English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Don't they care when their family gets lung or skin cancer due to the thinning of ozone layer or gasoline particles in the air?

2006-08-25 15:57:09 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

24 answers

The mental ailment they suffer from is far worse anyway. They choose to blow up the planet through nuclear wars even before having to face those minor ailments!

2006-08-25 16:57:53 · answer #1 · answered by boogie man 4 · 0 2

I can't speak for conservatives because I'm not one. But for myself its not so much as I don't care as I don't believe all that's being shoveled by the worshipers of the all mighty government.

I actually bought into the ozone thinning non-sense until the volcano in the Philippines blew a larger hole in the ozone than the one the doomsayers were worried about. The atomsphere repaired itself in a few years without the aid of evironmental wackos.

I think a lot of them since they breath the same air and drink the same water as the environmental nuts, just don't buy what you're sellin. From my point of view it just looks like the environmental movement is just another excuse to extend the power and scope of government and an opportunity for a bunch of busy bodies to horn into everyone else's business.

2006-08-25 16:10:30 · answer #2 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 0 0

Why do you think they DON'T? They may just believe in a different set of principles than you. To say they don't care is an ignorant perspective. Many believe that the environmental movement has been co-opted by socialists and left-leaning extremists and therefore find it difficult to buy into that side's position on environmental matters. Most environmentalists seem to have the approach that freedom of choice and individual liberties must be sacrificed every time there is some environmental concern/issue/scare.

2006-08-25 16:06:39 · answer #3 · answered by sladed 2 · 1 0

They/We care, but we balance environment with cost. There are trade offs.

The ones that can afford to pay their energy bill 30 years in advance are looking for a return ON their investment not a return OF their investment. When one adds in the time value of money it is debate-able if one even breaks even with Renewable Energy.

The government for decades has know that Renewable Energy isn't directly economically viable. They also knew that something had to replace the dwindling fossil fuel supply. They encouraged rooftop/backyard energy collectors to subsidize the power grid by giving a partial rebate of the cost of installation.

Those in niche markets quickly installed the infrastructure, because the cost of bring the grid to their location verses the cost of installing the collectors coupled with the rebates was almost a wash. They would see a return on their investment.

The ones in densely populated areas (where most of the energy is consumed) didn't rush out to buy. The utilities would gladly purchase the energy collected at the full going rate (off peak) of energy because they are using less efficient power generator at that time.

Senator Feinsteins bill that required the utilities to supply their customers with 20% of their energy from Renewable sources was to show the installers of backyard collectors they would have to sell their energy supply. If the utilities have to install the collectors themselves to get a return on investment our energy bills will have to skyrocket.

Well have fun when the energy crisis collides with the baby-boomers retirement bill. Even though both sides of the aisle have been informed of what it will take to change the economics of renewable energy none have even bothered to look into changing the economics. The government with all its' taxpayers doesn't have the cash follow to purchase the infrastructure to meat our energy shortfall.

2006-08-25 16:40:04 · answer #4 · answered by viablerenewables 7 · 0 0

In terms of US environmental policy and history the 1970 Clear air act was signed under Nixon a conservative and the formation of the EPA was also under Nixon. The 1990 renewal of the Clear Air act was under President Bush (senior) and he also signed the Montreal Protocols banning CFC's an international treaty.

2006-08-25 16:25:07 · answer #5 · answered by fullback1029 2 · 0 0

Thought.... every time you turn on your stove to cook you thin out the ozone layer, every time you start your car you thin out the ozone layer, every time you fart you thin out the ozone layer, every time you use hair spray you release cancer causing agents into the air, every time you poop you release poisonous gases into the air, no store bought food is really safe for consumption, even the water that we drink. bottled water.... yeah right miss me with that one. come on people, give it up it is a loosing battle, blame it on consumers always demanding an easier life but dont want to suffer the consequences, or perhaps It could be old satan once again wanting to continue to build his tower of babels higher and put more money in his greedy pockets ......out!

2006-08-25 16:17:19 · answer #6 · answered by lktt71 2 · 0 0

They do. They just get tired of the lies that are put out there about our environment. We have some of the cleanest air, land, and water in the world.
We have put so many regulations on emissions that now the eviro weenies are stating there are NOT ENOUGH green house gasses in the air and that is causing problems. Amazing how they can make both sides of an issue work for them.

2006-08-25 16:04:24 · answer #7 · answered by Camping Chick 3 · 4 0

Why do Liberals ***** and moan about Conservatives lack of respect for the environment at their little tree hugging parties that they all drove to from the City...in their SUVs...separately I might add...to the Hamburger joint where they eat poor innocent cows?.. Don't they realize or care that they are as big a part of the problem?

2006-08-25 16:15:31 · answer #8 · answered by michelle_az_22 3 · 0 0

No, we are invincible. Of course we worry about the environment, we are just not willing to sacrifice a comfortable life because of supposed threats - unproved by scientists. Several studies have been proved flawed & incorrect.

I am not living in a tent without electricity & air conditioning, walking everywhere & etc because you are afraid. Quality of life out weighs quanity sometimes.

2006-08-25 16:05:36 · answer #9 · answered by Wolfpacker 6 · 1 0

Just because they don't fall for every crackpot environmental policy put out there, doesn't mean they don't care. That's almost as bad a question as "Why don't liberals want to fight terrorism?"

City Girl: When did you become a conservative politician? And if you didn't, what qualifies you to speak for them?

2006-08-25 16:10:43 · answer #10 · answered by Chris S 5 · 0 0

We balance air/environment with people's need to earn a living. Great air with no money for food isn't fun.

2006-08-25 16:09:19 · answer #11 · answered by Brand X 6 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers