Comments on: Voting For The Environment – Where The Democrats Stand. http://thegoodhuman.com/2008/02/04/voting-the-environment-where-the-candidates-stand/ Sustainability, Environment, Progressive Politics, Peak Oil, Going Green. Fri, 18 May 2012 16:15:32 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Protecting Our Environment & Our Prosperity- Tratfor http://thegoodhuman.com/2008/02/04/voting-the-environment-where-the-candidates-stand/#comment-1848 Protecting Our Environment & Our Prosperity- Tratfor Tue, 31 Aug 2010 23:24:33 +0000 http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2008/02/04/voting-the-environment-where-the-candidates-stand/#comment-1848 [...] Voting For The Environment – Where The Democrats Stand. While I understand there are very big issues that the next President will have to face, one of my personal concerns is how they are going to treat issues pertaining… [...] [...] Voting For The Environment – Where The Democrats Stand. While I understand there are very big issues that the next President will have to face, one of my personal concerns is how they are going to treat issues pertaining… [...]

]]> By: david http://thegoodhuman.com/2008/02/04/voting-the-environment-where-the-candidates-stand/#comment-1847 david Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:42:42 +0000 http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2008/02/04/voting-the-environment-where-the-candidates-stand/#comment-1847 It's OK to be pessimistic about this stuff Ryan - it gets to all of us sometimes. I honestly think we need to focus on the bigger picture in terms of policy, and the smaller changes will come along with it. On a personal level, though, I do everything I can to reduce my energy usage, my consumption of goods, and my footprint. It makes me feel more optimistic about what can be done long term. It’s OK to be pessimistic about this stuff Ryan – it gets to all of us sometimes. I honestly think we need to focus on the bigger picture in terms of policy, and the smaller changes will come along with it.

On a personal level, though, I do everything I can to reduce my energy usage, my consumption of goods, and my footprint. It makes me feel more optimistic about what can be done long term.

]]> By: Ryan http://thegoodhuman.com/2008/02/04/voting-the-environment-where-the-candidates-stand/#comment-1846 Ryan Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:39:51 +0000 http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2008/02/04/voting-the-environment-where-the-candidates-stand/#comment-1846 I realized that I might have been being too pessimistic in my last post! Tim, I think you're right that a lot of things can be linked back to energy needs. Maybe this is the right place to start. Then we can focus on thinkgs like pesticides, overfishing, etc. However I worry that it might be too late by the time that happens, especially with overfishing. I think my frustration comes not because I think that we're all doomed, it's just that I think we could be moving faster on things. But maybe I just need to be happy with progress at any pace! I realized that I might have been being too pessimistic in my last post! Tim, I think you’re right that a lot of things can be linked back to energy needs. Maybe this is the right place to start. Then we can focus on thinkgs like pesticides, overfishing, etc. However I worry that it might be too late by the time that happens, especially with overfishing. I think my frustration comes not because I think that we’re all doomed, it’s just that I think we could be moving faster on things. But maybe I just need to be happy with progress at any pace!

]]> By: Tim Hurst http://thegoodhuman.com/2008/02/04/voting-the-environment-where-the-candidates-stand/#comment-1845 Tim Hurst Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:57:40 +0000 http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2008/02/04/voting-the-environment-where-the-candidates-stand/#comment-1845 Ryan, tell me if you think is too much of a reach. Plastic bags are made from petroleum products. The House-proposed energy bill last fall included a provision to cut the massive tax breaks that the oil companies got and redistributing those breaks to renewable energy production. That redistribution of tax breaks was threatened a veto by Bush and removed from the final version. If the Big Oil does not get those subsidies would the (exceedingly cheap) price of plastic bags go up? They might. I know it's not the strongest argument of such a linkage! But it is those types of connections that we need to be discussing. Ryan, tell me if you think is too much of a reach. Plastic bags are made from petroleum products. The House-proposed energy bill last fall included a provision to cut the massive tax breaks that the oil companies got and redistributing those breaks to renewable energy production. That redistribution of tax breaks was threatened a veto by Bush and removed from the final version.

If the Big Oil does not get those subsidies would the (exceedingly cheap) price of plastic bags go up? They might.

I know it’s not the strongest argument of such a linkage! But it is those types of connections that we need to be discussing.

]]> By: Ryan http://thegoodhuman.com/2008/02/04/voting-the-environment-where-the-candidates-stand/#comment-1844 Ryan Tue, 05 Feb 2008 01:08:36 +0000 http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2008/02/04/voting-the-environment-where-the-candidates-stand/#comment-1844 Thanks for the comments. I do think think that energy can and probably will be the keystone, with the underlying issue fighting climate change. I do still think this leaves out a number of important issues that I feel aren't getting addressed. For example, we can certainly invest in more renewable fuels sources, but that won't do anything to address plastic bags that end up in landfills and waterways. When are we going to address that? After climate change investment in energy? I don't see how that would fall under the energy umbrella. But maybe energy is a good place to start. When I see politicians focusing on renewable energy, I do worry that what a lot of people are promising is a "free lunch". In other words, most Americans don't want to be inconvenienced, and politicians won't run on a platform the promises to inconvenience anyone. Most Americans don't want to drive less, they want to drive the same amount (perhaps even more) but have some new "technology" make their driving carbon-neutral. What I feel that most people want to hear on the environment is that they can keep on driving and consuming as much as they did before, but the difference now is that their presidential candidate will promise to make sure it's "carbon-neutral". I don't see any proposal of trying to change the way people think about resource consumption (whether energy, water, forests, etc.) and consumption in general. I definitely hear ya that a candidate couldn't win by focusing on special situations regarding the environment. What I'd like to see though is a candidate who steps up and says: "As a country we're going to act like good stewards of this planet. Whatever issue comes up, whether it's broad energy policy or listing polar bears as endangered, we're going to act like responsible tenants of the planet. Going forward we're going to make decisions that aren't just in the best interest of our generation, but also for all generations to come, perhaps sometimes to the inconvenience of our own." Not sure how realistic that is but it would sure be refreshing! Thanks for the comments. I do think think that energy can and probably will be the keystone, with the underlying issue fighting climate change. I do still think this leaves out a number of important issues that I feel aren’t getting addressed. For example, we can certainly invest in more renewable fuels sources, but that won’t do anything to address plastic bags that end up in landfills and waterways. When are we going to address that? After climate change investment in energy? I don’t see how that would fall under the energy umbrella. But maybe energy is a good place to start.

When I see politicians focusing on renewable energy, I do worry that what a lot of people are promising is a “free lunch”. In other words, most Americans don’t want to be inconvenienced, and politicians won’t run on a platform the promises to inconvenience anyone. Most Americans don’t want to drive less, they want to drive the same amount (perhaps even more) but have some new “technology” make their driving carbon-neutral. What I feel that most people want to hear on the environment is that they can keep on driving and consuming as much as they did before, but the difference now is that their presidential candidate will promise to make sure it’s “carbon-neutral”. I don’t see any proposal of trying to change the way people think about resource consumption (whether energy, water, forests, etc.) and consumption in general.

I definitely hear ya that a candidate couldn’t win by focusing on special situations regarding the environment. What I’d like to see though is a candidate who steps up and says: “As a country we’re going to act like good stewards of this planet. Whatever issue comes up, whether it’s broad energy policy or listing polar bears as endangered, we’re going to act like responsible tenants of the planet. Going forward we’re going to make decisions that aren’t just in the best interest of our generation, but also for all generations to come, perhaps sometimes to the inconvenience of our own.”

Not sure how realistic that is but it would sure be refreshing!

]]> By: david http://thegoodhuman.com/2008/02/04/voting-the-environment-where-the-candidates-stand/#comment-1843 david Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:35:50 +0000 http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2008/02/04/voting-the-environment-where-the-candidates-stand/#comment-1843 Also keep in mind that unfortunately, Presidential contenders cannot look like hippies...and I mean that in the best way possible. If they start talking about saving near-extinct frogs or fuzzy polar bears, a lot of people will not take them seriously - or so they thing. So they talk about the one thing everyone likes to hear - less dependence on foreign oil. Also keep in mind that unfortunately, Presidential contenders cannot look like hippies…and I mean that in the best way possible. If they start talking about saving near-extinct frogs or fuzzy polar bears, a lot of people will not take them seriously – or so they thing. So they talk about the one thing everyone likes to hear – less dependence on foreign oil.

]]> By: Tim Hurst http://thegoodhuman.com/2008/02/04/voting-the-environment-where-the-candidates-stand/#comment-1842 Tim Hurst Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:59:26 +0000 http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2008/02/04/voting-the-environment-where-the-candidates-stand/#comment-1842 Ryan - I think make you an excellent point, not just in the context of presidential politics but it can extend to the larger discussions about the environmental movement, the sciences of biology and ecology, and the political engagement it will take to tackle climate change and energy demand. In other words. A lot of the actions that are considered necessary to deflect some of the impacts of climate change also encompass the 'traditional' environmentalist causes. These include but are not limited to :deforestation, land-use planning, low-impact farming techniques, methane capture at landfills, recycling at the personal scale and business scale. I am not a conservation biologist but I guess that many would say that the biggest threat to biodiversity lost is climate change. We have greatly increased our energy consumption in the last 150 years and now we are beginning to see the effects of that. I think you have raised a very important point and one I struggle with myself. But I think one way of seeing it, is that climate change, energy efficiency and most renewable energies/fuels (except for some of the Big Ag and eco-unfriendly ones like corn, soybean), have the ability to be the 'keystone' of the environmental movement - sort of an umbrella movement. What do you think? Ryan – I think make you an excellent point, not just in the context of presidential politics but it can extend to the larger discussions about the environmental movement, the sciences of biology and ecology, and the political engagement it will take to tackle climate change and energy demand.

In other words. A lot of the actions that are considered necessary to deflect some of the impacts of climate change also encompass the ‘traditional’ environmentalist causes. These include but are not limited to :deforestation, land-use planning, low-impact farming techniques, methane capture at landfills, recycling at the personal scale and business scale.

I am not a conservation biologist but I guess that many would say that the biggest threat to biodiversity lost is climate change. We have greatly increased our energy consumption in the last 150 years and now we are beginning to see the effects of that.

I think you have raised a very important point and one I struggle with myself. But I think one way of seeing it, is that climate change, energy efficiency and most renewable energies/fuels (except for some of the Big Ag and eco-unfriendly ones like corn, soybean), have the ability to be the ‘keystone’ of the environmental movement – sort of an umbrella movement. What do you think?

]]> By: Ryan Young http://thegoodhuman.com/2008/02/04/voting-the-environment-where-the-candidates-stand/#comment-1841 Ryan Young Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:03:24 +0000 http://www.thegoodhuman.com/2008/02/04/voting-the-environment-where-the-candidates-stand/#comment-1841 This is a very helpful listing of the positions of both of these candidates. What I have noticed, however, is that any mention of the environment or even climate change by any of the candidates ends up in a discussion that solely focuses on ENERGY. Likewise, the above list (perhaps by default) only focuses on ENERGY. With respect to the environment, we need to be concerned with more than just energy. What about biodiversity loss? Overfishing? Resource depletion in order to satisfy renewable energy goals? What about the fact that we're still sending huge amounts of garbage to landfills that will take 500 to 1000 years to decompose? I'd like to have a candidate to vote for who not only supports the above energy positions but also will help our society make better decisions for future generations. Is there a candidate out there like that? I'd love to know. This is a very helpful listing of the positions of both of these candidates. What I have noticed, however, is that any mention of the environment or even climate change by any of the candidates ends up in a discussion that solely focuses on ENERGY. Likewise, the above list (perhaps by default) only focuses on ENERGY. With respect to the environment, we need to be concerned with more than just energy. What about biodiversity loss? Overfishing? Resource depletion in order to satisfy renewable energy goals? What about the fact that we’re still sending huge amounts of garbage to landfills that will take 500 to 1000 years to decompose? I’d like to have a candidate to vote for who not only supports the above energy positions but also will help our society make better decisions for future generations. Is there a candidate out there like that? I’d love to know.

]]>