Conservatism and the Environment

The new Caucus wouldn't be a thing if my views were 'rare' among the newer generations of the GOP, or if they thought environmental issues were not on the list of topics the GOP know are going to be hot button issues in the future.
Actually, the existence of the Caucus seems more rooted in the Republican establishment's desire to cave to basically every demand of the Democrats, than anything else. I mean, it's being spearheaded by a guy in his sixties who used to be a Democrat for Pete's sake; that doesn't sound like it has much to do with a new, more environmentally conscious, generation of Republicans to me.
 
Bacle, I'm 22, the new generation of Republicans.
I honestly give zero fucks. If we die from the climate we die.
 
I would expect a growing number of the youth see environmental issues as a significant factor in who they view as representing their interests or views.
I refer you back to the Australia video i posted.
If there is such a growing number of youth... for vast majority of them it is because they have been taught to see things like this, and they have been taught specifically to like the same policy Democrats offer, rather than arrived at it out of their own initiative.
Why would they vote for a different policy?
Boomers and older are no longer the main demographic the GOP is interesting in catering to.
I have little reason to think they are closer to you than me, or closer to the Left than either of us.
My best guess is that they are somewhere in the middle between you and the left, yet due to your passion and wishful thinking you will think they are right wing, somehow.

No, they should not be locked up for their beliefs and view anymore than people on the Right should be locked up for being pro-Life for religious reasons.
Luddites, the real world movement that is the origin of the term you have used, have committed economic terrorism in the name of their beliefs. People should and do get locked up for things like this.
Highlights:
- It was a "form of protest" for them (where did we hear that last time?) to destroy machines
- The British bloody Army was sent against them
- Parliament made their abovementioned "form of protest" a capital crime
- They lost
- They got a fallacy named after them
That would think they should be imprisoned or locked in mental ward for simply for having other views is rather disturbing. Your utter contempt for environmentally minded people show why very few them bother to even attempt to reach out to the Right, and mostly just focusing on sidelining the Right in environmental topics.
The new Caucus wouldn't be a thing if my views were 'rare' among the newer generations of the GOP,
Where did you get the whole idea that most of young environmentally minded people are such due to having views more similar to yours, rather than to the views of Greenpeace and other mainstream green organizations promoted by mainstream media?
or if they thought environmental issues were not on the list of topics the GOP know are going to be hot button issues in the future.
Oh that one i can fully agree with, it is a hot button issue already, as we can see.
 
Luckily the GOP Climate Caucus is now a thing, so the GOP can now push back against the rad-greens foolish 'solutions' more effectively.
Yet that's not the case for the increased methane emissions, and methane traps way more heat than CO2, while not being able to be absorbed by plants.
CO2 is really easy to deal with in terms of carbon capture methods.

Methane is the real bitch to handle in terms of warming the climate.
Methane is significantly easier to handle. It's lighter than air hence floats straight to the upper atmosphere where it interacts with ultraviolet light and certain radicals like OH to disintegrate into CO2 and water vapor. Because it basically dies in sunlight, adding more to the atmosphere causes it to disintigrate faster since sunlight isn't constrained, no matter how much methane you add it's all gone in about nine years.

The real bitch is water vapor. It's the most powerful greenhouse gas of them all and super abundant. This study did a bit of a check on it:


Look up Table 3. All greenhouse gasses combined; CO2, Methane, Ozone, the works, had a radiation trapping value of −34.8. Meanwhile water vapor by itself was a rockin' a −59.7.

Problem is, most water vapor isn't produced by humans but by the ocean, so the facts don't support anthropogenic climate change if you include water vapor. Modern studies will thus fall all over themselves to explain why water vapor doesn't count.

The normal method in modern studies is to measure the lifespan of a given molecule against 100 years, which lets them ignore water vapor because it recondenses into water in a few days, then quite often evaporates into water vapor again, sometimes changing states several times a week. Studies thus only measure a molecules lifespan 'til it's next change against a 100 year chart, and they can pretend water vapor does not count because it changed state in four days, never mind that it probably became vapor again four days after that, we leave that part out of the study.

This pretzel-logic to avoid water vapor is also why you get some bizarre results from studies due to the insistence of measuring molecules against a timeline, f'rex methane is classed as about thirty times worse than CO2... on a 100 year timeline, but shorten that to a 20 year timeline methane is about eighty times worse. Why? Because methane only survives 9 years in the atmosphere and all models presume that when the molecule changes state it quits having any effect, purely to let them ignore water vapor and pretend it won't re-evaporate so it quits being a greenhouse gas after a few days.

You've even got climate alarmists like the IPCC admitting it but then explaining why they don't want to count water vapor.

Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour.


It's not man-made, so it doesn't count because they want climate change to be driven by humans.

This is why, though I care deeply about the environment, I look at other issues like deforestation, pollution, and heavy metal poisoning rather than anthropogenic climate change.
 
Last edited:
Actually, the existence of the Caucus seems more rooted in the Republican establishment's desire to cave to basically every demand of the Democrats, than anything else. I mean, it's being spearheaded by a guy in his sixties who used to be a Democrat for Pete's sake; that doesn't sound like it has much to do with a new, more environmentally conscious, generation of Republicans to me.
You seem to forget I'm a former Dem too, so that's not going to phase me.

You also seem to forget that I've said before that environmental issues are part of what kept me voting D till Trump upset the apple cart.

This isn't about 'caving'; it's about recognizing the Dems/Left aren't always wrong, or lying, and that parts of the newer GOP youth see environmental issues as politically important.

I mean shit, Trump got the Nat'l Parks funding they'd been begging for, and that is definitely an environmentally related issue. Yet no one on the GOP seemed to bitch about him 'caving' to the Dems then.
Bacle, I'm 22, the new generation of Republicans.
I honestly give zero fucks. If we die from the climate we die.
And others do care, because we do have the ability to keep from dying from climate related issues if we actually put some fucking effort in.

Your attitude is also reflective of why the Right gets painted as only pretending to have compassion by the mass media and Left.
I refer you back to the Australia video i posted.
If there is such a growing number of youth... for vast majority of them it is because they have been taught to see things like this, and they have been taught specifically to like the same policy Democrats offer, rather than arrived at it out of their own initiative.
Why would they vote for a different policy?
I cannot say, for Australia's situation, what the break down would be.

For the US...50/50, I expect.
My best guess is that they are somewhere in the middle between you and the left, yet due to your passion and wishful thinking you will think they are right wing, somehow.
Maybe; time will how they act/vote.
Luddites, the real world movement that is the origin of the term you have used, have committed economic terrorism in the name of their beliefs. People should and do get locked up for things like this.
Highlights:
- It was a "form of protest" for them (where did we hear that last time?) to destroy machines
- The British bloody Army was sent against them
- Parliament made their abovementioned "form of protest" a capital crime
- They lost
- They got a fallacy named after them
Huh, did not know that bit of trivia.

It's interesting, but it's also completely irrelevant to the modern popular meaning of Luddite. Your desire to lock up people just for being anti-tech is still fucked up.
Where did you get the whole idea that most of young environmentally minded people are such due to having views more similar to yours, rather than to the views of Greenpeace and other mainstream green organizations promoted by mainstream media?
From my experience in that grad program, and seeing a wide spectrum of environmentally minded young people debate this stuff for about 2 semesters.

Also from my social circles, and even my old legal weed trimming gig; lots of interesting convo's happen while trimming weed for a 9-5 job and you see a wide breadth of the political spectrum.
Methane is significantly easier to handle. It's lighter than air hence floats straight to the upper atmosphere where it interacts with ultraviolet light and certain radicals like OH to disintegrate into CO2 and water vapor. Because it basically dies in sunlight, adding more to the atmosphere causes it to disintigrate faster since sunlight isn't constrained, no matter how much methane you add it's all gone in about nine years.

The real bitch is water vapor. It's the most powerful greenhouse gas of them all and super abundant. This study did a bit of a check on it:


Look up Table 3. All greenhouse gasses combined; CO2, Methane, Ozone, the works, had a radiation trapping value of −34.8. Meanwhile water vapor by itself was a rockin' a −59.7.

Problem is, most water vapor isn't produced by humans but by the ocean, so the facts don't support anthropogenic climate change if you include water vapor. Modern studies will thus fall all over themselves to explain why water vapor doesn't count.

The normal method in modern studies is to measure the lifespan of a given molecule against 100 years, which lets them ignore water vapor because it recondenses into water in a few days, then quite often evaporates into water vapor again, sometimes changing states several times a week. Studies thus only measure a molecules lifespan 'til it's next change against a 100 year chart, and they can pretend water vapor does not count because it changed state in four days, never mind that it probably became vapor again four days after that, we leave that part out of the study.

This pretzel-logic to avoid water vapor is also why you get some bizarre results from studies due to the insistence of measuring molecules against a timeline, f'rex methane is classed as about thirty times worse than CO2... on a 100 year timeline, but shorten that to a 20 year timeline methane is about eighty times worse. Why? Because methane only survives 9 years in the atmosphere and all models presume that when the molecule changes state it quits having any effect, purely to let them ignore water vapor and pretend it won't re-evaporate so it quits being a greenhouse gas after a few days.

You've even got climate alarmists like the IPCC admitting it but then explaining why they don't want to count water vapor.

Water vapour is the most abundant and important greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.

However, human activities have only a small direct influence on the amount of atmospheric water vapour.


It's not man-made, so it doesn't count because they want climate change to be driven by humans.

This is why, though I care deeply about the environment, I look at other issues like deforestation, pollution, and heavy metal poisoning rather than anthropogenic climate change.
Some of it is pressure regarding the narrative of ACG, some of it is that water vapor is rather beyond our control.

CO2 and methane however, those we can do something about. I'm also not sure methane breaks down fast enough to keep up with the continued additional inputs from multiple sources. I guess we could just put ionizers near methane sources and see if we can get it to break down at lower alts.

However I agree that the focus on the 'global warming' aspect of environmental issues does detract from other serious environmental issues that don't link in to ACG and are more likely to get bipartisan support for addressing.

I curse those damn early doomsayers, and Al Gore in particular, for poisoning the well so badly on environmental issues just to get thier kudos and grants. Some of them had thier hearts in the right place, but the fucked the messaging badly by associating with groups like ELF and such. Greenpeace started was a front for oil companies and rad-greens to attack the nuclear power industry, which most environment groups and lobbiests completely ignore.
 
It's interesting, but it's also completely irrelevant to the modern popular meaning of Luddite. Your desire to lock up people just for being anti-tech is still fucked up.
From my experience in that grad program, and seeing a wide spectrum of environmentally minded young people debate this stuff for about 2 semesters.
Considering the shenanigans that the "tip of the spear" of green activists like the recently popular Extinction Rebellion gets up to, you were perhaps more accurate with your choice of terms than you tried to be.
Also from my social circles, and even my old legal weed trimming gig; lots of interesting convo's happen while trimming weed for a 9-5 job and you see a wide breadth of the political spectrum.
>legal weed trimming gig
That would explain a lot.
It implies that you are more familiar with the "grey tribe" than the "blue tribe" of US political culture, and mix up their proportions and tendencies a bit.
 
>legal weed trimming gig
That would explain a lot.
It implies that you are more familiar with the "grey tribe" than the "blue tribe" of US political culture, and mix up their proportions and tendencies a bit.
I probably am part of the 'grey tribe', if you insist on trying to define and quantify people with politically nuanced positions and beliefs as another sort 'separate' group.

Though considering my sister was a Biden poll watcher this election, my late mother worked for the CO Dems for years under a Dem governor, I went to that environmental program, and I voted straight D till Trump, I think I'm rather familiar with the mindsets of the 'Blue Tribe' as well. In fact familiarity with the 'Blue Tribe' is part of why I did switch to supporting Trump and the 'Red Tribe'.
 
You seem to forget I'm a former Dem too, so that's not going to phase me.

You also seem to forget that I've said before that environmental issues are part of what kept me voting D till Trump upset the apple cart.

This isn't about 'caving'; it's about recognizing the Dems/Left aren't always wrong, or lying, and that parts of the newer GOP youth see environmental issues as politically important.

I mean shit, Trump got the Nat'l Parks funding they'd been begging for, and that is definitely an environmentally related issue. Yet no one on the GOP seemed to bitch about him 'caving' to the Dems then.
I'm pretty sure John Curtis, a career politician who was only a Democrat from 2000 to 2006, and a Republican before and after that, switched parties for different reasons than you did.
 
I'm pretty sure John Curtis, a career politician who was only a Democrat from 2000 to 2006, and a Republican before and after that, switched parties for different reasons than you did.
That does more to undercut your own earlier post about the caucus being "spearheaded by a guy in his sixties who used to be a Democrat" than it does Bacle's point about not caring though, doesn't it?
 
I'm pretty sure John Curtis, a career politician who was only a Democrat from 2000 to 2006, and a Republican before and after that, switched parties for different reasons than you did.
Yes, and?

Trump was once a NY Dem as well. People switch parties when they no longer believe one side or the other represent them. Or they go Independent like me because they think the two party system is what is truly killing America.

Him starting as R, switching to D, then switching back, means he's not stuck in a completely tribalist mindset on the issues.

Despite my passion for the he environment, I'm still voting R, and actually with the new Caucus forming, feel better about the GOP than I have in a long time.
 
@Bacle, I'm one of the many folks here who care about the enviroment, but don't accept Climate Scare bullshit.

The moment you leave that aside, we can talk about what we should do, in all sorts of places. There are a number of factors, and a number of potential solutions, but until the "Climate Change will KILL US ALL TOMORROW!" crowd shut up, we can't even start them without being screwed.


I've been working in the Australian timber industry for about 20 years, and my father's been in it for about 40. It's a fact that pretty close to every single "Green" policy the Lefties have put up, for the last 30 years, has only made things worse, enviromentaly speaking. But, only those who have already chosen the Right will even listen. Working class folk, who care if things work, they agree. But, Lefties? They refuse.


Australian forests are in terrible shape, and getting worse. And, the main group making it impossible to even start fixing it, are the people who, with the support of the Media, boast loudest how much they care and are helping! I can call them lying bastards every day, and twice on Sundays, but the NIMBY's don't care. If they find out they were wrong, that means they haven't been helping, that makes them feel bad, so they refuse to listen.


I'm going to stop here. If you want to hear about what's going on in Australian forests, let me know, ok? Let's just leave Climate Change at the door.
 
@Bacle, I'm one of the many folks here who care about the enviroment, but don't accept Climate Scare bullshit.

The moment you leave that aside, we can talk about what we should do, in all sorts of places. There are a number of factors, and a number of potential solutions, but until the "Climate Change will KILL US ALL TOMORROW!" crowd shut up, we can't even start them without being screwed.


I've been working in the Australian timber industry for about 20 years, and my father's been in it for about 40. It's a fact that pretty close to every single "Green" policy the Lefties have put up, for the last 30 years, has only made things worse, enviromentaly speaking. But, only those who have already chosen the Right will even listen. Working class folk, who care if things work, they agree. But, Lefties? They refuse.


Australian forests are in terrible shape, and getting worse. And, the main group making it impossible to even start fixing it, are the people who, with the support of the Media, boast loudest how much they care and are helping! I can call them lying bastards every day, and twice on Sundays, but the NIMBY's don't care. If they find out they were wrong, that means they haven't been helping, that makes them feel bad, so they refuse to listen.


I'm going to stop here. If you want to hear about what's going on in Australian forests, let me know, ok? Let's just leave Climate Change at the door.
I thought we didn't have any left after the start of last year!
 
Yes, and?

Trump was once a NY Dem as well. People switch parties when they no longer believe one side or the other represent them. Or they go Independent like me because they think the two party system is what is truly killing America.

Him starting as R, switching to D, then switching back, means he's not stuck in a completely tribalist mindset on the issues.

Despite my passion for the he environment, I'm still voting R, and actually with the new Caucus forming, feel better about the GOP than I have in a long time.
In my experience, most politicians who switch back and forth like that are just trying to chase votes; and from what I've managed to dig up on John Curtis, that seems to be the case with him as well. Regardless though, my original point was that I don't think the Republican Climate Caucus is going to be what you thing it's going to be; I suspect one of the things they're going to be pushing for will be something resembling Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal.
 
I thought we didn't have any left after the start of last year!

'Snort'

Come on. Sure, it was a pretty big bush fire, but there's still plenty out there. And, yes, in case you're wondering, said bush fire was vastly larger than it should have been, and Green policy is the reason why, coupled with general bureaucratic bullshit.


Out tale starts, as many do, with the first to farm the land, forests included. We call those people the Aborigenes. The had a way of farming, called, obviously enough, "Fire Farming". The practice was simple enough, start a fire when the conditions were right, and the fire would both drive animals to where they could be slaughered easily, and cause significant regrowth of edible bits.

Over the thousands of years they did this, the flora and fauna of Australia adapted- Or died out. There's a reason there's no mega-fauna in Australia.

Enter British colonials, stage right. They stopped the whole 'setting fire to everything' for a while, but were smart enough to ask a few questions of the Aborigene Elders, when they saw things going wrong, and then combined what they learned from both British and local sources, and came up with a way of dealing with the problem. It's even simple to do!

Specifically, it's to do a carefully controled burn, every 2 years, in any area which is both native forest and near humans.


Go back to the 1930-50s, I'm told by oldtimers who were there, and I'm told that the Australian Timber industry was so good a forest managment, they had people flying in to see how we did it. Then, in the 60's, the Greens started appearing, funded by a number of groups, including China, the USSR, and the OPEC nations. They gained influence, and their solution to Australian ecological problems, that the Timber Industry had often noticed, fixed, and not even bothered to mention to anybody, was consistent. Lock Them Out!



Today, there is approximately 80% of all Australian forests locked up. In NSW, my home State, that locking is so thorough that only the Forestry Department (or whatever they're calling themselves this week) own Rangers are allowed in there without prior approval. Last I checked? There were 12. For the state of NSW.

Note, I have a cousin who's an Envromental Scientist working for said Forestry Department. Even they have to get prior approval to go into said forests. Approval that she hasn't gotten in 15 years. As for fixing an issue in there? Hah! Good luck even getting those bureaucratic monsters to even admit it exists! And, if you can push, they blame "Climate Change", not their own inepitude.


Anyway, back to fire. Those parts who are locked up, you cannot, under any circumstances, do any back burning. In places where people live, however, there you can, and, officially, are encouraged to do so. Except, there are 3 different Gov agencies who require their own seperate criteria and process for approvals. All of which take days. All of which conflict, in one way or another. When the safe conditions for a Hazard Reduction Burn last hours, at best.


It's gotten bad enough that a Rural Fire Fighter in Vic seeing a bush fire coming to burn his town to the ground, did a perfect Hazard Reduction Burn to protect his house without approval, and only his house was undamaged.


He got prison time.
 
@Simonbob the problem is that there is very little way to avoid the topic of climate change when the topic of the environment comes up, because it is something that people are concerned about, including the new Climate Caucus.

There are other environmental issues not related to climate change, and they deserve attention.

However, I'm not going to pretend environmental debates on the political level can realistically leave climate change out of the discussion.

I know people here do not like the topic and/or think it's fake/overblown, but it not going to go away or be left out of the conversation.

Accept it is a topic which the Right will have to deal with, and focus on fighting the worst rad-green 'solutions' to the issues, rather than trying avoid addressing them.
 
There are two problems with that approach.

It starts off with letting them control the debate and define what the debate even is. So anyone actually wanting push back on them is starting at a losing position.

And secondly you are framing it as the right needing to moderate the worst of the extreme lefts positions. That just means the right automatically loses just not as fast as if the left had total power.

A compromise between freedom and tyranny just means they get to control half of things and if you keep doing those kind of compromises it only gets worse, never better.

We need to push them back not accept their premise and slow them down a little.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top