Since the 70's environmentalists have lobbied successfully, yet tirelessly to regulate the waste and pollution businesses, industries and individuals produce--all the while touting how this was important for the health of "Mother Earth." Granted, some of these regulations were sorely needed, but where do we draw the line?
Over the past 40 years environmentalists have built upon initial regulations, taking them to a whole new level, in their quest for moving us away from our oil dependency. Businesses and individuals have proposed MANY alternative energy generating ideas to lessen or eliminate our oil dependency, but EVERY possible solution is dismissed by the same environmentalists who say we need to "do something!"
The idea of Wind Farms has been tabled by politicians (Kennedy, Kerry, and Romney, to name a few) AND wealthy individuals, because the farms would "ruin their pristine views" AND by liberal animal lovers concerned about all of the birds who might be killed by the propellers!
The idea of building hydroelectric dams has been proposed on several occasions, only to be shot down because of some inconsequential "bait fish." Never mind the fact that the northern half of the country gets the majority of its electricity from hydroelectric dams in CANADA!
The idea of building new nuclear power plants has been proposed, only to be dismissed, because of all of the potential "meltdown" scenarios. Even though environmentalists would love for us to be more like Europe and France generates 80% of his electricity from nuclear power, we can't do that either!
The idea of using corn to make ethanol also has a negative impact as many are already seeing increased grocery prices as corn and corn based products, as the cost to make ethanol severely cuts into our corn harvesting capabilities a scale large enough to fill up our vehicles, resulting in making corn based products (which exist in the majority of packaged foods) that much more expensive!
And NOW, even a SOLAR PANEL production plant is being sued by the Sierra Club--California's leading environmental group! Why, you ask? Because apparently "regulators failed to fully mitigate the project's impact on rare plant and animal species." In fact plans for SIX other solar power plants have been derailed because of their potential impact on wildlife.
As a barrel of oil currently costs $100/barrel and fuel prices at the pump are sitting comfortably at a minimum of $3.00/gallon, with conservative estimates going up to $4.00/gallon and higher by summer, while our government prevents us from drilling off of our shores but allows foreign countries to drill off our shores--and to depths greater than the BP oil spill disaster last spring! So we inherit all of the risk, with none of the reward!
Environmentalists say that the US contains only about 5% of the world's population, yet generates 23% of the world's pollution. BUT, interestingly enough the US is also responsible for generating 23% of the world's economy!! So, would reducing business and industry via stringent pollution regulations (ie: Cap and Trade) to where the US only produces 5% of the world's economy, make environmentalists happy--you know when we're living in mud huts and walking everywhere--because every other mode of transportation (even bicycles which generate pollution in their creation) would be deemed "irresponsible?!"
So, environmentalists, help me out, what IS the answer?! Is the REAL AGENDA of environmentalists to actually HELP our the viability of our planet and quality of life or CONTROL the people?! (my question)
Answer by jewjewbee at 12:14 PM on Jan. 18, 2011
Answer by tnmomofive at 12:05 PM on Jan. 18, 2011
IMO, the end game is control. In just about everything our government does.
Answer by QuinnMae at 12:10 PM on Jan. 18, 2011
Answer by Bethsunshine at 12:13 PM on Jan. 18, 2011
Answer by lovinangels at 12:14 PM on Jan. 18, 2011
Answer by NotPanicking at 12:55 PM on Jan. 18, 2011
Answer by Carpy at 1:31 PM on Jan. 18, 2011
MY OPINION (just that, as I'm neither a scientist nor psychiatrist) is that much of the opinions formulated likely depend on where in the country you are talking about. In CA, where I have lived the majority of my life, I truly believe that most people (scientists included) have a genuine concern for people, planet, other life forms and possible long term consequences associated with energy production. See Prop 23 results. In other parts of the country and for those who have never lived in and about the "CA mentality", it's probably hard to comprehend. In terms of the control of people, I have never felt that (not since my Catholic grammar school days). Why wouldn't you try to reduce use or reuse items for as long as possible? Once a disaster occurs (Santa Barbara oil spill 1969), doesn't it make sense to learn from that occurrence? I will agree that the NIMBY mentality does affect policy-
Answer by Sisteract at 12:14 PM on Jan. 18, 2011
Well it isn't just the environmentalist that are causing the problems. Over the last 2 years CRM work has been done on the impact and mitigation of oil drilling in the west and south west. Many of the sites proposed as potential drilling locations are restricted by legislation created to preserve our cultural resources. The group doing this research (geologists, anthropologists, biologists, SHPOs, THPOs, and more) can only propose restrictions, make recommendations before a mitigation committee. Concerned parties accept the mitigation proposal or take it to court. To say it is the Environmentalist is way oversimplifying the process.
Answer by emptynstr at 1:16 PM on Jan. 18, 2011
....many of those regs ARE NEEDED ..AS YOU STATED in the FIRST part of your question.... Yep. So when does an established framework become too rigid? Idk- it seems most appreciate the rules and regs when THEY profit, yet want to balk when they believe or perceive that their activities are too strictly monitored. Like with those Swiss bank accounts that allow folks to legally invest tax free money. In cases like that, few complain about the "rules" and protections in place- It's a balancing act for sure.
If the goal is to collect the most toys, we all know who is going to win: ALL politicians- They'll cross sides and protect one another before they'll protect their constituents at home, IMO!
Answer by Sisteract at 2:05 PM on Jan. 18, 2011