4 ms·

> One of the downsides of being a red state is less will to address environmental concerns like this. This is patently false. Some of the most beautiful states

> One of the downsides of being a red state is less will to address environmental concerns like this. This is patently false. Some of the most beautiful states in the country are home to "red" policies, and there isn't any evidence to the contrary that being "blue" makes anything better, considering some of the most polluted states in the country are blue. California, for example, you might think has beautiful parts because of "being blue", but California wasn't always "blue", and it wasn't until the 90s where it started consistently going blue...which means the majority of it's natural beauty was designed and led under "red" leadership. Same for Colorado. There is plenty of "red" environmental think tanks these days. Mostly everyone agrees the environment is worth protecting, just disagree the ways of going about it. Check out the American Conservative Coalition, for example, which argues for a more reasoned approach to tackling climate change, one that many here would find agreeable, such as including natural gas as a transitional energy source off oil and coal, and utilizing nuclear power. https://www.acc.eco/ https://www.acc.eco/

charwalker 6y ago
I think they were addressing general mistrust of climate science and stubbornness to act against human driven climate change or even recognize its existence let alone prioritize environmental concerns like mine tialings and other pollution. In red states, run by conservatives who consider climate science a conspiracy and environmental regulations antithetical to business, this philosophy common. Many of these states (and blue ones too) have low population, no major urban sprawls or cities, and minimal pollution sources near people like chemical plants, refineries, and mines. SLC is in a red state that generally follows GOP talking points on these issues and has not acted strongly to protect air quality in the area. Polling in the state suggests people do support climate science though. If the city took action like LA/CA to improve emissions standards, implement better public transit to replace commuter cars, and pressed local companies and industry to limit emissions it could get an early start and a rising taxable population to fund these programs.
- dimitrios1 6y ago
  Because they are politicians! It's their job to act stubborn and pander to their bases, especially in today's winner-take-all environment. They don't actually say what they mean or believe. They only say things that test well with their base and keeps them in power and re-elected. They focus-group most every position they even think about holding, and for the most part stick to blue-meat/red-meat issues. The sad reality is, if you are a republican with deep convictions that anthropomorphic climate change is the top existential threat in our world, you cannot talk about this publicly (Just like if you are a Democrat with deep convictions about the sanctity of life, you better keep that shit to yourself). Moderates have been booted out of each party. What they say, and what they do are usually (99.9% of the time) two entirely distinct realities.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> California, for example, you might think has beautiful parts because of "being blue", but California wasn't always "blue", and it wasn't until the 90s where it started consistently going blue...which means the majority of it's natural beauty was designed and led under "red" leadership. Not at all true. It's true California used to be a Republican Presidential stronghold that flipped very quickly to the Democrats in the 90s, without much competitive period in between. But it has had Democratic state legislative majorities consistently since the 1950s (with Republicans holding the Assembly speakership less than 5 years and the Senate Presidency Pro Tem less than 2 years since 1957.) Democrats have also dominated most statewide Constitutional offices besides the Governorship since about the 1970s, with the Governor's office not seeing the same kind of of super-long-term one-party domination.
- dimitrios1 6y ago
  > Not at all true. It's true California used to be a Republican Presidential stronghold that flipped very quickly to the Democrats in the 90s That's exactly what I said? Either case, let's not forget, even with how "blue" we think California is, there is still more registered republicans in California than Texas, obviously due to California's sheer size in population. That would mean regardless of specific outcomes, republicans were very much involved at all levels of government.

charwalker 6y ago

I think they were addressing general mistrust of climate science and stubbornness to act against human driven climate change or even recognize its existence let alone prioritize environmental concerns like mine tialings and other pollution. In red states, run by conservatives who consider climate science a conspiracy and environmental regulations antithetical to business, this philosophy common. Many of these states (and blue ones too) have low population, no major urban sprawls or cities, and minimal pollution sources near people like chemical plants, refineries, and mines. SLC is in a red state that generally follows GOP talking points on these issues and has not acted strongly to protect air quality in the area. Polling in the state suggests people do support climate science though. If the city took action like LA/CA to improve emissions standards, implement better public transit to replace commuter cars, and pressed local companies and industry to limit emissions it could get an early start and a rising taxable population to fund these programs.

dimitrios1 6y ago
Because they are politicians! It's their job to act stubborn and pander to their bases, especially in today's winner-take-all environment. They don't actually say what they mean or believe. They only say things that test well with their base and keeps them in power and re-elected. They focus-group most every position they even think about holding, and for the most part stick to blue-meat/red-meat issues. The sad reality is, if you are a republican with deep convictions that anthropomorphic climate change is the top existential threat in our world, you cannot talk about this publicly (Just like if you are a Democrat with deep convictions about the sanctity of life, you better keep that shit to yourself). Moderates have been booted out of each party. What they say, and what they do are usually (99.9% of the time) two entirely distinct realities.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> California, for example, you might think has beautiful parts because of "being blue", but California wasn't always "blue", and it wasn't until the 90s where it started consistently going blue...which means the majority of it's natural beauty was designed and led under "red" leadership. Not at all true. It's true California used to be a Republican Presidential stronghold that flipped very quickly to the Democrats in the 90s, without much competitive period in between. But it has had Democratic state legislative majorities consistently since the 1950s (with Republicans holding the Assembly speakership less than 5 years and the Senate Presidency Pro Tem less than 2 years since 1957.) Democrats have also dominated most statewide Constitutional offices besides the Governorship since about the 1970s, with the Governor's office not seeing the same kind of of super-long-term one-party domination.

dimitrios1 6y ago
> Not at all true. It's true California used to be a Republican Presidential stronghold that flipped very quickly to the Democrats in the 90s That's exactly what I said? Either case, let's not forget, even with how "blue" we think California is, there is still more registered republicans in California than Texas, obviously due to California's sheer size in population. That would mean regardless of specific outcomes, republicans were very much involved at all levels of government.