Not everyone can afford a one acre lot.
Where do you expect the people who abandon cities to go? My guess is they’ll eventually arrive at your one acre lot.
What then?
The EIB network, Entertainment in broadcasting! That is rush, near as credible as Fox!
If we were all required to capture and sequester, or convert back into O2, all the CO2 each of us produced, now THAT would be a game-changer.
Solid waste is not the problem. Gaseous waste is the problem.
I Agree, I would dump All Of These Programs. I Don’t Qualify For Or Take Part In Any Of These Spending Programs, Yet I Pour Thousands And Thousands Of Dollars, Throwing Good Money After Bad Into Them. This Spending Is Unsustainable Now, More Than Ever. They Will Destroy Our Country.
This isn’t what our founding fathers had in mind.
CSA
A great many people are laughing at the “Chicken Little” scenario regarding global warming. There are far too many corporate entities painting green leaves on their headquarters to improve profits with no concern for the environment for me to get excited. Global warming is right up there with weapons of mass destruction on my list, right below Gulf of Tonkin. Global warming may be proven one day but not yet. But it is apparent that we would be doing our children a great favor by reducing the crap that we leave piled up for them.
You may demonstrate your sincerity by not flushing your toilet. Report back in a week with your findings.
I fail to see how one person, in or out of an administration, can make that much difference…That’s because there are several foxes guarding the hen house.
Global warming is an undeniable fact. There is no reasonable argument that it is not occurring. What is up for debate is what is causing it and whether it is reversible. If it is due to natural causes, then there is not much we can do about it, and no good way to predict a turnaround. If it is man-made, then there are things we can do about it. Global warming is really not a huge problem now. If it continues at the current rate, the world will be a very different place in 100 years. All coastal cities will be way under water after the ocean rises 200 feet. The consequences are immense eventually, and that is why it is worth considering what causes it and how to react to it now.
http://funding-programs.idilogic.aidpage.com/
Be sure and include all programs social in nature including public schools, local and state assistance, DOT, DEP etc.
“My” founding fathers did not consider factories dumping contaminates into lakes, streams and rivers but did provide a way of addressing these problems in the constitution. Some conservative thinkers feel the constitution is an end all be all that solves all their problems if you only “read” it. Fortunately, the opposite is true. It’s a document that provides a functional and flexible govt., that allows people to choose by a democratic process, solutions applicable to the times they live in.
It allows me to choose an autocratic government when necessary in war, capitalism when necessary for growth and an element of socialism when necessary to stem the unfettered desire to maximize profit at the expense of individual rights and personal freedom.
I like mine a little better.
It seems there is a great deal of difference of opinion in the threatened rise in sea level. Twenty feet is the worst case scenario that I have found. Certainly we would want to avoid that. But there is a vast difference of opinion regarding whether there is global warming and if so what the cause is. I see the issue as a demon for one political party to use to gain a highly motivated constituency.
CSA, contrary to what the you so-called teapartiers would have us believe, the founding fathers were not all raging conservatives. Just like today’s politicians, they covered the whole spectrum of political thought. Some were atheists, while others were beer-swilling fornicators. Let’s not rewrite history.
Wow. Succinct well written post!
OK. I don’t drive on the roads you drive on. I therefore don’t want my tax dollars going to build them. Either build your own roads, or come 'round to the conclusion that a society works better when everyone contributes, even if not everyone uses everything they contribute toward.
“This isn’t what our founding fathers had in mind.”
Above all other things, the principles on which our defining political documents were based is the principle of Reason itself - that all people are capable of Reason and thus each of us are equal with regards to exercising our rights according to Reason. This principle of Reason was the hot thing of the time being right in the midst of the “Enlightenment.”
The messages of the shrill right, including the “socialism” nonsense (b/c it is complete and total nonsense) is actually what is contrary to the intentions of the “founding fathers.” It is - through and through - based on un-Reason. It is a rhetoric that appeals to emotion rather than to intellect. It is not about discussion and debate. It is completely like religious fervor and completely unlike Reasoned discussion.
[sarcasm] You’re absolutely right, CSA, clean air and clean water are totally socialist! Asthma, lung disease and arsenic in our drinking water are just the American way. There’s a lot of truthiness in what you say. [/sarcasm]
Red, I won’t deny that liberals have exploited global warming as a political issue, and I won’t deny that unfortunate intellectual dishonesty conducted by a few climate scientists has hurt the cause. However, rising global temperatures are easy to confirm. Things that can be confirmed are not opinions. They are facts. When conservatives see a large ice storm, they laugh and say “How 'bout that global warming BS!” when what we are really talking about is a change in the average global temperature. We can see the signs everywhere. Species that depend on the climate being a certain way are dying off or migrating in patterns never seen before. Temperatures in the coldest places on earth are averaging higher than they ever have before.
JT is right. Global warming is not an opinion. It is a fact. It’s causes, on the other hand, are greatly contested, and on that, I am willing to admit there is still dissent among scientists, although the great majority of them believe our pollution is contributing to it.
If this post is addressed to me, WhaWho, there is a septic tank in my yard. And a well also.
My father and I don’t talk politics. I’m sure he’s a card carrying “tea partier.” I do know that he likes to speak caustically about “the environmentalists.” (This in itself tells me all I need to know - as if there is such a thing as “the environmentalists.”)
He grew up in the country, and now lives in the house in which he grew up. Its about 5 nice big acres surrounded by woods and ponds and what was at one time farm fields. He, and most of my relatives who live in this once dairy-farm country all basically think like that. I’m always wondering how it might be different if they all lived in Los Angeles or something - especially maybe in the 70s when the smog was even thicker that it is now. They seem to have this weird idea that the entire world - every last bit of it - is as simple as the little rural/small town county they’re in. Nay - perhaps even as simple as their own back yard.
Some of us enjoy the simpler, more basic surroundings of small town America and don’t wish to lose what we have worked for because it doesn’t suit someone who prefers to live in a large metropolitan area. I am not a gun fanatic. I am not a religious fundamentalist. I flew into LA several times in the 60s when visibility was less than 1/4 mile in the smog so I am very aware of the issue of pollution. And I am as concerned with Tea Party fanatics as I am with climate change fanatics. Fanatics don’t seem to handle intelligent discussion well. Those who argue that the sea will rise 200 ft need to face those who argue that the top 2% pay 85% of the taxes and let sensible people debate realistically.
I’m not talking about what anyone enjoys or doesn’t enjoy or where they want to live or anything else. I’m talking about the base of experience from which people draw their understanding of the world. (I currently live in a rural area on about 4 wooded acres. I just don’t assume that my day to day experiences tell me anything about the rest of the world. And every time I talk to my somewhat nutty neighbor I’m really glad that the county (read “gubmint”) has regulations in place to protect me from his nuttiness).
On that note, the fanatics tend to have very little base and grossly overgeneralize from their own very narrow experiences. If we want to go to climate change, the IPCC has a base of experience far surpassing - by light years - that of the doubters. The general story is not fanaticism.