The Conservative Solution to... Pollution

[stephanie]

Conservatives don't want an answer to pollution. There want more of it.
Relaxing environmental regulations will lead to more pollution. Additional drilling, fracking, etc. will lead to more pollution.

China and Mexico have few regulations restraining business growth. They also have dirty, unbreathable air.
So which do you want?

You've really drank the liberal Kool-Aid. Just amazing

you see a rally after liberals and their garbage and then look at one after conservatives?

nuff said

[jimnyc]

Conservatives don't want an answer to pollution. There want more of it.

Want to play the large brush game again? Fine, now once again articulate your position. Show us how and why this is what you believe. Is it even possible for you to write paragraphs? Include links? Maybe voting tallies? Historical voting and trends? Or will you sit back and rest on rhetoric alone?

And what is the liberal answer to pollution? Post specifics please, and votes and such...

[grannyhawkins]

Imma thinkin more decisions like this are the answer!!!

North Dakota Names Landfill After Obama
http://dailycurrant.com/2014/11/17/n...l-after-obama/

The state of North Dakota has named a new publicly-owned landfill after President Barack Obama.

In an overwhelming 35-10 vote, the state Senate advanced a bill naming a 650-acre site currently under construction after the nation’s 44th president. Governor Jack Dalrymple is expected to sign the measure into law Tuesday.

When completed, the Barack Obama Memorial Landfill will be the largest waste disposal site in North Dakota, and the 17th largest in the United States. It will be especially rich in toxic waste from the local petroleum and medical industries.

[aboutime]

Conservatives don't want an answer to pollution. There want more of it.
Relaxing environmental regulations will lead to more pollution. Additional drilling, fracking, etc. will lead to more pollution.

China and Mexico have few regulations restraining business growth. They also have dirty, unbreathable air.
So which do you want?

The stuff gabby fills her pool with, while her neighbors haven't got a DROP TO DRINK?

[Drummond]

Why are you avoiding proffering a conservative solution? I have my theory.

Attention span difficulties always have been a problem for you, FJ ... I suspect that inflexibility from Leftie propagandist positions might be a part of it ..

Evidently I need to recap.

1. I've stated that a Conservative approach would be one of education as to what the problems were. This is distinct from the Leftie approach, which would see to it that propaganda about it was broadcast, Nation State leaders then said what THEY required to be done about it, this followed up with laws and diktats demanding that people obey .. freedom of decision by all but the most powerful taken out of the equation.

The Leftie solution in action: hefty taxes, massive business restrictions. Ways of life being dictated, power wielded by the State to unprecedented levels.

2. I've also stated that much of the problem of pollution is that what's already there will not disappear any time soon, and that all Mankind can do is regulate (and then only to a degree) the rate at which IT IS ADDED TO.

Do you get it now, FJ ?

The likes of Al Gore preach the problem and what THEY say must be done about it. They then apply laws which they say must be obeyed, since to not do so will poison Mankind's future.

They then (certainly in Gore's case, anyway) ratchet up a massive 'carbon footprint' via world travel plans, entirely at odds with what they preach.

So I ask: to what extent is this ALL about a cynical excuse to blackmail Mankind into allowing power-broker control freaks, control over everyone's lives ?

Do you agree, FJ, that the Leftie approach is wrong and deserves to be resisted ? YES or NO ?

[fj1200]

...

Evidently I need to recap.

1. I've stated that a Conservative approach would be one of education as to what the problems were. This is distinct from the Leftie approach, which would see to it that propaganda about it was broadcast, Nation State leaders then said what THEY required to be done about it, this followed up with laws and diktats demanding that people obey .. freedom of decision by all but the most powerful taken out of the equation.

...

2. I've also stated that much of the problem of pollution is that what's already there will not disappear any time soon, and that all Mankind can do is regulate (and then only to a degree) the rate at which IT IS ADDED TO.

...

Do you agree, FJ, that the Leftie approach is wrong and deserves to be resisted ? YES or NO ?

For criminies sake, please try and keep up with the class.

Hmm you have a point, perhaps the thread should be just solutions to pollution. My underlying thought was that conservative solutions would work whereas liberal solutions would not at least would not without draconian limits.

I started a thread to discuss the conservative solutions to pollution, not whine about what lefties do and what they think. So far you haven't proposed anything of substance. 1. Education as to the problems? The Cuyahoga River was on fire, that doesn't take any education. 2. More pollution? Not really a solution.

What is the conservative solution?

[Drummond]

For criminies sake, please try and keep up with the class.

Ah, yet more Leftie trolling from you. More post crossings-out. Better to edit out what you cannot, or will not, accept .. rather than take it on board, eh ?

Adherence to propagandist positions will do that, of course. Only deal with what your propagandist limitations will allow.

I started a thread to discuss the conservative solutions to pollution, not whine about what lefties do and what they think. So far you haven't proposed anything of substance. Education as to the problems? The Cuyahoga River was on fire, that doesn't take any education. What is the conservative solution?

And I HAVE ANSWERED YOU.

The answer is to adopt Conservative realism, and EDUCATE with it. This means not running with alarmism followed by cloud-cuckooland solutions which obscure any realistic outcomes.

I have already explained to you that much of the pollution problem - in so far as it IS one - has been created already, and all we can do is reduce our capacity to ADD to it.

So, OK, I know this defies Leftie propaganda, and my stating this truth will no doubt provoke you into more troll editing rubbish. Nonetheless, the Conservative mind FACES UP TO TRUTH. Even if yours cannot.

No ... dispensing with propaganda designed to mislead into the permitting of power-grabs is part of the Conservative solution, because such a process harms free enterprise, done on the back of A LIE. The rest is to educate in a truthful manner and to leave it up to democratic consultation, up to ORDINARY INDIVIDUALS .. to do what CAN be done.

OK, FJ .. get to the troll editing again. Because there's only so much of what I've said that you can possibly accept, without breaking ranks from your comrades ...

[fj1200]

I'm trying to keep this on topic. You can start a thread that prattles on about lefties if you like but this is about a solution to pollution.

And I HAVE ANSWERED YOU.

The answer is to adopt Conservative realism, and EDUCATE with it. This means not running with alarmism followed by cloud-cuckooland solutions which obscure any realistic outcomes.

I have already explained to you that much of the pollution problem - in so far as it IS one - has been created already, and all we can do is reduce our capacity to ADD to it.

No ... dispensing with propaganda designed to mislead into the permitting of power-grabs is part of the Conservative solution, because such a process harms free enterprise, done on the back of A LIE. The rest is to educate in a truthful manner and to leave it up to democratic consultation, up to ORDINARY INDIVIDUALS .. to do what CAN be done.

No, you haven't really answered; non-specific statements are not a solution. How do we reduce our capacity to "add to it"?

[Drummond]

By the way, FJ ... I'd never heard of the river you named in your post. Son I googled it.

The Wikipedia entry I found was instructive. From it, I discern what you're up to.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuyahoga_River

At least 13 fires have been reported on the Cuyahoga River, the first occurring in 1868. The largest river fire in 1952 caused over $1 million in damage to boats, a bridge, and a riverfront office building. On June 22, 1969, a river fire captured the attention of Time magazine, which described the Cuyahoga as the river that "oozes rather than flows" and in which a person "does not drown but decays". The fire did eventually spark major changes as well as the article from Time, but in the immediate aftermath very little attention was given to the incident and was not considered a major news story in the Cleveland media. Furthermore, the conflagration that sparked Time's outrage was in June 1969, but the pictures they displayed on the cover and as part of the article were from the much more dangerous and costly 1952 fire. No pictures of the 1969 fire are known to exist, as local media did not arrive on the scene until after the fire was under control. The 1969 fire caused approximately $50,000 in damage, mostly to an adjacent railroad bridge ...

The 1969 Cuyahoga River fire helped spur an avalanche of water pollution control activities, resulting in the Clean Water Act, Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, and the creation of the federal Environmental Protection Agency and the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). As a result, large point sources of pollution on the Cuyahoga have received significant attention from the OEPA in recent decades. These events are referred to in Randy Newman's 1972 song "Burn On," R.E.M.'s 1986 song "Cuyahoga," and Adam Again's 1992 song "River on Fire." Great Lakes Brewing Company of Cleveland named its Burning River Pale Ale after the event.

So, then ...

1. Pollution has been a significant problem since 1868 ?

2. Only Big Government solutions have had an impact ?

Have they cured the problem, FJ ?

Despite these efforts, pollution continues to exist in the Cuyahoga River due to other sources of pollution, including urban runoff, nonpoint source problems, combined sewer overflows, and stagnation due to water impounded by dams. For this reason, the Environmental Protection Agency classified portions of the Cuyahoga River watershed as one of 43 Great Lakes Areas of Concern.

It would appear NOT.

You obviously introduced that river into discussion to 'show' whatv long-term capitalitic freedoms had done, and that solutions of a Big Government nature had made their impact. BUT, even THAT has not CURED the problems. Which, if Leftie approaches were the solution, surely, IT WOULD HAVE DONE ?

I have to assume that there's something unique about the Cuyahoga river that magnifies, concentrates, any pollution problem. Otherwise, how come even very old-fashioned activities, having nothing to do with today's industrial processes, created a severe problem in the middle of the NINETEENTH century ?

But the fact remains, FJ, that your example was one of considerable, and precedent-setting, BIG GOVERNMENT intervention. Is this your Leftie preaching (done in a covert style) coming to the fore ? Eh, FJ .. ?

[Drummond]

How do we reduce our capacity to "add to it"?

What a giveaway, FJ. Your question bypasses the reality involved pretty much entirely, doesn't it, in favour of the popular propagandist approach ...

On greenhouse gases .. I thought I'd made myself clear. And repeatedly ? But I'll try to yet again. Please PAY ATTENTION.

The greenhouse gas pollutants are in the atmosphere already, and THIS DAMAGE IS DONE. If the Leftie propaganda we hear about it is anywhere near true, then the warming agents in the atmosphere will do their progressive (forgive the word ?) damage in the decades to come.

Reducing further pollution to zero, even IF possible, WOULD NOT STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING.

Now, of course, Conservative education would correct the current propaganda, propaganda which has it that swingeing controls must be made on businesses and pollution processes in order to 'cure' a problem 'not open to being cured'.

But, FJ, you've bypassed that point. WHY ?

[grannyhawkins]

What a giveaway, FJ. Your question bypasses the reality involved pretty much entirely, doesn't it, in favour of the popular propagandist approach ...

On greenhouse gases .. I thought I'd made myself clear. And repeatedly ? But I'll try to yet again. Please PAY ATTENTION.

The greenhouse gas pollutants are in the atmosphere already, and THIS DAMAGE IS DONE. If the Leftie propaganda we hear about it is anywhere near true, then the warming agents in the atmosphere will do their progressive (forgive the word ?) damage in the decades to come.

Reducing further pollution to zero, even IF possible, WOULD NOT STOP THIS FROM HAPPENING.

Now, of course, Conservative education would correct the current propaganda, propaganda which has it that swingeing controls must be made on businesses and pollution processes in order to 'cure' a problem 'not open to being cured'.

But, FJ, you've bypassed that point. WHY ?

I think secretly, that fj1200 would like the USA and Europe to give up their sovereignty an have Ban Ki-moon an the United nations take over the entire world, because we all know that the United Nations has always been so successful with their core mission. Just ask the UN about the safe zone in Sri Lanka, or Bosnia, Kosovo, Cambodia, Haiti, and Mozambique about child sex abuse, or Bosnia about the Srebrenica Massacre, or Cambodia about the Khmer Rouge , or Rwanda and Sudan, about the UN response.

Apparently, those that have a good line a BS, are the types of folks we want makin decisions for us, as we've twice elected a leader in this country with just as weak a line of BS as the UN.

[Drummond]

I think secretly, that fj1200 would like the USA and Europe to give up their sovereignty an have Ban Ki-moon an the United nations take over the entire world, because we all know that the United Nations has always been so successful with their core mission. Just ask the UN about the safe zone in Sri Lanka, or Bosnia, Kosovo, Cambodia, Haiti, and Mozambique about child sex abuse, or Bosnia about the Srebrenica Massacre, or Cambodia about the Khmer Rouge , or Rwanda and Sudan, about the UN response.

Apparently, those that have a good line a BS, are the types of folks we want makin decisions for us, as we've twice elected a leader in this country with just as weak a line of BS as the UN.

Granny, I think you're right !!

FJ professes to be a Conservative, yet, when tested, shows no evidence of being able to think in a non-Leftie way. Globalism is pro-Leftie, and FJ has shown no capacity to absorb thinking / ideas which escape the 'Big Government must decree answers to us all' tripe.

I have answered FJ repeatedly, but he only sees the problem, and terms for a solution, in ways which conform to his way of thinking. That pollution 'IS' the threat big outfits like the UN say it is. That 'Big Solutions' 'MUST' be found, and offered.

And that individual responsibility, as HE HAS ADMITTED, he does not see as the problem -- which ONLY leaves the bigger - authority-dictated - approach to it instead.

FJ, I'll issue another of my challenges which you will duck.

You say you are a Conservative. TRY ANSWERING YOUR OWN QUESTION, THEN, AS A CONSERVATIVE WOULD. WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER TO 'POLLUTION' .. ??

[glockmail]

Go.

Nixon had the right idea when he unilaterally made the EPA. The only problem is that he did it unilaterally, and by doing so, it has become a bureaucracy unchecked.

I started my career as an environmental engineer back in the 70's. Back then pollution was a much bigger problem, and the EPA was actually helpful with research, technology transfer guidance, and the like. But, like any other FedCo program, it grew into its current nightmare.

The conservative solution is to eliminate the EPA as we know it and have Congress develop a replacement. The replacement should be a small agency that develops guidelines and coordinates research. Let the States proceed (as most do now) with their own regulatory agencies.

Stop subsidizing energy "solutions" that don't work, like sloar panels and wind turbines.

Ignore the enviro-nuts after their arguments have been debunked.

Approve the Yucca Mountain nuclear resource storage facility. Stop calling it nuclear waste since the material will be recycled once technology is available to do so.

Stop standing in the way of nuclear power.

[red states rule]

Conservatives don't want an answer to pollution. There want more of it.
Relaxing environmental regulations will lead to more pollution. Additional drilling, fracking, etc. will lead to more pollution.

China and Mexico have few regulations restraining business growth. They also have dirty, unbreathable air.
So which do you want?

Thanks Gabby for telling us the platform of the Republican Party

R's stand for polluting the air and water, killing tens of millions of people, starving millions more, then run for re-election on their accomplishments

All it takes is liberal logic to show the "truth". So what if R's have to breath the same air and drink the same water? Pesky details that really do not matter -right?

As long as America lowers our standard of living, crush the private sector with more regulations and tax the hell out the producers things will get better - eventually

[Drummond]

FJ, I'll issue another of my challenges which you will duck.

You say you are a Conservative. TRY ANSWERING YOUR OWN QUESTION, THEN, AS A CONSERVATIVE WOULD. WHAT IS YOUR ANSWER TO 'POLLUTION' .. ??

No answer to my challenge, FJ ? What a surprise ....

I think that your intention was to throw your question at Conservatives, in the hope that any answers would fail to seem credible or viable. So, naturally, you wouldn't be offering any original Conservative-minded solutions yourself.

Besides -- CAN YOU ? I contend that as you don't think as a Conservative, you are incapable of giving your own such answer. Which explains why you haven't !

Go on, FJ ... try proving me wrong. Go on .....