PDA

View Full Version : GOP and environmental issues


Sam L
Nov 14th, 2006, 09:09 AM
This thread is mainly for Republican voters or supporters in America and I know there are a few of you here.

One of the biggest reasons (in fact I can't think of many others) why I was glad the Democrats won the recent elections for Senate and House is actually because of the environmental issues. I actually like the GOP but I'm confused as to their policies toward environmental issues.

In the 70's and 80's, the Republican presidents led the environmental movement with the EPA and other initiatives. <-- Correct me if this is wrong.

But then in the last few years, in fact, since George Bush became president, the environment has taken the absolute back seat. WHY?

Shouldn't environmental protection be a big issue for the Republican party like anyone else? Do you guys think this would be something that will change in the next two years and beyond?

McQuest
Nov 19th, 2006, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Sam_L
In the 70's and 80's, the Republican presidents led the environmental movement with the EPA and other initiatives. <-- Correct me if this is wrong.

But then in the last few years, in fact, since George Bush became president, the environment has taken the absolute back seat. WHY?


You are absolutely right - Republicans did lead the way on environmental issues. But as always, the Energy Industry lobbyists got involved, and all of a sudden, clean air, clean water and all other environmental issues have to take a back seat. I honestly think that the best thing we can do for political reform in the U.S. is to ban special interests from contributing to candidates completely so that the people can reclaim their government.

Lord Nelson
Nov 19th, 2006, 07:14 PM
Well it is not like things were any better under Clinton. Yes sure Bush did not sign the Kyoto treaty but at least he is not hypocritical. Most of the nations that signed the treaty have not been able to implement it and so it is as good as not signing it. If a Democrat comes to power next election, mark my word they too won't sign the treaty.
Nixon was the President that established the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Republicans are as capable as Democrats to preserve (or ruin) nature. But what I can say is that the U.S. has done a far better job with the environment then USSR. Communism has been a fiasco for the environment. The Aral sea for instance is almost gone thanks to Soviet negligence.

Pureracket
Nov 19th, 2006, 10:00 PM
well it is not like things were any better under Clinton. Yes sure Bush did not sign the Kyoto treaty but at least it is not hypocritical. Most of the nations that signed the treaty have not been able to implement it and so it is as good as not signing it. If a Demcorat comes to power next election, amrk my word they toow on't sign the treaty.
Nixon was the President that established the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). Republicans are as capable as democrats to preserve (or ruin) nature. But what I can say is that the U.S. has done a far better job with the environment then USSR. Communism has been a fiasco for the environment. The Aral sea for instance is almost gone thanks to Soviet negligence.Umm. . . .Republican. .. cough. . voters. . .cough. . In America.

Philbo
Nov 20th, 2006, 10:42 AM
This thread is mainly for Republican voters or supporters in America and I know there are a few of you here.

One of the biggest reasons (in fact I can't think of many others) why I was glad the Democrats won the recent elections for Senate and House is actually because of the environmental issues. I actually like the GOP but I'm confused as to their policies toward environmental issues.

In the 70's and 80's, the Republican presidents led the environmental movement with the EPA and other initiatives. <-- Correct me if this is wrong.

But then in the last few years, in fact, since George Bush became president, the environment has taken the absolute back seat. WHY?

Shouldn't environmental protection be a big issue for the Republican party like anyone else? Do you guys think this would be something that will change in the next two years and beyond?

Im sure you know the answer to your question Sam.

The reason environmental issues arent important to the GOP is because the concerns of environmentalits, clash with the concerns of big business - the two oppose each other.

It will cost companies a lot of money to lessen the imprint they leave on Earth, and therefore they dont want to change anything. It all comes back to profit.

The big companies fund the election of the GOP, so obviously their needs will be put ahead of future generations of americans.

gentenaire
Nov 20th, 2006, 01:37 PM
Well it is not like things were any better under Clinton. Yes sure Bush did not sign the Kyoto treaty but at least he is not hypocritical. Most of the nations that signed the treaty have not been able to implement it and so it is as good as not signing it.

Excuse me? All the countries that signed have at least made an effort, which is more than the US can say. It's not because not everyone can meet the requirements, that they're not trying to. Every bit counts.

Lord Nelson
Nov 20th, 2006, 01:58 PM
Excuse me? All the countries that signed have at least made an effort, which is more than the US can say. It's not because not everyone can meet the requirements, that they're not trying to. Every bit counts.

I see no effort being made on the part of most signantors of the treaty. What effort are you talking about? They are not even close to implementing conditions of treaty. The bit of effort could be the same as that of the U.S. which has not signed the treaty. Look at the data for nations that signed treaty and see how much of it they have impelemented. You may be in for a shock.

Kunal
Nov 20th, 2006, 02:00 PM
i feel that this issue will take the backburner