Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by IJ Reilly, Oct 25, 2004.
That kind of crap just makes me ill.
Way to go, Georgie-boy.
IJ, wasn't there a story regarding this, with mining interests and the Dept. of the Interior and the Utah Governor, a while back?
I shall go looking...
Hey, California needs that natural gas! Gotta keep those turbines spinning so there won't be brownouts; remember brownouts? The west coast's natural gas is now mostly imported from Canada, and newly-found Canadian reserves are less than consumption.
The same "wilderness-area" fight is raging in New Mexico, east of Taos.
I'd like to leave SUVs out of the deal: Without drilling, here, there and yonder around the world, life as we know it will change dramatically. I have no clue how many will die, worldwide.
As far as moral values and land use, I dunno which is worse: Drilling for oil and gas, or "Five acres, five miles from town" residential development. A helluva lot of land I used to enjoy as open vistas is now covered with rooftops. (Which is why I bought a third of a section next door to me: Protect my view.)
'Rat, what do you think would happen if everyone decided they needed a third of a section for themselves? Is that a viable solution to advocate for everyone to take?
You also present a false either-or choice. We are not limited to either oil and gas exploration or suburban development. There are other options.
And besides, how many people are already dying worldwide from other causes such as industrial pollution, and how much do you care about them? Suddenly you are so concerned about the innocents dying because they can't afford heat. What if they can't afford to go see a doctor? Don't they wind up just as dead?
We must solve problem X or I don't know how many people will die worldwide. Sounds like classic Cheney fear mongering to me.
Typical. Clear Skies are anything but. And children are being left behind by No Child Left Behind. One of the good things about the whiny tree huggers is that the enviroment is a priority, not an afterthought. I don't agree with Eco-terrorism, and jobs and people are important and all that, but sometimes I hate how people forget that we kinda need air to breathe and stuff. Democrats driving SUVs notwithstanding.
At the risk of sounding fanatical (as some would deem me, but as Ralph Waldo Emerson said "Conformity explains nothing." [Self Reliance, 1841]) I would like to state that the environment is definitely one of the highest priorities that all governments in the world should have today. While jobs, money and government are important, none of those can exist without the proper functioning of the environment. All of the philosophies and concepts, all of the human ideals, the entire human race, will be eliminated when the earth is finally overloaded by all of the pollutants, abuse, and destruction that it has put up with over time. If the environment is not considered as an extremely important topic by the leaders of the world, all of the little things in the world that are deemed as major issues will be for naught. This is not acceptable. The environment should not be an afterthought, it should not even have to be a thought. It should be obvious that the environment needs to be respected, and treated with the care it deserves for supporting us even while we decimate it each and every day. Now, that said, I do not support Nader or Cobb. I feel that they are not going to accomplish anything worthwhile, and I feel that the support of John Kerry will further the United States as a country, and as a role model for developing countries around the world.
With all that said, the next time you step outside for a breath of fresh air, remind yourself that, in the grand scheme of things, the preservation of the environment has to be our main purpose. Without preserving the environment, we will make short work of ourselves.
I won't be in Canada 'til later this winter, so I'll put that thought on hold.
We're clean out of fresh air in Pennsylvania.
Environmentalists have long held that in environmental matters, "Everything is tied to everything else." I agree.
Economists have long held that in economics matters, "Everything is tied to everything else. Again, I agree.
Now, I say unto you, "The environment and the economy are irretrievably tied together." And, "Aye, there's the rub."
To me, this means that there are incompatible demands on the part of people at large. We all want everybody to have food, shelter, clothing and all the associated necessities for reasonably comfortable living. To get these we plow the ground, we mine the land.
We take electricity for granted, except when the lights go out and reality of some sort strikes. If there's no mining, there's no aluminum or plastic or selenium for wind generators or solar panels.
Back in the 1970s I was in a conversation where somebody regretted the use of fossil fuels. In the context of farming, we should go back to using mules for pulling plows. My question of this had to do with the ensuing 50% reduction in net farm output; after all, a mule's gotta eat, too.
Pristine wilderness is indeed a Good Thing. No Forest Service roads, no development. Hike, hunt, fish, camp--all traditional HomoSap activities. But, do it on foot. No 4WD, no ATVs. Fine.
But, if we are to have our own pristine wilderness areas in the U.S., should we do that at the expense of the rest of the world, as we seek the raw materials that enable the Internet?
mac, sure, not everybody can buy that 1/3 of a section to protect their view. But, through my lifetime and possibly my son's, there will be no development there. Same for a buddy of mine who's bought some 900 acres for the same purpose.