Author Topic: republicans and the environment  (Read 892 times)

Offline Zigrat

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 792
republicans and the environment
« on: May 22, 2001, 11:50:00 PM »
well first of all i think the USA should stop relying on coal for power. the idea of building new coal fired plants is idiotic IMO. I would build all nuke plants, which are in fact, other than relatively low output solar or difficult to place hydroelectic (which also cause environmental damage, if not pollution), the "cleanest" form of energy we have.

the initialtive for electric vehicles is rediculous as it stands now. plug in your car to an outlet at home and charge it up, but where does that energy come from? burning coal. how does that save the environment?

if they want to give tax cuts (which are imo a good idea) why not give REAL incentives. eliminate sales tax on vehicles with better than 40 miles per gallon city/highway average and put more tax incentives for development of methanol as a fuel source, which reduces our dependance on foriegn countries.

I consider myself republican and voted for bush because many of my views are conservative (vouchers, pro life, want elimination of estate tax) but the republicans handling of environmental issues makes me mad.

isnt there a party that is republican-like while still being pro environment? what happened to the teddy roosevelts of the party?



Offline mrfish

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2343
republicans and the environment
« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2001, 12:37:00 AM »
nuclear is by far the best choice. it would be even better if we recycled fissable waste - which we dont and never have. which is just plain greedy.

unfortunately they are not cost effective to build. there are so many safety features and redundancies and regs required that they dont pay off well. additionally, they only have a lifespan of 40 years but require management expense far beyond that time due to radioactivity

Offline 1776

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 434
      • http://Iain'tgotno.com
republicans and the environment
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2001, 01:03:00 AM »
Let's solve this problem just like we have over the past ten years.......

bury our collective heads in the sand and rejoice that the environment is pure!!

Turn off all computers for 10 days each month....Ground all aircraft 10 days each month.......Close all government offices for 2 weeks each month(course pay the employees    )......Ride the bus to and from work 5 days a month.....ride a bike.....walk....eat veggies only.....spread peace, love, and good vibes  

Oh, what a happy world we would be  
Everyone one sing,"this is your land......this is my land......etc"

BAH!!!!  I want STEAK, an eight cylinder musle car, air conditioning at 72 in summer and heat at 75 in the winter.  If the precious environment needs to take a hit to provide the above, so be it!!!

GIVE US OUR FREEDOM!!!

Ok, libs, ya can go back to dope smoking now    (dope smokin=pollution)

[This message has been edited by 1776 (edited 05-23-2001).]

[This message has been edited by 1776 (edited 05-23-2001).]

Offline mietla

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2276
republicans and the environment
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2001, 01:17:00 AM »
Cumbaya my love, cumbaya....


Offline loser

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1642
republicans and the environment
« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2001, 02:39:00 AM »
jesus zig your read my mind...

we have the same thing up here.. everyone is crying for electric cars, heat, stoves (well we all have those) etc...

and once we have those we are all giddy because we are saving the environment from hydrocarbons and ozone depleting gasses.

yet the power is still coming from horrible natural gas plants, oil and coal burining plants, and the worst of all hydroelectricity.

however i must disagree on the nuclear power plants.  the process of digging for, collecting, transporting, and refining radioactive material has the same problem as the above. the work involved and the materials expended doesnt really pay off in the end. (environmentally)  besides , you dont want to give all your money to Canadians for our plutonium.

Offline Dowding

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6867
      • http://www.psys07629.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/272/index.html
republicans and the environment
« Reply #5 on: May 23, 2001, 05:04:00 AM »
1) Using 1 fossil fuel fired power station to power 1000 electric cars is less enviornmentally damaging than having 1000 conventional cars, with 1000 conventional engines. It's all about efficiency and scale.

2) Nuclear power-plants cost an absolute fortune to build. It requires huge capital with a long term investment. Money has to be put aside for its de-commissioning too - which is very expensive.

3) Long-term considerations in a democratic system are equal to about 4 or 5 years; nuclear power plants require a committment for funding over at least 70 years. It's far easier for a government to build Gas Turbine generators for instance - they are cheap, easy and fast to build and burning gas does not produce as many emissions as coal or oil. This is a policy currently in operation across Western Europe.

4) The idea behind environmental protection is to reduce impact as far as is practicable - using 'Best Available Techniques'. Not some zero impact dreamland that 1776 seems to use as a counter argument to any environmental protection measure.

Do some reading 1776, you'll find that most environmentalists want to limit impact, rather than eliminate it (which will never happen).
War! Never been so much fun. War! Never been so much fun! Go to your brother, Kill him with your gun, Leave him lying in his uniform, Dying in the sun.

Offline 1776

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 434
      • http://Iain'tgotno.com
republicans and the environment
« Reply #6 on: May 23, 2001, 07:48:00 AM »
Environmentalism is the new home of communists.  Get your head out of the sand and take a look around ya.  The greenies don't want anything at all that burns any kinda fuel!!!  The greenies even want to tear down dams in the US because of fishies, boo hoo!!

The greenies hate capitalism and want to put a stop to the unique American lifestyle!!

I don't beleive anything they have to say as it is a political movement that has duped so many.  The people that donate to these organizations are suckers.  Ralph Nader is a greenie,  Big time socialist too!!

Sure they sound nice, but the result the greenies are striving for is communism!!

[This message has been edited by 1776 (edited 05-23-2001).]

Offline miko2d

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3177
republicans and the environment
« Reply #7 on: May 23, 2001, 09:13:00 AM »
   
Quote
Originally posted by Dowding:
1) Using 1 fossil fuel fired power station to power 1000 electric cars is less enviornmentally damaging than having 1000 conventional cars, with 1000 conventional engines. It's all about efficiency and scale.

 By about 15%. Much easier to improve fuel efficiency by another 15% with current technologies then rig the country-wide infrastructure for new kind of cars.

 As for republicans and democrats, the government is not supposed to produce elecricity.
 They can outlaw some cheap and harmfull sources and the natural market forces will make energy prices rise. That would make alternatve sources more viable and concervation important.
 But you cannot ask politicians to restrict energy output, keep energy prices low and not raise taxes at the same time. Those three are  zero-sum game. If energy gets scarce, it is paid for by consumer or taxpayer.

 miko

[This message has been edited by miko2d (edited 05-23-2001).]

Offline -ammo-

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5124
republicans and the environment
« Reply #8 on: May 23, 2001, 11:22:00 AM »
We ( the USA) should go Nuclear.
Commanding Officer, 56 Fighter Group
Retired USAF - 1988 - 2011

Offline Ripsnort

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27251
republicans and the environment
« Reply #9 on: May 23, 2001, 11:26:00 AM »
Zig, you realize that being a college student, that you are indeed a rare breed don't you?

Colleges: where people like Dowding get brainwashed into thinking socialized medicine would actually work.  

Offline Dowding

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6867
      • http://www.psys07629.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/272/index.html
republicans and the environment
« Reply #10 on: May 23, 2001, 11:28:00 AM »
Nice that you revert to a characature, 1776. Good form, old bean.    

Miko - 15% is a huge amount, especially considering the hundreds of millions of cars our countries use.

Maybe the technology isn't at the right level now, but in 10 years, considering the progress in the last 20 years, electrically powered cars might become a real alternative. Probably in the urban environment at first.

Yeah, Ripsnort, possibly true. Except for the fact I didn't do a degree in 'Socialised Medicine' and I very, very rarely sat around discussing current afairs at any point during my time there. Strangely enough, I had ideas of my own, well before going to uni.  



[This message has been edited by Dowding (edited 05-23-2001).]
War! Never been so much fun. War! Never been so much fun! Go to your brother, Kill him with your gun, Leave him lying in his uniform, Dying in the sun.

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
republicans and the environment
« Reply #11 on: May 23, 2001, 12:12:00 PM »
1776,

You have got to be deluded if you actually believe a lick of what you say.

Environmentalists are commies?

Hallelujah, thank the Lord that we can destroy the biosphere in good, God-fearing, capitalist American way.  Hallelujah, friend, hallelujah!!!

You know, there is such a thing as moderate views and doing what is best rather than going all out for some extremist doctrine.

------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Bring the Mosquito FB.MkVI Series 2 to Aces High!!!

Sisu
-Karnak
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-

Offline buhdman

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 140
      • http://home.earthlink.net/~wjbarrow
republicans and the environment
« Reply #12 on: May 23, 2001, 01:28:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by 1776:
Let's solve this problem just like we have over the past ten years.......

bury our collective heads in the sand and rejoice that the environment is pure!!

Turn off all computers for 10 days each month....Ground all aircraft 10 days each month.......Close all government offices for 2 weeks each month(course pay the employees      )......Ride the bus to and from work 5 days a month.....ride a bike.....walk....eat veggies only.....spread peace, love, and good vibes    

Oh, what a happy world we would be    
Everyone one sing,"this is your land......this is my land......etc"

BAH!!!!  I want STEAK, an eight cylinder musle car, air conditioning at 72 in summer and heat at 75 in the winter.  If the precious environment needs to take a hit to provide the above, so be it!!!

GIVE US OUR FREEDOM!!!

Ok, libs, ya can go back to dope smoking now      (dope smokin=pollution)

[This message has been edited by 1776 (edited 05-23-2001).]

[This message has been edited by 1776 (edited 05-23-2001).]

(Steps up to the podium.  Raises his eyes slowly, looks around the room, and begins to rant ...)

1776, I think you already have your head buried in the sand and it is exactly this kind of thinking that really pisses me off.  I see it when a teenager tosses his trash out of his car window.  I see it when big businesses toss their waste into our rivers.  I see it when GM produces gas-guzzling boats for our higways and biways.  And I see it when people sit down to their mega-steak dinners only to end up throwing half of it away because their greed was bigger than their guts.  People whose only interest is in themselves and their own pleasure with no thought to any further out in the future than when their next gratification is going to come.

Come on, guys, do any of us think that relying on a non-renewable source of energy is going to do us any good?  Sure it will in the short-term, but what about in the future. What about for our kids and their kids and their kids?  What about 100 years from now?  Or a 1000 years from now? Or 10,000 years from now?  How many of you ever think about that far into the future?

I, for one, think that we, as a civilization, are on this planet for the long haul.  I don't believe this isn't just some religious playground we can use up and throw away.  It's our HOME, for god's sake, and we'd better start acting like we care about where and how we live or we're going to lose it.  Maybe not in our life time, but eventually.  If we keep bickering and ignoring our impact on this planet WE'RE going to be the ones responsible for denying some future generation their "right to life", and that would be a genuine shame.

You know, the vets of WW-II that we so revere put their lives on the line so that "future generations" would be guaranteed precious freedom.  We need to put our lives on the line so that future generations from now will be guaranteed a precious environment in which to be free.  If any of us think that we are not f**king up this world big-time, we are only deluding ourselves.

Oh, you can think like 1776 and "live for the moment" if you want, but in my mind that only makes you a fool and does a lot more harm than you can even imagine. To you I say "pfpfpfpfpfpt".

But, from what I've read here on this thread, I see that most of you care about what's going to happen to our progeny in future generations.  Maybe you don't agree on the exact solution, but at least you're talking.  At least YOU'RE saying something constructive and thinking about the problem. To you I say, "Thanks!".

Have a nice day!

(smiles, slowly closes his notes, turns away, and walks away from the podium shaking his head in disbelief)

Buhdman,  

Offline mrfish

  • Parolee
  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2343
republicans and the environment
« Reply #13 on: May 23, 2001, 01:31:00 PM »
 
Quote
Originally posted by -ammo-:
We ( the USA) should go Nuclear.

yes that's true, but first we will have to get people like 1776 to say it right: nuke-you-ler wrong - new-kleer good

hey 1776 maybe i'm wrong after all. i got a new idea: burn trees for fuel!! we got lots of em ever'whur and all they do is spoil yer shot at a nice fat squirell dinner so lets chope em n' burn em,i will invite cletus over an' we havun errrselfs a regler hoedown yeeeeeeeeehawwwww

Offline Karnak

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 23047
republicans and the environment
« Reply #14 on: May 23, 2001, 02:43:00 PM »
I agree, properly done (see France) nuclear power + conservation (just for you 1776) would see us through the foreseeable future.

Most of the power "gain" that we've had over the last 20 years has come from conservation.

Conservation, contrary to what 1776 will tell you, does not mean turning off you heater, water heater AC or not driving your car.  Conservation works via methods such as better insulation on houses and water heaters, lighting that is more efficient and automobiles that go further per gallon of gas.  The best energy conservation methods work transparently.

The fact that they work transparently now comes to haunt us as people like 1776 rant and rage against anything that is labeled "Conservation" even though they themselves have, unknowingly, been using conservation methods for years.

------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother

Bring the Mosquito FB.MkVI Series 2 to Aces High!!!

Sisu
-Karnak
Petals floating by,
      Drift through my woman's hand,
             As she remembers me-