PDA

View Full Version : Environmental Protection question


PennSkinsFan
10-02-2003, 11:04 AM
Please vote

PennSkinsFan
10-02-2003, 11:19 AM
This is the one Democratic passionate issue I have. I know many of you assume i am a liberal, alongside my pal Spence, but that is not the case. I would say i am moderate, i am pretty dead centrist, not leaning left or rightm, but this issue is my big DEM issue. We must protect what God gave us, cause once we destory it, we wont get it back. We have made good strides in cleaning up the air and our creeks, rivers, and lakes. lets don't go backwards!

Spence
10-02-2003, 11:19 AM
Texas has the loosest environmental laws in the country. [Thanks partially to Bush himself.] They also have the dirtiest air in the country. Houston itself has the dirtiest air of any city in the country. So I guess business must be booming in Texas, eh? They must be the richest state in the Union!

Uh, not quite. Not even close. The richest states tend to be the states with strong environmental standards, like California, New York, and various New England states.

Consider that during the 1990s the environmental legislation in this country became much stronger. So did the economy. Green is good. [Hey, that reminds me of someone here at hR!]

jsarno
10-02-2003, 01:30 PM
Environmental protection should be #1 on everyone's list. And who gives a flying poo about business if there is no earth to have it on? I say TOUGHER restrictions.

PennSkinsFan
10-02-2003, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by jsarno
Environmental protection should be #1 on everyone's list. And who gives a flying poo about business if there is no earth to have it on? I say TOUGHER restrictions.

Good man Jsarno!

jsarno
10-02-2003, 05:55 PM
Thank you...I try! :D

(I'm a very vocal leader about environmental rights, in fact I have actually been blasted by people because they say I care more about animals and the environment that I do people)

Skins57
10-02-2003, 11:14 PM
I agree that we should have more restrictions and tighter enforcement of the exsisting laws

PennSkinsFan
10-03-2003, 09:40 AM
I am proud of hR that restricitions are needed to save and keep our Earth healthy for our children and grandchildren!

AGibbsGirl
10-03-2003, 09:50 AM
Obviously education and restrictions have been very good for the Earth, even if it's just a start.

But there are horror stories of huge sections of someone's personal land being confiscated by the government because of the endangered flea frog (~grin~)...So sometimes it's not so good.

We need to work on those cars!!! The technology is there, we all know it.
I'm guilty, with my Durango, but I sure would love an SUV with good gas milage and clean emissions.

Green-Is-Good
10-03-2003, 08:47 PM
We must preserve our finite resources. If not the U.S., who? Developed countries are the ones burning the most fossil fuels, and have more money.

jsarno
10-09-2003, 11:13 AM
Gas / oil companies to me very similar to the tobacco industry. They can do better, but choose to make money instead.

I'm sure there is a way to convert all vehicles to some corn burning fuel efficient society. But the industries won't allow it right now. We need a tougher government to DEMAND it. Not suggest it.

NamVet4
10-09-2003, 12:43 PM
What needs to be done is a joint venture between the environmentalists and business. Specifically those businesses that are technologically proficient in applying alternative energy sources have to coordinate with the environmental specialists who have identified major issues. The industrial revolution that was made up of coal and oil based industries is dying; the new industrial powerhouses have to be taught to use alternative resources. Just as the agrarian society gave way to the industrialized society, so must that society give way to an amalgamated society that balances limited natural resource utilization with replenishment and alternative resources implementation. Government’s role in this joint venture should be one of facilitator, which is, providing whatever incentives and legislation that can keep the process flowing towards a better overall ecological and economic climate. As many have stated, we only have so much of everything on this planet, when it is gone, so are we.

Spence
10-10-2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by jsarno
Gas / oil companies to me very similar to the tobacco industry. They can do better, but choose to make money instead.

I'm sure there is a way to convert all vehicles to some corn burning fuel efficient society. But the industries won't allow it right now. We need a tougher government to DEMAND it. Not suggest it. I quite agree. I suggest reading a book called "High and Mighty." It's about SUVs and how that portion of the auto industry became so popular, powerful and dirty. The book, written by Keith Bradsher, the former NY Times Detroit correspondent, demonstrates how the automakers could produce a much cleaner version of the SUV, but prefer not to because the one's on the market right now are selling well. In other words, they'd just rather not make the effort.

dukeuch
10-11-2003, 09:51 AM
The solution for SUVs is so simple it makes my head hurt; simply include them in the fleet mileage requirements for all passenger vehicles. Right now, there is no restriction on the low mileage they typically get because they are essentially classified as trucks, and back when the fleet mileage requirements were first put in place, pickup trucks were not included because it was assumed that such vehicles were being used primarily by businesses which required these "special vehicles" to conduct their business, and imposing mileage requirements would render their power, size, etc. "illegal".

The benefits would be so far reaching in terms of reducing air pollution and dependence on oil that I cannot figure out why a solution cannot be found such that true commercial vehicles remain exempt while personal "trucks" are not.

It gets worse: I just read that there are tax reliefs for vehicles weighing more than a certain amount, 6,000 pounds, I beleive. The writeof for the purchase of such a venicle can be as high as $100,000. Again, the origianl idea was any vehicle weighing that much would be used in a commercial venture, and therefore was eligible to wirte off as a business expense. Now SUV manufacturers are actually incuding this info as incentives for families seeking personal transportation to buy these monstrosities.