The Religious Right and the Environment - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-26-2005, 10:56 PM   #16
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 04:16 AM
I apologize if my 'drug' comments steered the topic off...
__________________

__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-26-2005, 11:11 PM   #17
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Less, but it will add up. Pot is addictive, but tobacco is more addictive. I wouldn't call druggies "responsible", and it's unlikely they would have any desire to quit.
"Druggies" your bias is deep. The fact is; marijuana is less harmful than cigarettes or alcohol, short term or long term. And it's less addictive than alcohol both(technically physical addiction hasn't been proven).


Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Which would change if we place hallucinogens in the mouths of drivers legally. Drinking and driving is a HUGE problem, why risk making it a bigger problem?[/B]
You wouldn't place them in drivers legally. Driving under the influence would still be against the law.

Sounds like you want prohibition.


[B]
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe

It's irresponsible. We allowed millions to buzz out on liquor, then we tried to take it back. Once something like drug legalization gets half that impact, there's no turning back. We could be screwing ourselves over for generations.
How? It is so much less destructive than alcohol, cigarettes, and most pain killers which college students are using for recreational use.


But this thread is about the environment. You haven't brought up one good point about that, so if you have anything to add about that do it here otherwise start a new thread.
__________________

__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 04-27-2005, 12:09 AM   #18
Rock n' Roll Doggie
ALL ACCESS
 
ILuvLarryMullen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: in the sunshine
Posts: 6,904
Local Time: 12:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Do Miss America
Insane.

I love how they preach LIFE, LIFE, LIFE but don't give a shit about the quality of life.

Sidenote: I just saw Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. on 'Real Time' tonight and saw one of the best arguments on the environment that I've seen in a long time. He said if we just raise our overall mileage per gallon in this country by 7% we can totally eliminate our oil dependence in the mideast. His whole argument was amazing. Please watch this or maybe I can find a transcript later.

Sorry Melon if I went off a little.

I watched this tonight too, it was very good !
__________________
ILuvLarryMullen is offline  
Old 04-27-2005, 05:44 AM   #19
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 03:16 AM
Re: The Religious Right and the Environment

Quote:
Originally posted by melon

The question, I guess, is whether one would agree that the crux of this argument is correct: that the Religious Right and, by extension, the GOP don't care about saving the environment, because the world is going to end anyway in a short period of time, so we might as well blow it all! Plus, ecological disasters that may be attributed to "global warming" may be a "good thing," as it might be signs of "the end," so why would we want to stop it?
It's one possible explaination I suppose. I'm religious (probably to the extent that you're implying) and a Republican. I'm not much of an environmentalist. For me it has nothing to do with religion. First of all there are other issues that are more important to me, like world poverty, health care, and shitty education. That, and I've know some staunch environmentalists and unfortunately they've all been so bleeding heart that they don't have their own facts straight and think I'm a heartless person b/c I'm not a tree hugger. They've also been some of the more wasteful people I've know. No, I'm not really into going to protests and environmentalist rallies like them, but hey I don't drive cars two blocks to school and I have three bins full of materials to recycle when it's trash day. My dad works in the lumber and veneer business and he's also a Christian who values preserving the environment, so he's done his best to reconcile the two. A lot of these environmentalists I bumped into during high school don't realize the benefits of certain methods of deforestation. Now, I don't know exactly how this works scientifically, but my dad once explained to me that he'll take down these older or unhealthy trees that will fall soon anyway and there's something about how they decompose that is actually bad and slows the re-growth of the forest. That and they plant twice as many trees as they take down. OK, so maybe I'm going off on a tangent. I realize this is only a tiny slice of "environmentalism" as a whole. To answer your question from my perspective, sure Republicans are less concerned about the environment, but I've never met one that was this way b/c they thought the world was going to end soon.
__________________
Liesje is offline  
Old 04-27-2005, 10:11 AM   #20
Blue Crack Addict
 
Dalton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Little hand says it's time to rock and roll.
Posts: 15,147
Local Time: 04:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Do Miss America
Insane.

I love how they preach LIFE, LIFE, LIFE but don't give a shit about the quality of life.


This is the thing that just kicks me in the nuts.
__________________
Dalton is offline  
Old 04-27-2005, 10:21 AM   #21
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 04:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Do Miss America
"Druggies" your bias is deep.
Yes it is. They pollute the environment with their egocentric lifestyles at the risk of harming themselves and others. They belong behind bars. No sympathy for their stupidity. They knowingly break the law, and that is wrong.

Quote:
Originally posted by Do Miss America
Sounds like you want prohibition.
We already tried prohibition and we got screwed. Thank you.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-27-2005, 10:38 AM   #22
War Child
 
Do Miss America's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: In Ryan's Pocket
Posts: 738
Local Time: 02:16 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Macfistowannabe
Yes it is. They pollute the environment with their egocentric lifestyles at the risk of harming themselves and others. They belong behind bars. No sympathy for their stupidity. They knowingly break the law, and that is wrong.

We already tried prohibition and we got screwed. Thank you.
Well you're way off and you're way off topic, so like I said if you want to discuss this I'd suggest another thread.
__________________
Do Miss America is offline  
Old 04-27-2005, 12:51 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 04:16 AM
Quote:
Recall the natural fire that was allowed to torch Yellowstone Park in 1988, causing $150 million in damages and destroying 1 million acres of trees. Environmentalists qua Park Officials prohibited firefighting for weeks because the fire was "natural" and "fire is a benign rather than a malignant force." According to the New York Times (Sept. 22, 1988): "They said they were trying to protect pristine areas from the destructive effects of bulldozers, fire engines and irrigation pipes." If nature is sacred, fighting natural forest fires is also a sin.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-27-2005, 12:56 PM   #24
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
Macfistowannabe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Ohio
Posts: 4,129
Local Time: 04:16 AM
Quote:
A study by the Heartland Institute estimates that the DEP (Department of "Environmental Protection") proposal would cost consumer and business losses that could reach $12.9 billion if implemented in New Jersey. Indeed, State revenue losses could reach $20.9 billion. Not only is New Jersey already deeply in debt, the NJDEP wants to plunge it even deeper in debt.
__________________
Macfistowannabe is offline  
Old 04-27-2005, 01:30 PM   #25
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,471
Local Time: 03:16 AM
here's another angle on this issue ...



Hawks, Hippies, Holies
The New Green Coalition

A couple of decades ago, a young Tory wanna-be policy analyst wrote a pamphlet called "Greening the Tories." It was an attempt to argue that being in favor of environmental protection and energy conservation was not necessarily a liberal or statist idea. Conserving is, well, conservative. Keeping the air clean, cars efficient, and energy affordable benefits everyone, regardless of ideology. Why, in any case, should conservatives be so hostile to environmentalism? If done right - with market incentives and smarter technology rather than with crude regulation - it could be a conservative vote-winner.

Well, the idea didn't get very far. I wrote the pamphlet more as a thought-experiment than as a blue-print. But if you live long enough, even too-clever-by-half post-adolescents can find solace. So here's a simple question: who do you think are now advocates for new energy technologies and environmental regulation? Here's the surprising answer from America: a motley collection of neo-con hawks, Christian evangelicals and right-wing isolationists.

Take the hawks first. Some key advocates for the war against Saddam Hussein - among them the neocon fire-breather, Frank Gaffney, and former CIA chief, James Woolsey - have come out as born-again conservationists, dedicated to promoting green technologies that can liberate the U.S. from near-complete reliance on oil imports. The primary motivation is to reduce Saudi support for terror, funded in large part by America's petrol-hungry economy. In Gaffney's words: "It is neither in the United States' strategic, national security nor economic interests for this country and other industrialized nations to continue relying on imported oil from those who wish to do us harm." And it's a little easier for Americans to cut down on oil consumption than to send hundreds of thousands of troops to reform every oil-based Arab autocracy out there.

Now take the evangelicals. As the Christian right matures, it has begun to see global issues in surprising ways. Evangelicals have been prime movers in the Bush administration's AIDS policy in Africa, in policies designed to end human slavery, and even stopping the genocide in Darfur. Lately, many evangelicals have also begun campaigning for what they call "creation-care." "Enivronmentalism" sounded too hippie for their tastes. Humans, they argue, have a duty to be good stewards of God's world. And that means energy conservation. "The environment is a values issue," the Rev. Ted Haggard, president of the 30 million-member National Association of Evangelicals, recently told the Washington Post. "There are significant and compelling theological reasons why it should be a banner issue for the Christian right." The evangelical magazine, Christianity Today, editorialized last autumn that "Christians should make it clear to governments and businesses that we are willing to adapt our lifestyles and support steps towards changes that protect our environment."

A hefty proportion of the American right - despite the caricatures in the European press - is leery of foreign entanglement as well. And isolationist tendencies lead inexorably to the product that most ties the U.S. to the turmoil-ridden Middle East: oil. The tipping point may well be the recent - and possibly permanent - hike in the price of petrol. A USA Today poll last week found 58 percent of Americans saying that higher petrol prices are eating into their standard of living. Expensive petrol may also be behind the recent slide in the president's approval rating - to a historic low for re-elected presidents.

These groups have now allied with more traditional environmental lobbies to form a new organization called "Set America Free." (They have a website at www.setamericafree.org.) What do they propose? There are competing ideas. Among them: tax credits for researching new forms of energy; more government research into alternatives to oil; more nuclear power; more exploitation of domestic oil and coal reserves; higher taxes on petrol; encouragement of hybrid car technology. Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria recently called for direct presidential action: "Tomorrow, President Bush could make the following speech: 'It is now possible to build cars that are powered by a combination of electricity and alcohol-based fuels, with petroleum as only one element among many. My administration is going to put in place a series of policies that will ensure that in four years, the average new American car will get 300 miles per gallon of petroleum. And I fully expect in this period to see cars in the United States that get 500 miles per gallon.'"

The beauty of this policy is that it backs both more exploration of domestic oil and a ramped up effort to popularize hybrid cars and other forms of energy. The Middle East's troubles have built support for this. But so has the growing understanding that oil may be headed for a permanent, more expensive plateau as China consumes more and more of it. The whole world stands to gain. Not only would the policy switch reduce carbon gases that may well be contributing to global warming. It would also help defuse a looming global super-power fight between China and the U.S. over oil supplies.

Does this movement have a future? That's hard to tell. John Kerry made energy independence a key plank of his presidential campaign - and, of course, he lost. What was needed was a more bipartisan approach, one that appealed both to liberal environmentalists and conservative hawks. Now we have the first signs of one, with grass roots power from the bases of both political parties - greens for the Democrats, evangelicals for the Republicans. I have to say I'm doubtful whether the critical impetus for new research and development - a big hike in gas taxes - will ever be implemented in the near future. But more federal research, presidential leadership, and some new tax credits cannot hurt. Hybrid cars are beginning to catch on - and more expensive gas is beginning to make them more economical for ordinary Americans.

Ideas can last for decades without coming to fruition. It takes luck and a fortuitous combination of factors to bring them to life. Between them, the Christian and neocon right, the enviro-left, and the mullahs of the Middle East may finally achieve what a young Thatcherite once dreamt of. The geo-neocon-green movement may have arrived. And just in time.

April 9, 2005, Sunday Times.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com