3 ms·

He was referring to the political right in the states. Historically speaking, in 70s/80s, even Nixon, passed laws for conserving the nature, protectionism and e

by kredd 3y ago

He was referring to the political right in the states. Historically speaking, in 70s/80s, even Nixon, passed laws for conserving the nature, protectionism and etc. At some point there was a switch into “nah, screw the environment” to align with the voter base.

klardotsh 3y ago
to align with the *funding base
- e40 3y ago
  The voter base is led by the nose by the funding base. For both parties.
edgyquant 3y ago
There wasn’t a switch. The Republican Party is still very much pro-conservationist. You are spewing talking points from their political enemies. https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/republicans-deliver-on-conservation https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/republicans-deliver...
- asynchronous 3y ago
  People seem to forget hunters and fishers are still the biggest funding source for conservationism and are almost overwhelmingly conservative voters. But no, the people who live deep in urban jungles have the audacity to call them “environment haters”.
  - BaseballPhysics 3y ago
    Conservation to enable ongoing future exploitation. That's a very different brand of conservation. There's a reason those same groups refuse to support policies that would stave off climate change: it would require less exploitation of natural resources, and thus there's no money in it.
- cooper_ganglia 3y ago
  I would consider myself pretty centrist, but I thought HN was a good place to get away from the thoughtless political vitriol that exists everywhere else. For a forum that's usually very well spoken, it's wild to see how quick people are to make claims about people and things they know nothing about. Political polarization really is going to destroy this country, damn.
  - e40 3y ago
    Hmm. I looked for vitrol in the comment chain above you and found none. Perhaps you are the one bringing that attitude.
- kredd 3y ago
  Ah apologies then, my knowledge of US politics is fairly surface based. I usually associate the oil and co. lobbyists with the conservative government, and they don’t have the best record in terms of natural conservation (I understand they do the same with the liberal side as well). I guess, that’s a bad habit.
e40 3y ago
This, exactly. Nixon created the EPA, after all. Now, that org is the incarnation of evil to the right.
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  Do you believe there is any justification for believing the EPA has gone far beyond the original intention for the agency created by Nixon? Do you believe the EPA of today is the same EPA that was founded in those days? or has the remit of the EPA like most federal agencies been expanded to the point of totalitarian control where by in many instances they are a detriment to their own stated goals, and certainly seen as no longer caring about balancing public liberty, property rights, or economic interests in their zealous often extremist pursuit of regulatory control over all aspects of anything remotely connected to their purview. In short the EPA like most federal agencies routinely abuse their authority, invent new authority from thin air, and over all make the lives of every day people miserable who just want to build a home, a business or simply live their lives.
  - e40 3y ago
    Relatively speaking, the EPA has pushed (in the wrong direction) the boundaries about 1,000,000x less than corporations have. We have PFAS everywhere (a recent HN article). Look at the list of superfund sites in the US. I think the EPA does far too little to protect us from cancer causing chemicals because politicians allow them to pollute. Fracking's 500 chemicals declared a proprietary: https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/hydraulic-fracturing-fracking.html#:~:text=Many%20of%20the%20chemicals%20used,information%20even%20for%20treatment%20purposes https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/hydraulic-fracturing.... We know a lot more about cancer and what causes it compared to when the EPA was founded. Look at how little we do with that knowledge.
    - phpisthebest 3y ago
      Well that is a prime example of what about ism. I think one can hold the position that the EPA has been both abusive to every day American's when the abuse their authority to prevent home owners from building on their land because there is a beetle some where in the area (yes that is hyperbolic) while at the same time playing liability shield for large corporations that are harming these same home owners. Yelling at the clouds saying "but what about the corporations" does nothing to refute my original statement
Swenrekcah 3y ago
I think it’s more likely the case that the voter base behaviour has been rather successfully aligned with corporate interests.

by kredd 3y ago

klardotsh 3y ago

to align with the *funding base

e40 3y ago
The voter base is led by the nose by the funding base. For both parties.

edgyquant 3y ago

There wasn’t a switch. The Republican Party is still very much pro-conservationist. You are spewing talking points from their political enemies. https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/republicans-deliver-on-conservation https://www.rpc.senate.gov/policy-papers/republicans-deliver...

asynchronous 3y ago
People seem to forget hunters and fishers are still the biggest funding source for conservationism and are almost overwhelmingly conservative voters. But no, the people who live deep in urban jungles have the audacity to call them “environment haters”.
- BaseballPhysics 3y ago
  Conservation to enable ongoing future exploitation. That's a very different brand of conservation. There's a reason those same groups refuse to support policies that would stave off climate change: it would require less exploitation of natural resources, and thus there's no money in it.
cooper_ganglia 3y ago
I would consider myself pretty centrist, but I thought HN was a good place to get away from the thoughtless political vitriol that exists everywhere else. For a forum that's usually very well spoken, it's wild to see how quick people are to make claims about people and things they know nothing about. Political polarization really is going to destroy this country, damn.
- e40 3y ago
  Hmm. I looked for vitrol in the comment chain above you and found none. Perhaps you are the one bringing that attitude.
kredd 3y ago
Ah apologies then, my knowledge of US politics is fairly surface based. I usually associate the oil and co. lobbyists with the conservative government, and they don’t have the best record in terms of natural conservation (I understand they do the same with the liberal side as well). I guess, that’s a bad habit.

e40 3y ago

This, exactly. Nixon created the EPA, after all. Now, that org is the incarnation of evil to the right.

phpisthebest 3y ago
Do you believe there is any justification for believing the EPA has gone far beyond the original intention for the agency created by Nixon? Do you believe the EPA of today is the same EPA that was founded in those days? or has the remit of the EPA like most federal agencies been expanded to the point of totalitarian control where by in many instances they are a detriment to their own stated goals, and certainly seen as no longer caring about balancing public liberty, property rights, or economic interests in their zealous often extremist pursuit of regulatory control over all aspects of anything remotely connected to their purview. In short the EPA like most federal agencies routinely abuse their authority, invent new authority from thin air, and over all make the lives of every day people miserable who just want to build a home, a business or simply live their lives.
- e40 3y ago
  Relatively speaking, the EPA has pushed (in the wrong direction) the boundaries about 1,000,000x less than corporations have. We have PFAS everywhere (a recent HN article). Look at the list of superfund sites in the US. I think the EPA does far too little to protect us from cancer causing chemicals because politicians allow them to pollute. Fracking's 500 chemicals declared a proprietary: https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/hydraulic-fracturing-fracking.html#:~:text=Many%20of%20the%20chemicals%20used,information%20even%20for%20treatment%20purposes https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/hydraulic-fracturing.... We know a lot more about cancer and what causes it compared to when the EPA was founded. Look at how little we do with that knowledge.
  - phpisthebest 3y ago
    Well that is a prime example of what about ism. I think one can hold the position that the EPA has been both abusive to every day American's when the abuse their authority to prevent home owners from building on their land because there is a beetle some where in the area (yes that is hyperbolic) while at the same time playing liability shield for large corporations that are harming these same home owners. Yelling at the clouds saying "but what about the corporations" does nothing to refute my original statement

Swenrekcah 3y ago

I think it’s more likely the case that the voter base behaviour has been rather successfully aligned with corporate interests.