to the equator are not receiving much warming) which are areas that produce more life and more biodiversity than the colder climates. The problem is the transition. A fast transition produces all kinds of problems for both humans and other species. The current rate is too fast and should be slowed, but a more gradual warming would probably be a boon to humanity and likely life in general in the long run.
It's hard to say that warmer will necessarily be better. You're correct that the rate of warming is a problem. Too fast in either direction can be devastating to animal and plant life. Evolution is slow, it takes time for plants and animals to adapt to the change in environment.

We need more trees because they consume carbon dioxide, right? Wouldn't they also neutralize carbon dioxide?
Plants of all kinds do absorb the carbon and release the oxygen. More trees would slow down the increase in CO2, but there just isn't enough usable land to plant trees on to totally eliminate our current contributions.
 

VanceMack

MSG Benavides TAB
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 1, 2010
Messages
73,117
Reaction score
30,776
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why is it that some feel if we don't have an immediate, complete replacement for oil, right now, that we should just give up on every alternative fuel source? I'm tired of people choosing one source such as electric cars, wind power, or solar power and stating that since that one option can't replace oil and coal that they are a waste of time. No we can't completely stop using fuel that is damaging our planet now but we'll never be able to if we don't keep trying. Why is is so difficult to see that it would be much better for us and the generations after us to limit and eventually stop the use of finite and polluting resources? Why is it so difficult to see that it would be so much better to develop and use infinite and less or non-polluting resources? Who care if global is real or not or if it is real who cares what has caused it? We are polluting the earth. This is fact, everything else is crap! And lastly, why in the world is this a political issue?
Im really curious. Where do you find ANYONE claiming what you stated in your opening few paragraphs?
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,107
Reaction score
32,318
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Im really curious. Where do you find ANYONE claiming what you stated in your opening few paragraphs?
It's annoying when people do that, isn't it?
 
Top Bottom