Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aladin who wrote (27196)	4/26/2002 11:50:24 AM
From: American Spirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Your problem is your cynicism about environmentalism. This should not be a partisan issue at all. many Republicans I know are good sound environmentalists. But the Bush-Cheney team in particular has made it a partisan issue. It has aliened GOP moderates and it will be B-C's downfall. Conservative should mean conserving. Otherwise the term is hypocritical. As for endangered species laws, it's a critical check and balance within our legal system to be able to slow or stop irresponsible development by people who just don't care. And remember once species are gone, they are gone for good. Protecting eco-systems is vital. And even the snail darter may be a canary in the coal mine. Some protections may sound absurd to you and maybe there is over-reaching sometimes but on the whole these laws are critical and responsible. You should be glad they are there. Otherwise, we would have even less old-growth forest and wetlands etc than we have now. Already severely depleted but would be much worse without environmental protection. The fact is, every time there have been new environmental laws the opposition has screamed "We can't do it, you'll put us out of business! It will cost jobs!" But in fact they gradually get used to it, another kind of wealth is created from preservation itself, timber-cutters find new jobs and everything adjusts. The fact is that some exploiters of resources like drift-netters, clear-cutters, miners putting poisons into streams, those who drain and build on wetlands, or use TNT to destroy coral reefs, are criminals against not only nature but against future generations. Abuse it and you lose it, sometimes permanently. Every society with strict environmental laws is richer and more civlized. Sustainability is the key. Those without restrictions end up destroying their own futures and becoming ugly, polluted countries poorer for their own short-term greed. Travel around the world and see. As the richest nation on earth we should be leading not dragging our heels. The amount of jobs created by new clean technologoies far surpasses any that our lost in the long run. Yes there is an adjustment period but that is human evolution. And there will always be those trying to kill, pollute and exploit who must be checked and even arrested. Wehn I was a kid we all thought nature was infinite, the seas could always feed the world, you could cut down as many trees and kill as many animals as you wanted. It is sad we don't have an infinite earth, but it is irresponsible to fight the fact. If you want to change the envirinmental movement then join in. Your voice will be heard. But if you fight it as a whole, you are just being part of the much bigger problem. That is what Bush did rejecting Kyoto. He showed the world that he wants to go backward, is greedy, short-sighted, doesn't care about pollution - so why should anyone else? It was the single worst thing he ever did, and it broke a campaign promise. Plus the logic he used was filled with lies.