Losing a Democratic majority doesn't superficially sound like the world's worst thing given that we have seen what ability a Senate minority can have in stalling legislation. But I still don't like the idea of Sen. Inhofe leading the Environment and Public Works Committee. I think the ability of sensible environmental regulations to be approved would go much better if we didn't have such a high number of climate change denialists in Congress, anyway--I don't really want it to be easier for Koch fans like David Vitter to help their good buddies (look, even if they don't turn out to be the largest lease holders of Canadian tar sands, trust me what they've got sounds considerable) with projects getting through like the Keystone XL pipeline.
I'm not saying Democrats are perfect angels regarding the environment, but if there's any question about whether your particular congresscritters are any good for Mother Nature, there are organizations like League of Conservation Voters that provide some good information.
But knowing is only part of the battle--people who care about the environment have to get out there and vote--even if it's for the less-awful candidates. And don't forget, state elections matter an awful lot, too.
2 comments:
Hi Vixen,
Gifford Pinchot started the conservation movement.
His idea was for mankind to work in harmony with nature. In other words, nature would not be molested, but it could be harnessed to be helpful to humans. And the object was to preserve nature while at the same time not ignoring nature's possibilities for human assistance.
John Muir started the national park system. He believed that nature should be kept absolutely pristine with no intrusion into its integrity by human beings.
These men were both tremendous lovers of wildlife who spent a great deal of their time out in the wild.
Most conservatives lean in the direction of Pinchot, but at the same time are grateful to Muir for the splendid national park system.
Conservatives as an ideological movement are 100% behind clean water, clean air, and the preservation of wildness.
Before trendy new magazines like Backpacker came on the scene, wildlife magazines were dominated by Field and Stream and Outdoor Life. People who lived basic conservative principles were primarily the group who constantly were going fishing, camping, hunting, and participating in the outdoors.
When it comes down to evaluating the possibility of "man-made climate change" there is a problem.
The US has done a tremendous amount to clean up the environment and continues to do so.
The biggest polluters are 3rd world countries attempting to move into the industrialized age -- including China.
In the US if someone catches a business (which is commercial seeking rather than ideological) in violation of environmental standards, there are mechanisms to force them into compliance.
In emerging nations and in nations unconcerned about the environment, there is little we can do.
Conservatives are completely in favor of diminishing pollution and in favor of protecting the environment. We have a problem when cause celebs like "man-made climate change" has not been proven to our satisfaction.
The truth is that on many controversial subjects the two ideologies are in very close agreement. The fighting is all done over smaller points of contention.
--Formerly Amherst
You know, I think this is why I keep coming back, in my environmental posts, to the clean water issue--I can agree that the climate change issue and what to do about it is vast and complicated, but the idea that energy companies can disrupt the water supply that hundreds or thousands of people use for their homes and businesses really aggravates me because of its immediacy. It's obvious unfairness when any business's shortcuts put other people out of pocket (including the taxpayers, who seem to wind up footing at least part of the clean-up bill when these things happen). Oil spills like the Gulf spill at sea or the Mayflower pipeline oil spill have a kind of ripple effect of depressing an area's economy. There are lots of reasons why I favor regulation and enforcement of the regulation of these industries, and climate change is a major part, but only a part.
I think this is probably another of those areas where liberals and conservatives get to talking at cross purposes. Sure, I feel high-minded with my hemp tote walking out of Whole Foods into my low-emission vehicle, and I'm kind of insulated in some ways,but I kind of realize that when I say shit shouldn't happen in my neighborhood--I also don't think it should happen in anyone's, if that makes sense? Whether it's a Love Canal or Bhopal situation. Whether it's dumping in NC or the Caspian Sea. When the livelihoods of fishermen, whether in Alaska or Louisiana or off the coast of Japan are screwed by some kind of energy company screw-up, that pisses me off. I wonder what the ramifications are when oil and gas companies get licenses to drill where families fish, hunt and camp. And I think that is a very plausible area for conservatives and liberals to get on the same page--the lives and the livelihoods that aren't adequately protected when we treat energy companies like they've truly got our butts over an oil barrel.
Post a Comment