Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


#ActualKhaiy

Posted 13 April 2013 - 12:10 PM

What point is there to disprove? He doesn't have a point, just a wild accusation of some sort of... something about power, and whoever wants to keep it, that is somehow or other the Republicans' fault. Apparently evil Republicans.... ummm... somehow magically convinced everyone that pollution is good? Those goddam villains.

 

Nonsense. I disagree with Maestro as well (Republicans were never especially pro-environment), but Republicans have overwhelmingly and consistently favored:

 

1. Policies which allow major industrial interests sole discretion to decide how much pollution matters and whom it affects, which often has had devastating consequences for groups of people who can't really fight those interests on their own. When these people try to organize against industrial interests to stop them from, say, dumping poisonous chemical waste products into their groundwater, the only viable way that they can do so is to agitate for government regulation where they are, *gasp*, stymied by certain politicians. I won't say it's always Republicans, because that would be inaccurate, but Republicans are certainly overrepresented in this opposition.

 

2. Reapportioning the impacts from environmental policies, as above, to groups with the least ability to deal with them or to protect themselves from such apportionment. This one is far more bipartisanly popular, but on environmental issues in particular Republican have again been overrepresented in protecting polluters.

 

3. Stances which dismiss even the possibility of negative environmental impacts from various industrial, economic, and land-use practices. On environmental issues, an average Republican from the last 70 years or so has been far more likely to dismiss environmental dangers, regardless of the amount or quality of evidence suggesting those dangers exist and far more likely to uncritically accept evidence suggesting that such dangers do not exist (again, regardless of the amount or quality of this evidence).

 

It's not a Republicans-only club, nor is it some cabal of villains trying to specifically destroy the world for some nefarious purpose. But this is one of the issues which features a pretty clear and consistent partisan divide, with Republicans making explicit policy moves which result in more and worse pollution more often and at higher per-party-figure rates than any other political party in the US.


#1Khaiy

Posted 13 April 2013 - 12:09 PM

What point is there to disprove? He doesn't have a point, just a wild accusation of some sort of... something about power, and whoever wants to keep it, that is somehow or other the Republicans' fault. Apparently evil Republicans.... ummm... somehow magically convinced everyone that pollution is good? Those goddam villains.

 

Nonsense. I disagree with Maestro as well (Republicans were never especially pro-environment), but Republicans have overwhelmingly and consistently favored:

 

1. Policies which allow major industrial interests sole discretion to decide how much pollution matters and whom it affects, which often has had devastating consequences for groups of people who can't really fight those interests on their own. When these people try to organize against industrial interests to stop them from, say, dumping poisonous chemical waste products into their groundwater, the only viable way that they can do so is to agitate for government regulation where they are, *gasp*, stymied by certain politicians. I won't say it's always Republicans, because that would be inaccurate, but Republicans are certainly overrepresented in this opposition.

 

2. Reapportioning the impacts from environmental policies, as above, to groups with the least ability to deal with them or to protect themselves from such reapportionment. This one is far more bipartisanly popular, but on environmental issues in particular Republican have again been overrepresented in protecting polluters.

 

3. Stances which dismiss even the possibility of negative environmental impacts from various industrial, economic, and land-use practices. On environmental issues, an average Republican from the last 70 years or so has been far more likely to dismiss environmental dangers, regardless of the amount or quality of evidence suggesting those dangers exist and far more likely to uncritically accept evidence suggesting that such dangers do not exist (again, regardless of the amount or quality of this evidence).

 

It's not a Republicans-only club, nor is it some cabal of villains trying to specifically destroy the world for some nefarious purpose. But this is one of the issues which features a pretty clear and consistent partisan divide, with Republicans making explicit policy moves which result in more and worse pollution more often and at higher per-party-figure rates than any other political party in the US.


PARTNERS