5 ms·

Why has wanting clean air and water become a left right issue?

by dbdjfjrjvebd 8y ago

tux1968 8y ago
Because it's not the goal that's in dispute, it's the difference of ideas about how to achieve it.
- whatislovecraft 8y ago
  > Because it's not the goal that's in dispute Yes, it is. Many Republicans in the USA specifically state that the environment is here for us to ravage and do whatever we want with. Adding pollution and choosing to not clean it up is part of Republican Party platform of short-term gains while not pricing in the real economics of the situation. > it's the difference of ideas about how to get achieve it. I've not heard a single idea from the Right in the last 20 years that would either 1) reduce pollution, ever, or 2) increase the safety of food and water supplies. They are always cutting the regulations with the obvious intent to dirty the water and air for cashmoney in the short term. Why is it like this? I don't know. But the 'left' is the group looking for capitalism to succeed out hundreds of years, and the 'right' is the group looking to get all the 'money' they can before the food is all poisoned and the water is too. -- This is not a partisan post of political opinions. I'm just stating facts here. The Republicans aren't trying to hide any of this! It's their platform - pretending it isn't, and downvoting me so nobody sees this post, is just going to make the problem worse in the future. Bad actors are hurting our environment and making it more difficult to get reliably clean water and air - and they are Republicans.
  - iainmerrick 8y ago
    I think you’re correct. If people disagree, please post some counterexamples!
  - travisoneill1 8y ago
    > I've not heard a single idea from the Right in the last 20 years that would either 1) reduce pollution, ever, or 2) increase the safety of food and water supplies 1) In the USA CO2 emissions are dropping mainly due to natural gas replacing coal. This was possible because of the development of fracking. Democrats are against this, Republicans for. 2) The best carbon-free technology that we currently have, and can deploy at scale, is nuclear power. Republicans for. Democrats against.
    - whatislovecraft 8y ago
      1) There is a lot more to pollution that CO2. Is your example of reducing pollution really fraking and that alone? Fraking, which specifically makes drinking water unsafe? I can't tell if you're just proving my point or not? You just wrote that Republicans are for a technology that makes drinking water unsafe and also has direct consequences for climate change being made worse? It sounds like with #1 you are suggesting that Republicans would prefer to poison the water of local communities and refuse to look at better alternatives. And the reason seems like money, from what I read online. (EDIT: Also, investment in technology like fraking that DO POLLUTE means a longer leadtime before real solutions are offered at the right price. This fraking is done not to reduce climate change effects - it will make things worse - but to make money for oil people.) You are straight-up ignoring Methane leaking from fraking sites directly making short-term climate change much, much worse. Methane is pollution too, and very bad pollution for our atmosphere right now. > 2) The best carbon-free technology that we currently have, and can deploy at scale, is nuclear power. Republicans for. Democrats against. There is a lot more to the world than carbon. I'm in favor of Nuclear energy by the way. I thought most democrats were? Literally 100% of Democrats I know in person are in favor of Nuclear energy. So I'm not sure what you mean here. But anyway, Nuclear power has a long-lead-time and a huge capital investment, while many renewables are lower cost to start up and produce mostly pollution-free power immediately. I'm more in favor of actual renewables but I'll take nuclear power any day. I think most democrats would love large-scale nuclear power, to be honest, and I'm quite surprised that you think otherwise. I'll have to look into this.
      - travisoneill1 8y ago
        I used to work on frack wells. Drank the water. It wasn't poisoned. People where the fracking is are pro-fracking. People in far away cities that aren't affected are against.
        whatislovecraft 8y ago
        Your anecdotes are not data. Here's the EPA saying fraking can contaminate water. https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-fracking-water-contamination-2144968213.html https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-fracking-water-contamination-21... > People where the fracking is are pro-fracking. People in far away cities that aren't affected are against. We are all affected. This is one world, one planet. We are all on it together. And anyway, why would it matter if opinions are divided on this topic based on where we live? That speaks more to the education, opportunity, circumstance, political mood, etc, than it does to the issue at hand. It's a logical fallacy to argue that fraking is good for the environment (or good at all?) because people close by support it and people far away don't.
- roywiggins 8y ago
  The American right doesn't believe that climate change even exists, they aren't offering any ideas on how to combat it.
ramblerouser 8y ago
Pretending that your position is the center, and everyone who disagrees with you is an extremist doesnt work very well. The right doesnt oppose clean air, it opposes giving Al Gore's carbon credit company a blank check. The right (in the US) could just as easily ask why has boarder security become a left right issue.
- JohnFen 8y ago
  > The right (in the US) could just as easily ask why has boarder security become a left right issue. That's because the right made it a partisan issue.
  - ramblerouser 8y ago
    Bill Clinton was tougher on immigration than Donald Trump is. The Left made it a partisan issue, not the right. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RzlviQH4FhQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RzlviQH4FhQ https://www.fairus.org/issue/legal-immigration/us-commission-immigration-reform https://www.fairus.org/issue/legal-immigration/us-commission... The bipartisan Jordan Commission recommended cutting legal immigration in half and punishing employers for hirin illegals. The democrats made this a partisan issue.
- DonHopkins 8y ago
  > doesnt work > doesnt oppose > boarder security Too bad the right has made science, education, spelling and punctuation such partisan issues.
  - wolco 8y ago
    Weak response. The left contains many poor and uneducated citizens and many of them minorities. Comments like the one above shows we have a lot of work to do. Treating those citizens as second class does not valid your point.
    - watwut 8y ago
      His point was not about left being more educated on average, but more of about ideology and propaganda (both sides have propaganda) being explicitly opposed to science and education. Plenty of people who argue against those are educated themselves. You may disagree with that point, but it is not the same point as judging average education of this or that voter.
wolco 8y ago
In the past it was the right who owned this issue. Conservationist was the term. Now it's environmentist and seen as a left value.
- droidist2 8y ago
  What are some examples of the old conservationists? Theodore Roosevelt?
echlebek 8y ago
I can't prove it, but I'm convinced it's due to lobbyists.

Why has wanting clean air and water become a left right issue?

tux1968 8y ago

Because it's not the goal that's in dispute, it's the difference of ideas about how to achieve it.

whatislovecraft 8y ago
> Because it's not the goal that's in dispute Yes, it is. Many Republicans in the USA specifically state that the environment is here for us to ravage and do whatever we want with. Adding pollution and choosing to not clean it up is part of Republican Party platform of short-term gains while not pricing in the real economics of the situation. > it's the difference of ideas about how to get achieve it. I've not heard a single idea from the Right in the last 20 years that would either 1) reduce pollution, ever, or 2) increase the safety of food and water supplies. They are always cutting the regulations with the obvious intent to dirty the water and air for cashmoney in the short term. Why is it like this? I don't know. But the 'left' is the group looking for capitalism to succeed out hundreds of years, and the 'right' is the group looking to get all the 'money' they can before the food is all poisoned and the water is too. -- This is not a partisan post of political opinions. I'm just stating facts here. The Republicans aren't trying to hide any of this! It's their platform - pretending it isn't, and downvoting me so nobody sees this post, is just going to make the problem worse in the future. Bad actors are hurting our environment and making it more difficult to get reliably clean water and air - and they are Republicans.
- iainmerrick 8y ago
  I think you’re correct. If people disagree, please post some counterexamples!
- travisoneill1 8y ago
  > I've not heard a single idea from the Right in the last 20 years that would either 1) reduce pollution, ever, or 2) increase the safety of food and water supplies 1) In the USA CO2 emissions are dropping mainly due to natural gas replacing coal. This was possible because of the development of fracking. Democrats are against this, Republicans for. 2) The best carbon-free technology that we currently have, and can deploy at scale, is nuclear power. Republicans for. Democrats against.
  - whatislovecraft 8y ago
    1) There is a lot more to pollution that CO2. Is your example of reducing pollution really fraking and that alone? Fraking, which specifically makes drinking water unsafe? I can't tell if you're just proving my point or not? You just wrote that Republicans are for a technology that makes drinking water unsafe and also has direct consequences for climate change being made worse? It sounds like with #1 you are suggesting that Republicans would prefer to poison the water of local communities and refuse to look at better alternatives. And the reason seems like money, from what I read online. (EDIT: Also, investment in technology like fraking that DO POLLUTE means a longer leadtime before real solutions are offered at the right price. This fraking is done not to reduce climate change effects - it will make things worse - but to make money for oil people.) You are straight-up ignoring Methane leaking from fraking sites directly making short-term climate change much, much worse. Methane is pollution too, and very bad pollution for our atmosphere right now. > 2) The best carbon-free technology that we currently have, and can deploy at scale, is nuclear power. Republicans for. Democrats against. There is a lot more to the world than carbon. I'm in favor of Nuclear energy by the way. I thought most democrats were? Literally 100% of Democrats I know in person are in favor of Nuclear energy. So I'm not sure what you mean here. But anyway, Nuclear power has a long-lead-time and a huge capital investment, while many renewables are lower cost to start up and produce mostly pollution-free power immediately. I'm more in favor of actual renewables but I'll take nuclear power any day. I think most democrats would love large-scale nuclear power, to be honest, and I'm quite surprised that you think otherwise. I'll have to look into this.
    - travisoneill1 8y ago
      I used to work on frack wells. Drank the water. It wasn't poisoned. People where the fracking is are pro-fracking. People in far away cities that aren't affected are against.
      - whatislovecraft 8y ago
        Your anecdotes are not data. Here's the EPA saying fraking can contaminate water. https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-fracking-water-contamination-2144968213.html https://www.ecowatch.com/epa-fracking-water-contamination-21... > People where the fracking is are pro-fracking. People in far away cities that aren't affected are against. We are all affected. This is one world, one planet. We are all on it together. And anyway, why would it matter if opinions are divided on this topic based on where we live? That speaks more to the education, opportunity, circumstance, political mood, etc, than it does to the issue at hand. It's a logical fallacy to argue that fraking is good for the environment (or good at all?) because people close by support it and people far away don't.
roywiggins 8y ago
The American right doesn't believe that climate change even exists, they aren't offering any ideas on how to combat it.

ramblerouser 8y ago

Pretending that your position is the center, and everyone who disagrees with you is an extremist doesnt work very well. The right doesnt oppose clean air, it opposes giving Al Gore's carbon credit company a blank check. The right (in the US) could just as easily ask why has boarder security become a left right issue.

JohnFen 8y ago
> The right (in the US) could just as easily ask why has boarder security become a left right issue. That's because the right made it a partisan issue.
- ramblerouser 8y ago
  Bill Clinton was tougher on immigration than Donald Trump is. The Left made it a partisan issue, not the right. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RzlviQH4FhQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RzlviQH4FhQ https://www.fairus.org/issue/legal-immigration/us-commission-immigration-reform https://www.fairus.org/issue/legal-immigration/us-commission... The bipartisan Jordan Commission recommended cutting legal immigration in half and punishing employers for hirin illegals. The democrats made this a partisan issue.
DonHopkins 8y ago
> doesnt work > doesnt oppose > boarder security Too bad the right has made science, education, spelling and punctuation such partisan issues.
- wolco 8y ago
  Weak response. The left contains many poor and uneducated citizens and many of them minorities. Comments like the one above shows we have a lot of work to do. Treating those citizens as second class does not valid your point.
  - watwut 8y ago
    His point was not about left being more educated on average, but more of about ideology and propaganda (both sides have propaganda) being explicitly opposed to science and education. Plenty of people who argue against those are educated themselves. You may disagree with that point, but it is not the same point as judging average education of this or that voter.

wolco 8y ago

In the past it was the right who owned this issue. Conservationist was the term. Now it's environmentist and seen as a left value.

droidist2 8y ago
What are some examples of the old conservationists? Theodore Roosevelt?

echlebek 8y ago

I can't prove it, but I'm convinced it's due to lobbyists.