Save earth: end conditioned air

Are you concerned about global warming? Do you want to reverse capitalism’s exploitative destruction of the earth? For the sake of our children, for the sake of the earth, for the sake of cute little puppies and all the baby animals of the world, we must outlaw conditioned air!

It’s true. Conditioned air has addicted America to an artificial way of life and has put us on the Al-Gore-Enviro-death-cult path of destruction we are on now.

Incredibly, air conditioning has not only created and contributed to environmental destruction, but it got George Bush elected as well, thus sealing our collective fates, politically, to suffer the most unimaginable humiliation and pain. In short, the addiction to conditioned air must be stopped in order to save the planet.

In the 50 years since air-conditioning hit the mass market, America has become so well-addicted that our dependence goes almost entirely unremarked. A/C is built into our economy and our culture. Stepping from a torrid parking lot into a 72-degree, air-conditioned lobby can provide a degree of instantaneous relief and physical pleasure experienced through few other legal means. But if the effect of air-conditioning on a hot human being can be compared to that of a pain-relieving drug, its economic impact is more like that of an anabolic steroid. And withdrawal, when it comes, will be painful.  ~Alternet
So as the earth warms and the seas rise we must all commit ourselves to be hotter than ever, and I'm not just talking about improving my already incredibly good looks. No, you must be committed to move to colder climates, to either tolerate the full heat of the natural summers in southern areas or evacuate to dense urban population centers like Chicago and New York and then register as Democratic or even Green Party. Only then can we return the earth to the natural balance of nature.

We must give up our artificial consumer temples of doom. If we wish to save ourselves the age of the ice cold shopping mall is over. The unatural cooling of our malls and supermarkets have supercharged the evils of overconsuption and allowed a society of waste to continue beyond the natural curbs of seasonal climate change.

This unatural cooling has altered the demographic balance as well. If it weren't for air conditioning conservatives would be a minority. Kerry would have won the last election and peace would reign across the earth-- because the left would rule as they were naturally meant to do. Also, midday siesta's would not be culturally taboo, and economic activity would be under firm democratic control.
Imagine a country where economic life, by necessity, slows during the summer. Where potential customers stay home or go swimming on a hot afternoon, so salespeople are sent home early. Where factories simply shut down the line for a couple of weeks. That was this country before air-conditioning, but in 2006, it sounds like a distant, exotic land. In today's rapid-growth, high-consumption "service economy," workers and consumers, like computers and ovens, are components, each of which is maintained at an appropriate operating temperature.  ~Alternet
If we can only convince people that the earth is in danger, it will be paradise.

Posted by Eric Simonson at June 29, 2006 3:00 PM
Comments
Comment #163311

Was that supposed to be humorous? Seems more desperate than anything else….

Posted by: Dave1 at June 29, 2006 4:18 PM
Comment #163312

I don’t get it. Republicans should stick to serious and evil, humor isn’t their cup of tea.

Posted by: David S at June 29, 2006 4:25 PM
Comment #163314

ditto

Posted by: tony at June 29, 2006 4:27 PM
Comment #163316

Yes, A/C is unnatural. Hey, it’s not mentioned in the Bible, is it? And this great country was founded by un-air conditioned Christians based on un-air conditioned principles! We could try to outlaw it, but those liberal activist judges will probably say it’s unconstitutional to outlaw A/C. So what we need is a constitutional amendment! Yea, that’s the ticket.

Posted by: jeff at June 29, 2006 4:32 PM
Comment #163317

Eric,
Good article. I live in Oregon. Most people do not have air conditionering. Oregon is a blue state, with vote by mail, urban growth boundaries, and lots of bicycles. Mass transit, too. The top private school in the northwest, Reed, is just outside downtown Portland. It is a very liberal school, by the way. Kent Keseys bus “Further,” from the “Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test,” is parked in the forest near Eugene. Our Democratic Senator, Ron Wyden, may have save the internet by threatening to filibuster the bill doing away with Net Neutrality.

Sounds to me like people should leave Texas. If people have to live in an air-conditioned indoors just to survive, maybe they should rethink their environmental surroundings. Time for a change.

Posted by: phx8 at June 29, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #163324

Hey my republican friends…now look what they done did! them activist Supreme Court Justices done tried to limit King George’s power to torture peeps.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060629/pl_nm/security_guantanamo_curbs_dc_2

Posted by: billybob at June 29, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #163341

billybob,

I’ts probably just me but can you explain how your comment on torture of terrorits ties into the subject matter of the initial post?

Posted by: Carnak at June 29, 2006 5:15 PM
Comment #163351

This can be a serious issue if our plant continues to warm. Running my AC here in south Florida contributes to a large portion of my electric bill. (Sorry Al Gore its all my fault – however if your movie is correct, my house will be under water soon) We do need to implement solar power, hydrogen, or maybe even switch grass AC units. Actually I would prefer a lawn grass system :)


Germany has made some positive steps with their 100,000 roofs program. Hot sunny states like mine should do the same.

Posted by: europheus at June 29, 2006 5:43 PM
Comment #163353

“I live in Oregon. Most people do not have air conditionering.”

Yep, but the rain is unceasing and depressing—no jobs either. It’s poverty with a view. So stay where you are, nothing here but us anarchists who love depressing weather.

Posted by: Tim Crow at June 29, 2006 5:45 PM
Comment #163363

I don’t believe that the earth will turn into Venus or melt. Plants cause pollution too by releasing methane. Should we get rid of them too? I say we just clean up our trash and landfills.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at June 29, 2006 6:09 PM
Comment #163365

Eric Simonson:

Are you serious or sarcastic? Your post is funny to me. My A/Ced house makes me fell gooood…..

Posted by: stubborn conservative at June 29, 2006 6:13 PM
Comment #163368

“I say we just clean up our trash and landfills.”

Actually, you’re not that far off. Seriously… this isn’t live altering, culture ending stuff… it’s simple, deliberate changes/alterations to minimize human addition to this equation.

Also, it’s not that we can avoid a planet melt down (it’s more just the issue of human survival…) it’s also minimizing the impact of the increase in the earth temperature, whether man made or not.

Keep this equation in mind: 1 degree increase in temperature here = 12 degree increase in temperature at the north & south pole.

When that melting of the the south pole or iceland ice caps would result in the rise of our oceans by 20 ft. (not to mention the issues with diluting the salt content in the oceans…) - every little bit matters.

Posted by: tony at June 29, 2006 6:24 PM
Comment #163369

Yes we need to do everything we can to pressure the planet so future generations of humans can watch the earth explode when our sun turns into a supper nova and destroys the solar system.

Note to environmentalist; mankind does not have the ability to destroy the earth. Even if humans did every thing intentionally to destroy earth the earth would only destroy human life and then it would repair itself. The earth has repaired itself before, have you ever heard about the time that the earth was damaged so badly that it kill all the dinosaurs and most other life. After that disaster the planet became lush and green and full of life again. After man has kill all life on earth as we know it the planet will become lush and green and full of life all over.

Stop giving the human race super power, we can not destroy the earth but the earth can destroy us just like it destroyed the dinosaur. The truth is environmentalist is not trying to save the earth they are really trying to make it comfortable for human life long enough to see it burn up into a super nova sun. The sun will continue to grow and soon engulf the first planet and then on to the other ones until it explodes. The earth would slowly be melted away and get pretty much absorbed into the sun.

Posted by: Mr. Right at June 29, 2006 6:26 PM
Comment #163378

Mr. Right,

“Even if humans did every thing intentionally to destroy earth the earth would only destroy human life and then it would repair itself.”

Gee, isn’t that the crux of the issue, allowing human habitation to continue?

Posted by: Rocky at June 29, 2006 7:07 PM
Comment #163391

“The truth is environmentalist is not trying to save the earth they are really trying to make it comfortable for human life long enough to see it burn up into a super nova sun.”

Damn… only 600000000 years to go… us hippie enviro-types are so short sighted. (If you want to go sooner than that, the are other more personal options.)

Posted by: tony at June 29, 2006 7:33 PM
Comment #163406

I agree again Eric, wow two for two!!! Air conditioning is also making Americans fatter and unhealthier. It’s also increasing isolation.

Perhaps we could leave it for the old folk in bad neighborhoods, who tend to die in heat waves.

We could start a whole new ethos and view smelling sweaty as healthy and wholesome, sorta like the French.

Screw the power companies!! Turn off your A/C. People might even move back to Flint, Michigan.

There might even be an illegal rush of Americans to Canada.

Posted by: gergle at June 29, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #163408
Even if humans did every thing intentionally to destroy earth the earth…
Hopefully the Earth’s destruction is not anytime soon. The Republicans need to fulfill their prophecy in which history claims the Bush administration a success. Posted by: europheus at June 29, 2006 7:56 PM
Comment #163418

I can’t say, living on the Texas Gulf Coast, that I resent A/C that much.

I also can’t say that there’s been much of a movement on the left towards the prohibition of AC. But good golly, it does make a wonderful talking point for a Republican trying to score points on scaring people about liberals, without introducing substance into the equation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #163422

Hey - I have an idea: Solar Powered AC!!! (wow… but who would ever of think of cooling you home with solar power??? doesn’t it require sunlight… oh wait! hmmmm…)

http://digg.com/tech_news/Solar_Powered_Air_Conditioning:_Just_Makes_Sense (just one many places to learn about this… no real connection to this site, just found it on the web.)

Posted by: tony at June 29, 2006 8:17 PM
Comment #163441

We all know that global warming is worse than nuclear war. So we need to do something about that.

Air conditioning seems to be the culprit. Along with all other general economic activity. Ahem.

Posted by: eric simonson at June 29, 2006 9:59 PM
Comment #163443

Eric,

“We all know that global warming is worse than nuclear war. So we need to do something about that.”


Gosh, the choices.

A long slow desent into helish conditions,

OR, a quick fry at 300,000 degrees kelvin.

Could I see what’s behind door number three?

Posted by: Rocky at June 29, 2006 10:20 PM
Comment #163446

And to think… it was an article on a liberal web site that started this thread! Bunch of loonies!

Posted by: Don at June 29, 2006 11:41 PM
Comment #163447

Eric,
Thanks for your video post of Al Gore,
It is sad to think how much funding of the cold war was allocated to nuclear deterrents when the real deal was as close as the ‘cold war’ name - A/C.

Posted by: europheus at June 29, 2006 11:43 PM
Comment #163448

Eric-
You can choose not to have a nuclear war at the last minute. You can’t choose to shut off Global Warming.

Climate’s what scientists call metastable, meaning that the current equilibrium is not the only one possible. It means that changes in the system are emergent, the CO2 providing the priming for other processes like desertification, cloud formation, reduced glacial area and other factors to wreak havoc.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2006 11:53 PM
Comment #163451

Rocky,

Behind door #3:(drumroll)- REALITY. The earth will go through warming and cooling phases just the same as it has for the last few billion years, weather patterns will change, and humans and animals will have to adapt, like they have ever since they existed. BTW, there is mounting evidence that the melting of the ice caps, which dilute the salinity of the North Atlantic, was the most likely cause of the “Little Ice Age”, several centuries of bitter cold from which we are still coming out. It seems global warming causes global cooling.

Posted by: Duane-O at June 30, 2006 12:00 AM
Comment #163453
…weather patterns will change, and humans and animals will have to adapt, like they have ever since they existed.

I cannot wait to evolve and grow reptilian scales for protection of the great heat. In fact, it makes business sense to NOT do anything about global warming; the opportunities for new product lines are amazing.

Posted by: europheus at June 30, 2006 12:07 AM
Comment #163456

Not only do we need to outlaw air conditioning we need to outlaw heating too. It’s unnatural and contributes to global warming.
This needs to be a campaign issue this year and in 2008.

Posted by: Ron Brown at June 30, 2006 12:30 AM
Comment #163457

is global warming caused by man (no) the suns output is not entirely constant, nor is the amount of sun spot activity there was a period of very low sunspot activity in the latter half of the 17th century called the maunder minimum it coincides with an abnormally cold period in northern europe sometimes known as the little ice age since the formation of the solar system the suns output has increased by 40% today there is a high output of sunspot activity gee i wonder why global warming is blamed on man could it be political

Posted by: alan at June 30, 2006 12:37 AM
Comment #163459

Duano,

“The earth will go through warming and cooling phases just the same as it has for the last few billion years, weather patterns will change, and humans and animals will have to adapt, like they have ever since they existed.”

Duh.

I live in Phoenix pal. My long slow descent happens every day, and I don’t have an air-conditioner. I live with a evap cooler.
Without air-conditioners cities like Phoenix, and Dallas and Las Vegas, would be dusty little stops on the way to some place cooler.

I have seen 123 farenheit here, and over 108 at 3 in the morning.

By the same token, if you guys think man incapable of making this planet uninhabitable, you’ve got another think coming.
I lived in LA in the ’50s and ’60s, and yes it is better, however I have also lived there recently (in the last ten years), and it is far from perfect.

Posted by: Rocky at June 30, 2006 12:43 AM
Comment #163465

Eric

I think Groucho Marx said it best when he said:

“A child of five would understand this. Send someone to fetch a child of five.”

Or an enviro-mental-ist?

Posted by: JR at June 30, 2006 1:06 AM
Comment #163483

yes your right, the sun is getting hotter. so let’s reduce the Co2 on this earth, before we become a venus type planet. and tell us when you expect the sun to get cooler. hey Rocky, why no A C? plant one of those little 6000-8000 btus window units in the bedroom!

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 30, 2006 2:25 AM
Comment #163484

It’s the $200+ per month electrical draw on my wallet.

Posted by: Rocky at June 30, 2006 2:29 AM
Comment #163489

Rocky not the whole house, just your bedroom. a 11.0 seer 6000 btu window unit, will cool 200 sq ft like the bedroom. it only pulls 4.8 amps on high and 3.6 amps on low. go to lowes there only $129.00 and are tiny and it will fit in a window, if you run it at night or when you sleep only. 8-9 hrs. it would cost you about 1 dollar a day.at least you could get a good nights sleep.

Posted by: Rodney Brown at June 30, 2006 2:56 AM
Comment #163510

Should Conservatives be the party of Conserving (environmentally)?
I suggest we otherwise Conservatives should better advocate to Conserve our environment. We don’t need to be chicken-little doomsayers or non-thinking lemmings rushing to judgment. But something as important as the environment we are designed for through a ~billion years of evolution (or given to us by a Creator), we should manage and steward *conservatively*, yes?

Not just Global Warming(*), but also the way we are changing the soil(**), getting rid of the flora & fauna(***), allowing every higher density housing (****), Natural Resource depletion, etc., etc., etc.

Just as we raise valid points to maybe not rush so fast into so many maybe-not-totally-thought-out Liberal Causes (Amnesty for Illegals, Cut and Run, Tax/Social programs removing the motivation to work & create wealth, ~Hating Ourselves, Gay Marriage, …) — no analogy is perfect, but maybe we should also go slow/conservatively re changing the environment.

Yes, Mother Nature has overcome human activity previously, and who knows what innovations / improvements the future holds, and we have truly improved things very significant and very quickly in many ways. BUT … never before was our Handiwork not biodegradable, AND there are so many of us and our changes are so significant to the planet, that we REALLY have-been/are changing our environment very significantly, and I think very badly in many ways … and Mother Nature may not be able to absolve us of our misbehaviors.

I have often said that the most primitive creatures & societies cannot be seen from outer space, since they haven’t the ability to change their environment … HOWEVER, maybe the most ADVANCED creatures & societies also would not be viewable from space, since they would have the sense not to change the environment to which they are best suited.

By definition we affect our environment, but I think we all know we don’t have to affect it so much by what we each do and by how many of us are here (e.g., are Open Borders good re environmental impact?).

Should Conservatives be the party of more/equal/better THOUGHTS and ACTIONS re environmental Conservatism?

So much to say, but I should stop for before I ramble more … OTHERS’ THOUGHTS??


(*) we are not sure for what part we are responsible, but we are obviously doing (probably a large) part of this
(**) we learned the Air and Water cannot continually accept our pollution – c’mon, we KNOW the Land cannot either – do we start conserving our land only once we have run out, or much earlier before we ~permanently ~destroy it with buried garbage?
(***) we traditionalist / naturalists like the Great Outdoors, yes? This is our Roots, our Heritage, and worth Conserving for our children and for our Country. And why shouldn’t ‘Children’ mean 10,000 years, 100,000 years or 1,000,000 years?
(****) so oddly, high-density housing is promoted by most Environmental Societies, though it ~destroys ~all the natural benefits of the land ~forever (nothing is forever, but seriously can you imagine what would it take to reclaim much city/suburban land as woodland?)

Posted by: Brian at June 30, 2006 5:18 AM
Comment #163511

i don’t know what is more sad…

the fact that eric may have a valid point…

or that he actually thinks he’s funny…

Posted by: views at June 30, 2006 5:23 AM
Comment #163516

Any stat about the amount of A/Ced houses and offices in US?
I really dunno how much or not A/C is common in American life…

Thanks.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at June 30, 2006 6:00 AM
Comment #163528

Eric,
We have moved from refrigerants that are very destructive to the environment to those much more benign. Wasn’t that a good transition to make?

NO THANKS TO CONSERVATIVES.

Posted by: Schwamp at June 30, 2006 8:16 AM
Comment #163529

Eric,
You like to write about global warming issues but your dialogues are predictable and useless. Tell us something interesting. Tell us what the real reason conservatives (almost without exception) fight this issue like their life depends on it. Look deep, because the answer baffles many a rational person.

Posted by: Schwamp at June 30, 2006 8:20 AM
Comment #163530

I get this impression that many conservatives don’t read the fine print on Solar or orbital variations. Far too many are just willing to jump at theories that seem to have a chance of explaining the warming.

What’s not fully considered here is that these forces can be working with or against the influences of greenhouse gas emissions to change the climate, and that it’s certain that most if not all of these influences have been considered by scientist up to this point.

It’s unfortunate that Global Warming is getting so politicized, because it really isn’t one of those problems that we can wait forever to take care of.

Phillipe Houdoin-
It’s more common in the South, where temperatures remain hotter for longer. If you want to consider how hot it gets in my neck of the woods, consider that heatwave you folks had a while back in your country, then consider that such temperatures are normal where I come from, even at this time of the year. Eric maybe wrong about how much drive there is to destroy A/C, but he’s not wrong that it has been crucial to the population boom in the south, especially in the Houston area.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2006 8:30 AM
Comment #163539

environmentalist true cause is to destroy capitalism as we know it by pushing there liberal agenda scare tacticks on the people if you tell lies long enough people start to belive them if they had there way we would all be living like cavemen if air conditioning is so bad they need to wake up there is a new so called ozone friendly/safe freon for air conditioners www.es-refrigerants.com/ this is a political argument (get over it) global warming does exist but it’s not because of (evil) man.

Posted by: alan at June 30, 2006 9:52 AM
Comment #163543

alan,
I dont remember seeing any liberal threads talking about air conditioning being so bad. This is a conservative initiated topic with zero references to liberal attacks on air conditioning thank you very much.

Posted by: Schwamp at June 30, 2006 10:04 AM
Comment #163546


Shut down the air conditioning for the summer and a lot of red state people will demand something be done about global warming. Anything that will allow them to turn the ac back on.

Posted by: jlw at June 30, 2006 10:17 AM
Comment #163550

alan,

“environmentalist true cause is to destroy capitalism as we know it by pushing there liberal agenda scare tacticks on the people if you tell lies long enough people start to belive them if they had there way we would all be living like cavemen if air conditioning is so bad they need to wake up there is a new so called ozone friendly/safe freon for air conditioners www.es-refrigerants.com/ this is a political argument (get over it) global warming does exist but it’s not because of (evil) man.”

Could you please diagram that sentence?

Environmentalists are not necessarily against capitalism. Conversely though, capitalists believe everything is for sale.
The concept that pollution points could, or even should, be bought or sold is absurd on it’s face.

I have two habits I truly enjoy;

I like to breath air that doesn’t smell car exhaust, and I would like to eat food and drink water that don’t contain traces of industrial waste.

Why is that so hard to understand?

This is not about destroying the planet, it’s about ruining the planet to the point mankind cannot use it to sustain life.

Frankly, I wish to err on the side of caution.

Posted by: Rocky at June 30, 2006 10:37 AM
Comment #163556

I do find it humorous that mankind regards its intellect superior to forces of nature. To paraphrase Rocky, we can do what we will, but long before we destroy the earth, it will shake us off like a wet dog.

Posted by: DOC at June 30, 2006 10:57 AM
Comment #163557

Rocky,

What you describe is the conservationalist. I am one of those as I think most people in the US are.

What is being discussed is environmentalism. This is a political movement that is attempting to place environmental policies above those of personal liberties.

Unfortunately, many in the conservationalist group feel that their needs are being respresnted by the environmentalist and continue to support their policies, much like those who support smaller government feel that the republicans represent their views and those concerned with personal liberties feel that the democrats represent their views.

The sad truth is that none of these parties represent at all what those who support them think they do. For a perfect example, small government has been mentioned as a reason to vote republican for years, yet when they DID get full control of the keys what did they do? Spend and raise our debt more than any democrat this side of FDR could have imagined. They are for gaining and maintaining power, just as the democrats are when they speak of personal liberties and then go out of their way to attempt to squash them if they don’t agree with them.

It’s always best to keep researching what is being discussed and don’t immediately support a particular mindset or party just because you think it represents you, always be viligant against being used as political football in the major party’s quest for power.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 30, 2006 10:59 AM
Comment #163560

Rhinehold,

No offence meant,

If I am for a clean environment, clean air, clean water, and I wish to conserve these things for the generations to come, am I an environmentalist, or a conservationist, or both?

One doesn’t have to be an extremist to be an environmentalist, and to lump all together as a group is intellectually lazy.

Posted by: Rocky at June 30, 2006 11:14 AM
Comment #163566

My point about not having an air conditioner on my house isn’t because I choose not to for environmental reasons. I would have to modify the house to accommodate a window unit, and the house I live in just isn’t set up that way.

There are plenty of ways to be conscience of the environment without throwing out the baby with the bath water. By the same token, to allow rampant growth for growth’s sake is bone stupid, and only about the money.

The American lifestyle has become just that, only about the money, how much can we consume, and that is a path that will eventually lead to consequences that will cost more than money in the long term.

Posted by: Rocky at June 30, 2006 11:33 AM
Comment #163567

Very humorous, but not, I’m afraid, in the way the author intended.

Posted by: Trent at June 30, 2006 11:37 AM
Comment #163569

Rocky - You forgot punctuationist. You seem to have convictions about punctuation as well.
;)

Posted by: DOC at June 30, 2006 11:53 AM
Comment #163570

It’s all Sister Monica Francis’ fault.

Posted by: Rocky at June 30, 2006 11:58 AM
Comment #163578

gergle:

Screw the power companies!! Turn off your A/C. People might even move back to Flint, Michigan.

Having lived in Michigan and having been to Flint on several occasions, I can say with much certainty that there is no reason for anyone to ever move back to Flint. Once they have escaped, allow them their freedom.

Flint is the equivalent of Gary, Indiana or Compton, California, but without the glitz.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at June 30, 2006 12:38 PM
Comment #163586

jbod,

So you must have liked Moores first movie alot! :-)

Posted by: Dave1 at June 30, 2006 12:59 PM
Comment #163594
If I am for a clean environment, clean air, clean water, and I wish to conserve these things for the generations to come, am I an environmentalist, or a conservationist, or both?

Depends, are you willing to sacrifice the rights of people’s personal liberties by using the police force of the federal government to achieve your goals or are you more interested in using education and private organizations like The Nature Conservancy who find non-political ways to achieve the goal of conserving our resources within he current system of private property rights?

If you want to use political force to achieve your goal, you are an environmentalist. If you agree that we can achieve the same goals though private property rights and well run conservation organizations then you are a conservationalist.

I think which side of the fence I am on should be apparent… ;)

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 30, 2006 1:19 PM
Comment #163611

Just another example of the lib/green methodology of scaring people to try and further their own political agenda.

And the GOP is supposed to be the “fear party”.

Just when you think those wacky libs couldn’t get any wackier, they surprise you.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 30, 2006 1:45 PM
Comment #163614

Rhinehold,

“Depends, are you willing to sacrifice the rights of people’s personal liberties by using the police force of the federal government to achieve your goals or are you more interested in using education and private organizations like The Nature Conservancy who find non-political ways to achieve the goal of conserving our resources within he current system of private property rights?”

When was the last time you saw a corporation that was standing in line for an education, especially when it is cheaper to just dump the waste and pay the fine?

Come on.
Reality, and the “Laws of Physics” dictate that if you dump chemicals in your back yard it effects my back yard as well.

Some “Government Action” in the form of regulation, is necessary, and if Americans can’t lead by example, where the hell does that leave us.


Posted by: Rocky at June 30, 2006 1:47 PM
Comment #163632

LOL,Joe, I was refering to the Flint in “Roger and Me”, I’ve never been, but I do have relatives living near Gary. Compton is world famous.

Think positive, without A/C bills to pay, “Whitey” can gentrify Flint. Maybe they can form a “green zone”. In Houston, they are in the process of doing that to some of the old “wards” which became urban blights with great access to Downtown. They build multimillion dollar Condo and Townhome developments and voila, a new tax base is born.

Posted by: Gergle at June 30, 2006 2:14 PM
Comment #163636

Rocky

Some “Government Action” in the form of regulation, is necessary

Some is. But when you start interefering with the basic rights of americans to achieve the political goals of the environmentalists it’s gone to far. Just as defending the country means that some security is necessary in the country, but when it starts to interfere with the basic rights of americans it’s gone to far as well (I deplore the way we are being treated in airports right now, it’s so sad).

It’s not a case of ‘no regulation’ vs ‘using politics to force every decisions based on the environment on the citizens’.

There is some middle ground and we can use other methods of achieving those goals without using the government. It’s not a hard concept but for some reason most liberals I read or talk to don’t understand that no every little issue has to have a federal law associated with it.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 30, 2006 2:26 PM
Comment #163639
When was the last time you saw a corporation that was standing in line for an education, especially when it is cheaper to just dump the waste and pay the fine?

Lots of them are. In fact, as we as a society evolve, most businesses are realizing that being a member of a community is a necessary function of their operating plan.

As the Nature Conservacy states:

Private lands conservation is an innovative tactic that leverages the increasing interest of the private sector to take part in conservation. The Conservancy works with landowners, communities, cooperatives and businesses to establish local groups that can protect land. Some of the main tools used to achieve these goals include land trusts, conservation easements, private reserves and incentives. In addition, a Private Lands Program was developed by The Nature Conservancy to use our experience in the United States in developing land conservation tools internationally.

Here in my home city we’ve had several of the businesses that make up the community donate millions of dollars in cleaing up the White River (main river that flows through the city) and support programs that educate and clean the city and provide for private parks and helping conservce the environment.

Yes, there are greedy businesses, but if you compare the percentage now with what it has been in the past you will have to admit that there has been more and more of a movement in US business to be environmentally aware and good stewards of the environment, especially in the communities that they do business in.

Why is that when business is involved they must be considered guilty until proven innocent?

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 30, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #163658

Rhinehold,

“Why is that when business is involved they must be considered guilty until proven innocent?”

Because the history of business dealings in this country hasn’t been stellar.

Posted by: Rocky at June 30, 2006 2:54 PM
Comment #163662

That doesn’t mean that the businesses of today haven’t improved and are evil, does it? Is there any chance that businesses have learned from their pasts as well and changed their business models to take into account the needs and concerns of the communities they do business in to ensure that they do not have an advisarial relationship with their follow citizens?

Just as I attempt to judge each individual on their own merits and failings I try to do the same for each business. I don’t see the benefit in saying ‘well, you’re a business so you’re crap’ without seeing what they are willing to do for the community and not assuming that they are going to hurt the environment to make a quick buck.

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 30, 2006 3:17 PM
Comment #163677

This problem can be overcome in the same manner as almost every other problem known. Everyone ask yourself these questions:
1. How do I affect this situation?
2. How can I improve things by my actions?
3. Am I being a responsible adult?
4. Am I responsible for my own actions or do I blame others for the situation I am in?
5. Can I help myself or do I need the help of others?
6. Can I help those that cannot help themselves?
It all boils down to being responsible for your own actions and your affect on other people. This me, me, me has to stop. Stop whining and do something about it, just start with yourself first.

Posted by: boogerjoe at June 30, 2006 3:52 PM
Comment #163679

alan-
Tell me: how much have you actually heard Liberals discussing the evils of Air Conditioning? This article above is about liberal scare tactics, but in truth, the article itself is a right-wing scare tactic.

Rhinehold-
I think it’s better to assume that all politicians are after power, and only the threat of its (or their) removal can persuade them to mend their ways. I don’t think there’s anybody we can just elect to solve the problem. That, or we shouldn’t wait for them.

In dealing with Business, we should assume neither guilt nor innocence, but instead expect a certain amount of responsibility and accountability from them. That means laws, but it can also mean voluntary measures. If voluntary measures are not forthcoming, the government should take action on behalf of the people.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2006 4:00 PM
Comment #163686

Stephen
No, we have not heard Liberals discussing the evils of Air Conditioning. They like that. It’s only the things they don’t like they complain about. Women should be able to abort a baby, but any other adult shouldn’t be able to smoke.

Posted by: boogerjoe at June 30, 2006 4:16 PM
Comment #163694

I do believe in a good environment. We just need to adjust so we can advance technologically without the environMENTALists screaming “We’re doomed! Doomed!”

Posted by: stubborn conservative at June 30, 2006 4:36 PM
Comment #163727

Example of liberal logic:

You can light up a flag or a joint anywhere anytime, but don’t you dare light up a cigarette.

BTW: What about the secondhand smoke from marijuana? Isn’t that harmful?

BTW2: How do we know burning a flag isn’t environmentally dangerous? There could be toxins in the dye or fabric.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 30, 2006 6:08 PM
Comment #163730

Someone should manufacture a hemp flag, so that libs can get high while disgracing the nation that provides their freedoms.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 30, 2006 6:10 PM
Comment #163734

Stephen said:

If voluntary measures are not forthcoming, the government should take action on behalf of the people.

Right-of-Way responds:

Who gets to decide what “voluntary” measures are necessary?

And, who gets to decide when “voluntary” becomes “compulsory”?

Liberalism is about the exercise of power by self-appointed elites who think they know best.

Conservatism is about limiting the acquisition of power by self-appointed elites who think they know best.

Liberals act as though wisdom is the exclusive province of government… a government they hope to run.

Conservatives act as though wisdom is a virtue possessed by the people… and people should run the government… not vice versa.

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 30, 2006 6:20 PM
Comment #163737

Right of Way-
Unfortunately, you just twisted yourself in knots. The people who would decide what voluntary measures would be necessary would be our governing officials, hopefully with advice from scientists and those whose lives and businesses would be affected one way or another. The same would apply for who gets to decide when Voluntary becomes compulsory.

As for the exercise of self-appointed elites who think they know best, I feel tempted to pull the barb out and send it flying back your way-

Except we both know that the people who would apply such laws are elected officials, who we think know best. If they legislate things we don’t like too often, they go back to being regular people.

That can also happen though, when those folks are too hesitant to lay down the law. Maybe you think it’s something shocking for government to actually govern, but most people expect it.

The difference between Liberalism and Conservatism is a matter of degrees, and a matter of attitudes. It’s not whether one thinks the people know best or not. Each party believes their people know best. Another difference arises in the degree to which they think the other side are just stupid bastards.

Nobody’s perfect, and America works on the give and take between both kinds of people. But some people are so immersed in their party that they can’t see the value in the creative tension between the two sides.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2006 6:35 PM
Comment #163748

Stephen said:

Except we both know that the people who would apply such laws are elected officials, who we think know best. If they legislate things we don’t like too often, they go back to being regular people.

Right-of-Way responds:

You’re forgetting the millions of non-elected bureaucrats who actually implement those hundreds of thousands of pages of government regulations.

And, don’t get me started on the tens of thousands of judges who believe their role is to make law instead of interpreting the law.

How do we return the bureaucrats and judges to the status of “regular people”?

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 30, 2006 7:08 PM
Comment #163751

Stephen said:

Maybe you think it’s something shocking for government to actually govern, but most people expect it.

Right-of-Way responds:

Once again, you assume… and once again, you’re wrong.

I don’t expect government to govern, I demand it. But the governing I demand is not the kind perpetrated by the “nanny state”.

What I object to is government based on wealth redistribution.

What I object to is government based on skin color, gender and ethnicity.

What I object to is government over-regulation of my economic freedom.

What I object to is government based on depriving me of my religious freedoms.

What I object to is government based on the latest activist-generated environmental/health scare.

If government stuck to what it should do and let the free market and a free people do what they do best, there would be many fewer problems to solve.

As Ronald Reagan eloquently put it, “The nine most dangerous words are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.”

Posted by: Right-of-Way at June 30, 2006 7:19 PM
Comment #163766

Right of Way:

I agree with you about the liberals, they are definately screwing with personal freedoms and must be stopped.

But don’t sit back and think that the conservatives currently running the show are any better. I have not seen the likes of infringing upon the rights of the individual by the current ‘leaders’ of congress that I am witnessing now except by the liberals themselves.

Both parties are culpable in this, it’s just which rights they want to violate that are in disagreement.

For example, you eschew and mock the right to do what you want with your own body, whether it be abortion or smoking marijuana. You want us to sit back and let you violate our rights against unreasonable search and seizure and go out of your way to try and push your taudry religion hocus pocus on us while attempting to prevent two consenting adults from entering into a legal contrace concerning their property rights just because they are the same sex.

Be careful where you point the finger, remember that when you do there are four others pointing back and you. If you don’t like what they point to perhaps you should look at your own self first.

If your main goal is truly to fight for personal rights, I would suggest the libertarian party. But I suspect that I’m not far from the mark when I suggest that that is not really your main goal, is it? Otherwise, why would you still be a conservative?

Posted by: Rhinehold at June 30, 2006 8:12 PM
Comment #163772

Right-Of-Way-
Oh, so the problem is now elitists in the bureaucracy? The bureaucrats can be a problem, but a lazy attitude towards governing can make that problem worse.

As for the judges, your comment is so broad brush, and your definition of “making rather than interpreting” so unclear that I really don’t know where to start with you. Also, there’s the tendency among Republicans to call even the most soundly reasoned legal argument judicial activism when they don’t agree with it.

These detestable buzzwords get thrown around like so much manure: reverse discrimination, wealth redistribution, death tax, free market. etc., etc.

What we get in the place of sound policy is political attitudes. Your Ronald Reagan quote is wonderful right up to the point that somebody with that attitude is tasked to run an agency.

This is the Republican party’s problem: it’s too politically timid to do much of anything but show off to its base. It can’t raise taxes and it can’t lower spending because both would lose voters. It can’t win the war, and it can’t end the war. It can’t interfere with the free market, and yet it does so all the time.

On and on it goes, caught trying to please anybody and everybody while still pushing an agenda which nobody’s bothered to find the soundness of.

The time has come for new leadership that isn’t so conflicted about making government work.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 30, 2006 8:47 PM
Comment #165377

Ya know, it occurs to me….. if the U.S. only had 50 million people, instead of 300 million, energy scarcity and/or pollution would not be a problem. It would be instantly reduced to 1/6th of current levels.

Perhaps the Chinese have the right idea with their 1 baby per family idea, and their goal to reduce the population. Less people = less damage to the ecosystem & less scarcity of needed supplies.

Now, which politician will step forward and suggest a 1 baby per family limit, in order to shrink the U.S. population?

(silence)

That’s what I thought. Not even the environmentalists are willing to go after the REAL problem —— too darn many people causing too much pollution.

Posted by: Troy Heagy at July 7, 2006 7:16 AM
Post a comment