After election, Republicans plan attack on EPA and climate scientists if they win the House

In the old Soviet Union, being a scientist was a dangerous thing unless discoveries upheld the Party’s ideology-

Doubt GOP will be put scientists in a gulag. They will just be investigated and badgered out of a job.

GOP plans attacks on the EPA and climate scientists. By Neela Banerjee. Los Angeles Times

58 Responses to “After election, Republicans plan attack on EPA and climate scientists if they win the House”

  1. Dude, the bagman Says:

    So they’re going to irresponsibly waste time playing to their base in the run up to the 2012 elections. Obviously attempts to neuter environmental laws are going to be blocked by veto or filibuster.

    However, their noise making will allow them to point their fingers at the Dems and claim that Democratic environmental regulations are the reason that Joe Bob is still out of work.

    Given who their constituents are (see Rand Paul stomp http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbnEy_U9pYk), this makes sense. Why bother trying to fix the economy when you can just play the blame game and continue to funnel money to your corporate sponsors? If Joe Bob is still out of work, you can use his anger to your advantage again in the 2012 elections. Better to keep him dumb, slightly hungry, and angry.

    It’s too bad so many politicians try to get reelected by manipulation rather than actually doing something constructive and earning votes.

    • PointsWest Says:

      The Republicans have already coined the term “enemy of business” that they will brand anyone with whom they intend to destroy. They might even form some Gestapo branch of secret police to whom people can write letters of denunciation to and help identify all of you “enemies of business” and who can arrest and send to concentration camps you “enemies of business” for rehabilitation.

  2. Wyo Native Says:

    What are you all worried about, haven’t several of you been saying that the Dems would keep control of the House?

    I know Pointswest has made this claim several times!

    • PointsWest Says:

      I did say but changed my mind after I heard about the Supreme Court decision allowing billionaires and corporations to make unlimited campaign contributions and remain anonymous.

      This decision was not handed down until this spring. I was not aware of it until about two months ago.

      Democrats had raised substantially more money than Republicans and were far ahead in the polls this summer. But then the media blitz started with the far right disinformation funded by unknown sources. I said about a month ago that it looked like the wealthy and radical right was going to take the house.

      I am very worried about where this country is headed now. I may sell out here in California and move back to Idaho where I can hunker down and wait this out. It is really scaring me. It is scaring a lot of people. I posted some of Paul Kruman’s column the other day where he said, “be afraid, be very afraid.”

      • steve c Says:

        It amazes me that everyone I talk to isnt horrified by that supreme court decision. There shouldnt be one democrat or republican happy right now. Corporations are buying this election. The republicans turn a blind eye to it now because it benefits them but who knows what the future holds…

      • steve c Says:

        And how the hell could any republican buy into any of the BS in light of what happened with BP in the gulf.

      • Wyo Native Says:

        Steve you are right. In the future when the political pendulum swings back towards the Dem’s favor and their Big Business/Big Union supporters use this court decision in their favor, Repubs will hate it and Dems will be touting the “Free Speach” aspect.

        The same thing happened when Obama turned down Public Financing in ’08.

      • PointsWest Says:

        Happy Halloween by the way.

      • JB Says:

        Thanks for the link, Robert.

      • Ralph Maughan Says:

        I think the Citizens United case was the biggest Supreme Court overreach in a hundred years and probably the biggest blow ever struck against democracy by the courts in the United States.

        The result is not just that corporations are now persons in terms of free speech, they are superpersons.

        When you or me donate money to a federal candidate we have to give our name, address and occupation, but with Citizens United and the other things emasculating the campaign finance laws corporations can hide their donations under names like “Get America on Track” that have little existence beyond a P.O. box and a bank account that brings in millions of dollars.

        The very rich and the corporations say, “well if our names are revealed, people will retaliate.” Damn right we will. That’s why their names should be there. Your employer might well retaliate against you for the $25 or $200 you gave if it was to the “wrong candidate.”

        The Target Corporation was revealed to have donated a lot of money, and I won’t go there any more.

        We all need to know more about their donations.

        The corporations also have often have no locality in or loyalty to the United States. The big ones are multinationals. We hear a lot about illegal aliens voting. Whether a few do or not, it is nothing compared to a Chinese or Italian corporation pouring money into an election race and swaying thousands, if not more votes.

      • PointsWest Says:

        Those interested should do a little reading on the history of the corporation. I was very surprised to learn how recent the rise of corporate power is. Corporate power was intentionally and very explicitly limited by our founding fathers who regarded them as a threat to Democracy. Corporations, with their limited power, were only a very small portion of our free enterprise system until very recently…it was not until the 1950’s that corporations became the predominant business entity they are today. Corporations have slowly revised laws and have given themselves more and more power including the “right” to be treated by the law as a “natural person” while, at the same time, shielding those who control corporations from legal liabilities and from prosecution of laws that governs a “natural person.”

        I believe that in a true Democracy that no business entity should be allowed to make campaign contribution, let alone, a corporation. Only individuals should be allowed. While I believe voting should private, contributing to a politicians campaign should not be. People in a Democracy have a right to know who is contributing monies to a political candidate. It is not a Democracy when there is a hidden puppet master behind the scenes pulling the strings of political candidates.

        How we reached this point where international corporations can buy our government is a tale of ignorance, apathy, and moral corruption and I do believe we are about to pay a hefty price for it.

        I watched Oliver Stone’s documentary on South America last night. In it, Oliver Stone interviewed the former President of Argentina, Néstor Kirchner. In this interview, Kirchner said that in a private meeting with George W. Bush, that Bush told Kirchner that the best thing for an economy is war. That is…war is good business. This is the kind of government a corporation buys us, one who takes us to war because it is good business. Below is a link from the Huffington Post if you do not believe me.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/27/bush-war-boosts-the-us-ec_n_592444.html

      • Tim Bondy Says:

        Actually corporations are not buying or controlling our government. They are buying individual politicians who then make laws. Big…huge difference as you and I can vote out or in the politicians to make a difference and change things. We just need educated voters and good people running for office. May not happen in 2012 or 2016 but it can happen one person or group at a time.

  3. WM Says:

    Very good commentary by MSNBC’s political analyst, Todd, on the WSJ poll. The target of choice by independents, and irritated moderate D’s is Speaker Pelosi as the face of the D Party (huge negative view, almost worse than Newt when he was Speaker) that pushes independents to the R column. The anti-Pelosi mentality will be a determining factor on how many seats the R’s take in both houses. This was preventable.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/39946383#39946383

    As for the polling methodolgy, I saw a very interesting comment that, if true, could skew results a bit, and not reflect voting preference in the younger voting crowd. Polls are conducted using ground lines. Younger voters and some tech savvy folks don’t have ground lines, and use only cell. How much this factors in (and no indication whether pollsters address this phenomenon with any kind of sensitivity analysis) is anyone’s guess.

    I do hope the R’s don’t make the predicted gains and achieve the advances in both Houses that seem to be predicted. We are in for a rough ride on environmental issues, if that happens, even with Presidential veto powers.

    • Cody Coyote Says:

      My deepest remorse comes from the realization that when the Democrats finally did succeed in reclaiming the leadership of both houses, the chairmen’s gavels passed to a couple of wretched political poltroons. Pelosi and Reid.

      Imagine where we might be today if John Kerry had been running the Senate , and someone like John Dingell was Speaker of the House. ( Or somebody was pushing Obama like Cheney quirted Dubya . Obama has been a supreme disappointment…the President is not the candidate I voted for and campaigned for , regrettably.)

      I still have some hope that American voters will show some sanity tomorrow at the voting booth ( thank you Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for the 11th hour nudge in that direction ). I am very disgusted with pollsters who are making predictions of a Republican turnaround, as though the American people are really stupid enough to go back to the brink of despotism . Pre-election polls are not self-fullfilling prophecies. Most are devious ( ever taken a Rasmussen poll ? —it’s a tool of that great oxymoron of our time, Republican social engineering). The news media make entirely too much fodder out of the crude fiber and chaff of polling.

      The only poll that matters at the end of the day is the one behind the curtain of the voting booth on the first Tuesday in November..

  4. JEFF E Says:

    Big business has no allegiance to anyone or any country. There only allegiance is to themselves, and hell with anyone or anything that gets in the way. The repugnant’s are merely making the deal at the crossroads at mid-night.(probably a lot Dem’s also)

    • Jay Says:

      One word: stockholders.

      • JEFF E Says:

        who are only concerned with the bottom line, quarterly dividends

      • WM Says:

        Two words: WALL STREET

        = brokerage houses + investment banking + institutional investors + individual investors + corporate executives whose compensation is tied to short term stock performance

      • JEFF E Says:

        which makes no distinction on international borders or country of origin. what are there now days,only two or three countries that are off limits?

      • WM Says:

        Yup. Most people don’t know that controlling interest in American icons of the middle class like Budwieser (Anheuser-Busch), which has over 50% of the US beer market, is owned by a Belgian-Brazilian company called InBev. And then, there is Chrysler Motors, with the controlling interest in the hands of Damler-Benz (German), which went into Chapter 11 bankruptcy, then portions were bought by Fiat.

        So, follow the campaign money and the influence. New Supreme Court decision allows broad ability of corporate interests to participate in election financing, and controlling interests in some corporations outside the US. Therefore, foreign corporate interests have the ability to affect democratic elections in the US. Imagine that.

      • Jay Says:

        that was my point Jeff–most do not give a crap how the company makes them money, just so long as they do and the stock is profitable.

      • JEFF E Says:

        Exactly and exactly, now ….where is that Chinese money…?
        oh, thats right, we willl never know now!

  5. JEFF E Says:

    isn’t the supreme court (or was at the time of this decision) loaded with repugnant nominations?

  6. Save bears Says:

    The key is………….The American Public, is not looking at the issues that have great interest for us on this blog..The environment is so low down on the interest scale at this time it is not even a blip in the major voter blocks of the country.

    I am sorry to say, I fully expected this, and I am not surprised at all, I didn’t support Obama, but I was not surprised he was elected, and I was not surprised the Democrats took over both sides.

    We really need to get rid of party politics in this country and start looking deep and hard at the people that want us to hire them.

    With the way politics are set up in this country right now, I fully expect we will continue to see the sea saw back and forth for many election cycles to come..but in time I do hope the major parties become less important and the more moderate people will move to the forefront…its the only way to save our country in my humble opinion..

  7. Rob Sisson Says:

    Sen. Lindsey Graham said, “Why would a Republican senator listen to environmentalists? It’s not like they vote for us and we’re risking anything by not going along with them.”

    If you care about good environmental policy, encourage any Republican friends and colleagues to sign up at http://www.rep.org. The bigger our footprint, the more folks in DC will listen.

    • Daniel Berg Says:

      Thanks for this link.

      It’s unfortunate that even Lindsay Graham says that, because he is considered to be a centrist by a lot of the more radical republicans. Glenn Beck consistently voices his disdain for republicans like Graham and calls them closet liberals.

      That just goes to show how divorced from sound environmental policy most republicans are. I wish it wasn’t like that.

  8. Mike Says:

    It’s frightening to think there are actually real people who think climate change is a hoax.

    • Save bears Says:

      Climate change is a given, but I do think information has been manipulate so much by both sides of the issue, that many people have a very difficult time knowing who to believe..

  9. PointsWest Says:

    The problem is the far-right idealogs not being able to separate free market ideology from greed and corruption reality. See ‘Casino Jack and the United States of Money,’ a new documentary about the corruption, trial, and imprisonment of Jack Abramoff, a far-right sociopath lobbyist with close connections to Republican Congressman Tom Delay, the Republican Party, the Christian Coalition, Indian Casinos, the Mafia and other forces of greed in the USA.

    This documentary by Alex Gibney follows the neo-conservative movement beginning with the Reagan era College Republicans and reveals how their fantastic views of free-market and free enterprise along with socialist paranoia led them to rationalize greed, corruption, and power and the wholesale of power and influence in American politics. They really believe that greed is good and also enjoyed lifestyle of being wealthy Republican jetsetters.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1540814/

    This documentary is being followed up by a big budget Hollywood production that is a drama/thriller staring Kevin Spacey on the same subject…Jack Abramoff. The problem is not confined to Jack Abramoff, however, the problem is systemic and the documentary is clear about this. I hope the big budget Hollywood movie is too.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1194417/

  10. Cody Coyote Says:

    If you are internet savvy , ‘Casino Jack and the United States of Money’ is already “available”. The film has not been shown in wide release but was quite the darling of the better , socially conscious film festivals as far back as May. Four stars.

    Definitely a must-see for those of any stripe who think movies should be a bit more than bed scenes , dark head trips, the Undead, slapstick , or blowing things up…or any combination of those things.

    • WM Says:

      Some county libarary systems have “Casino Jack…” on DVD, but it is wait listed. The book on which it is based is available on Amazon for about $11 including shipping.

      As for the Hollywood film on Abramoff, I cannot imagine an actor who could do the character better.

      Personally, if it were legally possible after his stint in federal prison, I would like to turn Abramoff over to the tribes he swindled to mete out his just punishment in tribal court, with hopes of creative justice.

      See, that is the problem. People just don’t remember how bad some of these recent Republican elected officials (Delay is no exception), AND ESPECIALLY THEIR STAFFS AND LOBBYISTS were. How short is the memory of the American electorate. One can only hope the polls showing so many seats in play will motivate more people who remember the past to actually vote. Only for this reason, I predict Murray will defeat Rossi in the WA Senate race.

  11. jon Says:

    I believe the republicans will take control of the house. I don’t want them too, but they seem to have a lot of momentum. People can blame Obama for this and that just because he is the man in power right now, but most of the problems you see today started under Bush jr’s watch. I don’t like either parties, but in my opinion, republicans are the main reason why we are in a recession. It all started with Bush Jr. Republicans are not out saviors and they are not going to save this country like some of them claim. Both parties for the most part make promises they never keep. Do away with the parties because this has become more about dems vs. republicans and less about the american people. Do away with both parties and start listening to the american people.

  12. Save bears Says:

    You can blame Bush all you want, but the problems started long before he took office.

    • PointsWest Says:

      Nobel Prize winning Economist and currently the most highly respected Economist in the world, Paul Krugman believes it was Reagan when he passed the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act.

      You can read the full article entitled ‘REAGAN DID IT’ here….

      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/opinion/01krugman.html

      Krugman has said in other columns that the crisis was not caused by the sub-prime mortgage crisis per se. It was more generally the rise of household debt.

      I personally believe the problem was Reagan who, in reality, founded a new cult…a cult of free-market-capitalism. He, with his years as a big-time actor, and with the help of advertising moguls Michael Deaver and Neal Reagan, created for the populace something new that they could believe in. They created a new cult with the belief that Government was evil, the rich were good, and alls you had to do for spiritual self-actualization was to believe that the miracle of free-market-capitalism (low taxes for the rich) would bring peace and prosperity to the world. The lost sheep converted to what became the Cult of Reganomics by the millions and they are to this day walking the planet praising their savior and proselytizing their faith.

      The Tea Party is not about anger so much as it is about disillusionment and fear. The Cult of Reaganomics is desperately threatened as Conservative Law and the free market Gods have turned to ash. They see evil somewhere and maybe everywhere. Per the Godhead Reagan, it is always the Government that is the problem and so the evil must be in Obama and the other likely suspects (the Democrats) and we must somehow blame them for them for what is to the Cult of Reaganomics a crisis of faith.

      The Democrats were very foolish in passing healthcare reform while we were in a serious recession. Americans are entrenched in their Cult of Reaganomics and it is going to take another great depression and/or great war to deprogram them. The healthcare bill was in direct conflict with Conservative Law and it is obvious to the Cult of Reaganomics that those behind it are guilty. Now the guilty must be punished even if it means punishing the entire world. As the Cult meters out their punishment and completly collapse the American economy, more crisis of faith will arise requiring even more desparately cruel measures. We may go to war with Iran. We may go to war with China. Who knows. The Cult of Reaganomics is really freaked out and the fanaticism of a religious cult knows no bounds.

      If any of you watch Casino Jack, pay careful attention to how the young neo-conservatives were so given to seeing themselves as playing a part in a epic movies, in an eternal conflict, and in fantasy in general. They have mythologized and ritualized politics.

      • Daniel Berg Says:

        That’s a little bit of a stretch to say that Krugman is the world’s most highly respected economist. I do respect him but he strikes me as being a bit of a meglomaniac. I also question his ability to look at economics from a neutral perspective instead of through his progressive glasses.

      • PointsWest Says:

        Who is more respected than Krugman?

      • Ralph Maughan Says:

        Krugman is the economist I listen to.

      • Daniel Berg Says:

        James Heckman, Alan Greenspan, Milton Friedman (three years dead), Joseph Stiglitz, Daniel Kahneman (I am fascinated by behavorial economics), Edward Prescott, Edmund Phelps etc, etc………..

        Krugman is accomplished, but I believe he stands out more than others in many people’s minds because he gets a lot of press. He’s controversial in the sense that he habitually mixes in political attacks with his pieces on the economy for the NY Times and he has written a ton of books. People love controversy.

        I understand that Krugman’s opinions are some of the more readily availabe in the media, but he by no means should be considered anyones only compass for economic thought. I find in perplexing that so many people in my age range voice their support for Keynesian (sp) economics and reference Krugman as a back-up. Most of them don’t know anything about Keynesian principles outside of “spend more money” and know nothing about Krugman other than that he supported a much larger stimulus package.

      • Daniel Berg Says:

        I kept the list to American economists.

      • PointsWest Says:

        Krugman writes because his writing sells. His writing sells because he is respected and people are interested in what he says. The reason I started reading Krugman’s op-ed column in the New York times is because I heard that he predicted the financial crisis months in advance. I also notice many people, including Fixed News commentators, quote him or refer to his writings regularly. I hear his name thrown about all the time in the news.

        Milton Friedman has been dead for awhile but believed the deregulation of Wall Street was a godsend. Greenspan was broadsided by the financial crisis. He had no idea it was coming and he has said so…he was dumbfounded. Stiglitz is well respected but seems to agree with Krugman. The few news article I could find on him seem to echo what Krugman has said. The other economists you mentioned do not have half the resume as Krugman or Stiglitz.

        I think it is a fair statement that, right now, Kruman is the most respected economist in the world. That might change in a couple of years. We’ll see if his gloomy predictions come true. Actually what he said was that IF the Republicans kill the stimulus and pull stunts like shutting down government to cut taxes again, we will fall back into recession. Maybe the Republicans will act like responsible adults. I personally am not counting on it, however.

      • Daniel Berg Says:

        James Heckman is probably one of the 10 most well respected living economists within his profession. I think almost every economist I referenced is a nobel winner.

        I will agree with you that Krugman is arguably the most famous living economist in this country, but I disagree that he is the most well respected economist in the world. I just haven’t seen any proof that lifts him above all others worldwide in terms of respect.

        There are many nobel winners, and Krugman was not the only one to predict the financial collapse. Nouriel Roubini is another one who predicted it, off the top of my head.

        How many books an economist sells doesn’t directly correlate with how great of an economist they are compared to their peers. It is also a measure of other factors, like popularity. Popularity isn’t always a measure of accomplishment. Krugman has exceled at combining politics, economics, and a exceptional writing style that connects with regular people. That is one of the most important ways he has differentiated himself from the other economists I mentioned.

      • SEAK Mossback Says:

        I tend to put more weight on Krugman and Stiglitz’s prescription for the short-term, that we need to keep the gas pedal down until we get across and out of this massive mud hole. If we don’t get out, we’re cooked ala Japan. The problem is that when we are nearing the top of the cycle (1999 and 2005) when we have more room to deal with imbalances, the politicians and their appointees always keep the pedal down simply because its more fun — come up with a theory that the inflating bubble is different this time (the great moderation), strip financial regulations that help keep our economy on the rails (but limit “speed”), and cut taxes at the first sign of a balanced budget (remember Bush Jr. “The American people have been over-charged”). My taxes have really plummeted in the past few years, but instead of being happy I feel as if all I’ve done is put them on credit — the only debt I carry, but like any other debt I’m not expecting to escape it. All we end up doing is generating shorter, more severe economic cycles and digging a deeper hole. Now with all the debt overhang and liquidity trap, we’re down to giving extended sugar and adrenaline shock treatment to a very sick patient. Krugman et al. are like ER doctors gathered around saying we can’t let up now until there are solid vital signs, while the angry population focused by the Tea Party are saying discharge the patient from the hospital because its his own fault that he’s sick (which is true, but if they want somebody to blame most should look in the mirror, depending on who they’ve been voting for — which I can pretty well guess). We collectively have gotten into this fix and when we hear a politician say “I govern from the heart instead of the mind”, most have us have not yet figured out we need to run like hell.

      • PointsWest Says:

        Economics baffles me. It really does. I have a better understanding of epigenetics or the unified field theory than I do of economics….and I had two semesters of economics in college too.

        What has always bothered me about conservatism and anything they say about economics, however, is that these are the same people who take the bible literally. They believe that a great and almighty being named God somewhere in outer space created the earth in seven days and that he then populated it with dinosaurs, birds, insects, man, fish, snails, and a few other species for some sort of game to test the worthiness of the species of man. They believe in the literal truth of bible stories such as Jonah and the Whale where a man was swallowed by a whale where he lived for a few days until he finally passed some kind of test and escaped. Many believe they have some special internal cell phone connection with the almighty and that He has appointed them to represent Him here on earth. To the contrary, they completely reject the theory of evolution…evolution, the two-centuries old theory that nearly all of the life sciences are based on. They reject this and completely reject the theory of global warming (it is going to be 96 degrees here in LA today Nov. 3rd). They basically believe whatever they want to believe. That is, they believe whatever makes them feel good, feel right, and feel in-charge of things.

        So when you examine typical conservative economic theory and take into consideration these other conservative beliefs, it begs the question: are conservatives just believing in Reaganomics because there is a shred of truth behind it? …or do they just believe it because it makes them feel good, feel right, and feel in-charge? So what are some of the salient points of Reaganomics? One is that, per the theory, taxes for the rich are bad. Another is that taxes for the rich are bad. The third and most important point is, however, that taxes for the rich are bad. Without sounding too cynical, I wonder if this taxes-for-the-rich-is-bad thing is NOT sound economic theory but is, instead, some mythological tale with about as much basis in reality as Jonah and the Whale. Sometimes I have to admit that my cynicism gets the best of me and I wonder if these flipping f@<!ing idiots aren’t leading this country down the god damn primrose path. I do. I am very sorry about these outbursts of cynicism but I am just overwhelmed by them sometimes.

        Then I hear an evil liberal economist like Krugman telling us that we are being led down the primrose path and again, in my weakness, I have to wonder if the possibility exists. I don’t really know. Global economics is too much for me. Conservatives seem like such nice people. I cannot imagine them espousing a government economic policy that might be flawed in any way. After all, they communicate with God and know Jesus. Maybe I will just take a sleeping pill and go to bed. It was probably just something I ate.

      • Daniel Berg Says:

        PW,

        One of the reasons I am dubious of economic policies like the ones Krugman espouses is mentioned by Seak Mossback above. I do believe short-term spending is important in jump-starting a flailing economy. However, I don’t trust that our current politicians will then subsequently tighten the belt in good times to bring our debt under control. They just can’t seem to help themselves when it comes to bloating the government unecessarily anymore, republican or democrat. I’m afraid there are no more Harry Trumans out there to counter the FDR’s. I also am dubious of our governments ability to spend the “stimulus” type monies in the most beneficial ways. I’ve read that 10-20% of the total stimulus package may be lost to one type of fraud or another. Another large portion of it has seemingly gone to pet projects or kickbacks to special interest groups who supported democrats. You just can’t lay $800,000,000,0000 in front of congress and expect them to choose the most productive path. It’s unfortunate that it has to be that way, and I don’t think Krugman fully takes those factors into account. I don’t believe he has the answers on how to realistically apply his economic model with our current government any more than the man on the moon.

      • PointsWest Says:

        We spent $800,000,000,000 on the Iraq war. There was large scale fraud as in all wars. There were reports of contractors sending new trucks to the burn pit (where they were burned) because they needed new air filters. Millions of dollars just disappeared into all kinds or rackets between Americans, Iraqis, and foreign contractors. So because of the corruption that comes with any war, should we have a policy of no wars?

      • Daniel Berg Says:

        We never should have gone to Iraq, IMO. Iraq was a good buffer against Iran in the region. The costs in lives and money were far to great compared to the result.

      • Save bears Says:

        After serving in the First Gulf War in Iraq, I can’t say I agree, that we shouldn’t have gone there again..

      • Daniel Berg Says:

        SB,

        I did not serve, and I always appreciate hearing a veteran’s take on Iraq and Afghanistan. I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter, but I’m afraid that I’ve probably segwayed away from wildlife issues far enough for one thread.

  13. Daniel Berg Says:

    Here’s a good site for tracking election numbers so far. Looks like Angle has a pretty good shot at winning, Rossi might fall short in WA, and Idaho is apparently clamoring for another dose of Butch Otter.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

  14. vickif Says:

    I have come to the realization that in order for people to vote pro-environment, we have to make the environment a fiscal benefit. We have failed to do that. Democrats and republicans alike have failed to do it, and more politicians will seek to diminish the power of ‘green’ thinkers, in attempts to gain popularity the easy way….by dangling dollars in front of folks. Oil is a sure thing, and you can make more money bleeding the Earth dry then trying not to.

    Seeing the environment as a threatened entity has little impact on people, particullarly Americans. The reality, sad though it may be, is people are motivated by greed. (Generally but not explicitly).

    The political system gives profound distinction to economic prosperity and environment conservation. Until such time as we are able to give a huge arguement to the profitability of conserving our resources, the environment will remain a non-priority for most people. The only way to save the environment will be to make it synonymous with the economy.

    That is not to say that there is no arguement supporting eco-profitability. There are just no arguements that seem to be swaying the masses.

    The idea that we can enjoy nature without impacting it, is false. If you venture out to see or enjoy the environment or it’s inhabitants, you have already had an impact. The problem is, controlling the impact and renewing what we depleat. Good luck to anyone who can show that to be as profitable as America’s lust for technology and convenience. Creating a business that can manage that would be truly life altering, for all of us.

    Politicians will not save the environment, they won’t vote for its’ benefit as long as Wall Street and Slick Business throws money at their feet. If there were billionares who owned alternative energy companies that could pay lobbiests and put their hands in the wallets of politicians, we may have a chance. But let’s face it folks, most people who give a hoot about the planet have far too many scruples to romance the likes of shady politicians.


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: