re: I see some conservative are having issues accepting environment issues

I’m going to need some data about the last 4 billion years before I start worrying about the data they have on the last 100 years or so.

Thats as dumb as me saying we’re going to have a biblical flood bc it started raining two seconds ago.

It would be hard to convince me of our ability to consequentially alter the earth’s climate even with 100 million years of data. (As was said, short of a nuclear apocalypse)

quote:

---

My dude... I'm not going to argue with you on this.

---

I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm trying to figure out what the hell you are talking about. You state that there are environmental issues conservatives won't get behind for fear that they are dem causes, then you don't name a single one?

quote:

---

No there have been other things. Foch made a good list in his post.

---

Okay...

quote:

---

Examples:
-plastics in the food supply/water (why is it acceptable to just take it for granted that microplastics spike estrogen and invade the testicles of toddlers because of cheap packaging and poor municipal filtration)

-chemical runoff due to pharmaceuticals (why accept that birth control pills are inherently safe and good when we know they taint the water supply and environment...what about SSRIs?)

-preservatives and seed oils (should we really be subsidizing entire parts of the ag economy to provide cheap but unhealthy components of our diet? Does our rise in chronic disease have anything to do with our diet changes that have resulted from sham science like the USDA food pyramid? Would gov money be better spent on incentives that don't both cause our ailments and then address our symptoms in the Medicare/medicaid population?)

-should we be ok with large portions of "green tech" that are inherently "dirty" (see open air artisnal mining for battery elements in africa)?

-why the revolving door of regulator/industry in areas such as food and medicine? Do we really need to have the gov subsidize (and by default mandate at the school/workforce level) vaccination against ailments (hep b) from conscious, high risk activities? Is the same logic applied the basis for giving everyone Prep for hiv? I'm not looking at this from a crunchy vaccine skeptic angle, but can't help but notice massive government expenditures for vaccines that we didn't deam "essential" in the 70s and 80s. How many of the vaccines on the current schedule ended scourges like polio? How are we doing as a society with chronic health conditions since we sank so much money into vaccines instead of other areas (don't tax as much and/or incentives for quality diets).

-herbicides, pesticides, and antibiotics in food production (are we chasing profit and efficiency at the expense of health? Do we need to except glyphosate as a "cost of doing business" when you try to feed your kids? If we have an obesity problem amongst our youngest and poorest, are the current rules and markets really optimized to support overall health and to ensure that we don't prioritize cheap food at the cost of more expensive medical care?)

---

So where are the examples of conservatives refusing to get behind the issues on this list, because they are seen as a dem cause? I certainly don't think vaccines and resistance to vaccines is applicable here, as it was the conservatives who raised the red there, for the most part.

quote:

---

There should be ZERO taxes levied against people in the name of the environment.

---

That’s nonsense. Pollution is a cost of certain activities. But it’s a cost borne by society at large rather than the person emitting the pollution. Therefore taxes on the pollution are needed in order for the capitalist economy to function properly and efficiently. The taxes assign the costs to the proper activity, which is desirable.

We ultimately need to harness the full power of the sun. We'll be there in 50-100 years. Meanwhile, we shouldn't limit how much we use other energy sources in pursuit of that goal.

We should also work to colonize other celestial bodies over the next 100-200 years. We are at the mercy of the cosmos in terms of livable environments. Burning fossil fuels is barely a blip.

quote:

---

Climate change is real, but is overstated and abused for political purposes.

---

Climate change is one of the favorite leftist populist doomsday scenarios.

And here's the thing with the majority of populist conspiracy theories/doomsday scenarios: In the vast majority of them there is some truth to them.

That's why people believe them.

But—as you say—they are twisted, stretched all out of proportion, distorted, etc. to make a better story and provide more unreasonable levels of discontent.

Man-influenced climate change is almost certainly real. However, that's not the point. People endlessly arguing about it are all fussing beside the point.

The point is that the real question is what are the consequences of it?

And that's where "science" has failed again and again and again and again, and why no one should trust anything they say about the consequences of it.

They clearly don't know. Otherwise we'd already all be dead according to their predictions.

I think taking steps now to mitigate possible effects is reasonable. Let's look into building some seawalls, etc. That sort of thing. Let's respond...reasonably.

The climate has been on a consistent cycle of change since the dawn of mankind and these Marvel hero left wing politicians who fly routinely (planes omit toxins into the most delicate part of the atmosphere), spend half their day on a phone (comprised of countless finite earth minerals that drains server energy each time its used) and live in mansions (that drain four times the amount of energy as the average American household) do will stop a natural phenomenon.

quote:

---

We ultimately need to harness the full power of the sun.

---

We ultimately need to harness the full power of nuclear fission and eventually fusion. No need to wait 50 years on the former.

quote:

---

I mean, this part is accurate at least.

---

Says the uneducated simpleton.

Well Tax, we agree on something again. Personally, I'm not sure why we do not go back glass bottles.