why are environmental issues political?

Question

is it big business' profits at stake? Why are scientists' findings politicized

Answer 1

Very good question...

They shouldn't be and I have asked myself this same question before.

I mean it is like this.. so you are anti-environment.... what does taking precautions hurt? Is it not better to be safe than sorry? I don't get the opposition.

I don't get why this became a political issue in any way, shape or form... makes no sense whatsoever. Is it not for the betterment of our world? How on earth is that political?

Answer 2

Because it is in the other countries of the world's interest to 'take out' the USA as a competitor on world markets. If other countries can force USA's goods to be too expensive, it means the other countries will make all the money that keeps families fed the world over, while USA families starve...

Why should the USA bear the burden of WORLD industrialized pollution standards alone? Why should China, India, Asia, and S.America not have to comply? The industrial standards other countries want to impose on the USA will render thousands of USA produced products uncompetitive on world markets.

If your argument is that the USA is the largest polluter you are unaware of the fact that the USA is already ahead of the regulations on many platforms.. EPA standards imposed are already responsible for pollution WAY less per part, but we're stll the largest polluter - because we are also the greatest economic force the world has ever witnessed!

Value Tax unfairness, unfair currency valuations, all UNFAIR to the USA is allowed to occur (by us) because we can endure almost ANY disaster, financial or otherwise, thrown at us, whether it be man-made or from god... for the GOOD of the world!

The USA position is that these standards imposed on the USA only(!) should apply to ALL countries, making a level playing field. Besides, the technology is there to do the RIGHT thing now! These countries can be AHEAD of the game instead of not complying in the future because profits are too good even though the fish are dying...

Get it?

The USA position goes onto further argue that it means the pollution standards will be high the WORLD OVER! Such that technology can leap forward FROM there - with its next and greater engineering feats to save the planet being able to happen...

Instead of catching up...

The argument that Vietnam, China, India, Russia, and all the other 'struggling' third world countries SHOULDN'T have to comply is just so ignorant and shortsighted...

To allow OTHER countries to openly, blatantly pollute at the sacrifice of USA is appallingly ignorant, but believed by these other countries to be fair...!

Sometimes I think they uproariously laugh at the prospect of getting the USA to (further) cut its own throat...!

But...ask the planets what's fair...

Was this helpful?

Answer 3

I believe this issue is at its core political.

Whenever the question involves who is to pay for it, it becomes political if the answer is government.

Al Gore politicized global warming.

Bush doesn't want the government to fund this research. Further, there is not a complete consensus in the scientific community, which is why funding for research is necessary.

If the solution involves intrusion into private enterprise, the Republicans will typically oppose this move, preferring to allow the market to control the problem.

Remember, our nation is not the world's largest pollution-causing nation, either. If we cannot get them to follow their labor laws, how do we make them follow environmental protocols?

Until there is political consensus by a ruling party or some non-profit pays, it will be political.

Answer 4

Because the Bull Moose Party and its candidate, T.R., got stomped in the election. In real life, party politics leaves little room for statesmanship.
Then, how liberal/conservative are your basic thought processes and belief systems? Here I'm using the terms in their traditional, not their current political, meanings.
An example: If you have a strong grasp of the scientific method, then you understand that not only isn't there enough evidence to make definitive conclusions about global warming, there's no practical way we could concievably collect enough data. But should we sign onto the Kyoto accords just in case? A pure judgement call. With tons of money and prestige in the balance.

Answer 5

In maximum international places there are huge unscrupulous human beings in the back of the remember of ways now to not sparkling the large thousands of wastes as for this reason modern-day client oriented stupid society. in view that they imagine purely of creating wealth and do not care to understand the danger to this one and easily planet earth ,the environmental topics develop into huge political topics. Politicians are compelled to help the incorrect aspect to make certain their survival.

Answer 6

Just another issue that a political party will blame the other party for political gains,now one party can even claim the other party is to blame for world disasters like tornados.hurricanes.snow storms,years ago it used to be called an act of God,imagine what one political party in Saturn is saying against the other party about the Big Red Spot which is the largest storm in the solar system

Answer 7

Ri has it right. It is our leaders inability to act (without regard to party) as well as our responsibility for forcing them to act. It is political in that politicians use these issues as planks in their platform to do their best to get elected. When in reality, it is a much bigger problem than that. This only seems to call attention to them during periods of election, when we need to stay aware at all times.

Answer 8

Because Republicans refuse to enact laws that protect the environment, it would cause their big businesses to have to spend more money. And Democrats refuse to see the rational way of approaching the situation.

Answer 9

because of pollutions it possesses