Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 20, 2011, 09:28:02 AM
Post by: bearpaw on October 20, 2011, 09:39:08 AM
But I think these groups have gone to the extreme and simply use the EPA for their new environmental religion and political purposes. None of us want to see polluted streams and air, but they are destroying this country by preventing any industry including mining, oil drilling, logging, and ranching which can in many cases be done in an relatively safe manner. Instead of trying to stop industry they would have broader support if they tried to work with industry. :twocents:
Post by: CAMPMEAT on October 20, 2011, 09:49:14 AM
I understand your love for the environment, I share that love too.
But I think these groups have gone to the extreme and simply use the EPA for their new environmental religion and political purposes. None of us want to see polluted streams and air, but they are destroying this country by preventing any industry including mining, oil drilling, logging, and ranching which can in many cases be done in an relatively safe manner. Instead of trying to stop industry they would have broader support if they tried to work with industry. :twocents:
I agree.
Post by: spookgus on October 20, 2011, 10:07:05 AM
I understand your love for the environment, I share that love too.:yeah: Conservation is the wise USE of a resource. If a resource can't be used(wisely) what difference does it make if it even exists.
But I think these groups have gone to the extreme and simply use the EPA for their new environmental religion and political purposes. None of us want to see polluted streams and air, but they are destroying this country by preventing any industry including mining, oil drilling, logging, and ranching which can in many cases be done in an relatively safe manner. Instead of trying to stop industry they would have broader support if they tried to work with industry. :twocents:
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 20, 2011, 10:18:04 AM
I do tend to agree with conservatives that creating job stifling legislation such as requiring limitationw on industry based on assumptions is ludicrous, especially in this economic atmosphere. I also believe that I should do whatever I can to keep our land and our woods as clean and pristine as is humanly possible. I will not dump, litter, or leave behind trash. I will report illegal dumping and will talk to hunters who I observe littering or hurting ecosystems.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on October 21, 2011, 05:38:39 AM
I understand your love for the environment, I share that love too.
But I think these groups have gone to the extreme and simply use the EPA for their new environmental religion and political purposes. None of us want to see polluted streams and air, but they are destroying this country by preventing any industry including mining, oil drilling, logging, and ranching which can in many cases be done in an relatively safe manner. Instead of trying to stop industry they would have broader support if they tried to work with industry. :twocents:
:yeah:
Like protecting the North Cascades from the evil truck ,snowmobile, ATV, and hunter??
Post by: Special T on October 27, 2011, 11:08:36 AM
There is a rule in economics called the "Rule of diminishing marginal returns"
On a hot dry day your first cold glass of water provides the most refreshment, and each one after it provides less. Once you reach your 10th cold glass of water It doesn't have the some kind of impact the first one did. That rule is the same for all things, Food, water, Rest, exercises, pollution, making/selling a product... The key is to find the "Sweet Spot" where the optimum amount of effort gets the best gain, and then moving on to the next thing that needs improvement. :twocents:
Post by: WAcoyotehunter on October 27, 2011, 11:50:57 AM
Our water and air has 1/5th or less of the pollutants that it contained in 1970 when the ecology movement began. The ecology movement began under and was supported by the Nixon administration.
Exactly- that's why there is no sense in going back to the old ways. My mom talks about waking up to 1/2" of ash (actually slag dust) in Pittsburg in the 1960's... We can not allow that garbage to occur.
I vote primarily republican, but my biggest disconnect with the party is their apparant lack of regard for natural resources! We're all hunters/outdoorsman here, shouldn't we consider the health of our environment to be paramount to our lifestyle? I hate that a few big businesses get rich on our natural resources and make a hell of a mess for the rest of us- then because they send a few dollars to the republicans in charge can get away without mitigation, cleanup, or appropriate regulation.
IMO the republicans need to put more emphasis on natural resource protection and consider smart extraction that pays the TRUE COST to be good business. Stop trying to get around paying the real cost of resource extraction.
Post by: pianoman9701 on October 27, 2011, 12:10:46 PM
I would like to see more common ground and some moderation. I think we can have clean air and water without killing business. It's like anything else in our damned two-party system. When you're dealing with the politicians, it's got to be all or nothing. You're either conservative and eat the poor, or you're liberal and want everyone to be poor. It would be great if it didn't have to be so extreme one way or another on every single issue.
Post by: Special T on October 27, 2011, 01:45:25 PM
Yes its an older article however it proves my earlier point. That your gain on investment diminishes the more you put in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/11/world/asia/11coal.html)
Also according to the NYtimes at a later date the Chinese are starting to build cleaner coal fired plants. Why is that? they don't have air regulations? Its about $$$.. Being clean in business can save you money. newer plants are more efficient, causing less pollution. Its a win- win...
I got done talking with a neighbor that is the head MECH for a local city. The new Diesel injection systems shoots fuel directly into the catalytic converter. Why? To lower NOX emissions. How much sense does it make to burn MORE fuel to save a little on NOX emissions? This definitely is not a win win. I am all for "cleaner" whatever, but not at any price. :twocents: