Do we REALLY care about the environment?

[Zalatix]

If we did, we wouldn't export our pollution overseas.

If we cared as much about pollution and its effects on the world as we say we cared, America wouldn't allow imports from countries that allow heavy polluting factories.

We simply wouldn't.

We also would have higher gasoline taxes to use as funding for alternative energy research, and we would also get a handle on our urban sprawl problem.



But we would only do that if we CARED about the environment as much as we say we do...

[JoeyT]

1. The only problem with higher gasoline taxes

is that it will hurt the poor more than anyone else.

I'd rather see a tax based on fuel efficiency of the car with an exemption for people that can show that they actually need a vehicle that large for work purposes. It would prevent food and service prices from going up and wouldn't tax the single mom that drives a battered Neon at the same rate it taxes a person that drives a 12MPG penis extension.

[Zalatix]

3. Separate off food transportation from the rest.

Trucks carrying grocery store or farmers market deliveries can only deliver food, nothing else. They get a discount.

Also, I would love to see a comparison between the damage done to the poor by high gasoline prices, and the damage done by global warming when the crops are destroyed by droughts.

Bigger fuel taxes on large gas guzzling cars/SUVs are an interesting concept. It's probably more feasible to use the traditional auto registration fee approach. I shudder to think that a mileage tax should be added, but this may be necessary. We just may have to do that.

[JoeyT]

6. Yeah, I think it would have to happen

at registration...I don't like the idea of a mileage tax either. Mainly because I think it would be a PITA to implement.

We'd also need to exempt service vehicles (Local businesses that provide a service to customers: Plumbers, electricians, etc.). Otherwise the tax, if it were high enough to actually be punitive and convince people to stop needlessly buying vehicles that get crappy mileage, might drive necessary services out of the range of the poor too.

I'm not even sure how to do a comparison between the damage done to the poor by high gas prices and the damage done by global warming...We'd need to correct for the speculators jacking the price of food up, and I'm not sure how to do that.

[Zalatix]

7. We might have to take alternative routes there.

Strong, countervailing tariffs on goods imported from heavy polluting nations can work.

Higher taxes on the rich, higher registration fees for low MPG luxury cars and the like. Europe gets along just fine with their high fuel taxes. What we need here is better urban public transportation, high speed rail and less urban sprawl.

Europe seems to have their petrol issues under control, more than we do.

[Honeycombe8]

4. Ahhh...you said "large." Size doesn't necessarily equate to fuel efficiency. nt

[JoeyT]

5. Good point.

I used to have a CR-V that got better mileage than a lot of smaller cars.

[WinkyDink]

2. Is this apropos of anything?

[taterguy]

8. Please post your average monthly gasoline consumption

Seriously.

I'd like to know if I care more or less than you do.

[Zalatix]

9. I drive 8 miles every 1-2 weeks.

That's to get groceries. I walk to the office, usually running it from home.

[taterguy]

10. That doesn't answer my question

[Zalatix]

11. How the hell doesn't it?

[taterguy]

12. I asked how much gasoline you consume

How the hell am I supposed to know what mileage your vehicle gets?

[Zalatix]

13. One doesn't USE gasoline. It's electric.

The other gets 30mpg. I drive that maybe once every several months if two cars need to be out at the same time. Still only need to go 8 miles. Maybe 200 miles to San Francisco once a year.

So... how about you?

[taterguy]

25. You can afford two vehicles that rarely get used?

Must be nice.

[Zalatix]

27. We had them before we moved and changed our lifestyle.

Last edited Sat Sep 8, 2012, 08:26 AM - Edit history (1)

And before I die I intend that every American will be able to afford that.

Edited to add: I don't get why it's so incredulous to have a zero-emissions car for local trips and to have one on hand in case you have to drive far, far away. Electric cars have less than a 100 mile range.

This is why I am screaming for high speed rail in America. We need it.

[NCTraveler]

34. What is a zero emission car? nt

[taterguy]

43. What's your plan for every American being able to afford two vehicles they don't need?

I'd like to hear it.

[Zalatix]

45. Bring those manufacturing and tech jobs back to America, for one.

Can't buy shit if you're unemployed.

If I ran this country I'd also resurrect the space industry and make colonization a priority. The space industry has the potential to turn the economy into an EMPLOYEE'S market.

[taterguy]

48. How are you gonna do that?

[Zalatix]

50. Tariffs. Big ones. Based on the heavy pollution factor and the cheap labor advantage.

I'm not sure what the WTO could do about it. They can't invade.

When you are a net importing nation with the kind of trade deficits and the level of industrial capacity that America has, you lose trade wars ONLY because you lack a spine.

Combine that with an attack on right-to-work laws in the US, and it can be done.

[taterguy]

56. The world could cut off our oil supply

Everyone would have vehicles, but no way to move them.

It would be great for the environment, in a Mad Max sort of way.

[Zalatix]

58. Our oil supply is going to run out, eventually.

And cutting off our oil supply would
a) drive the world into depression;
b) force us to move to alternative fuels.

Why else do you think Middle Eastern oil sheiks pressure Fox Noise into suppressing stories about alternative fuel?

[CreekDog]

17. why don't you care about the environment as much as you say you do?

and if that question bugs you, now you know how it feels.

[Zalatix]

19. I don't? How so?

I bet I drive a lot less than Earth First! activists do.

[CreekDog]

23. i know plenty of environmentalists here in San Francisco

they don't drive at all.

many of them don't own cars.

do you drive less than people who don't drive at all?

doubtful.

but keep on bragging, it is entertaining to watch you dismiss environmentalists while making yourself look bad.

[Zalatix]

28. You can't possibly be serious. You're posting one deliberate falisification after another.

"why don't you care about the environment as much as you say you do?"
Bragging?
Dismissing?

You just made that up out of thin air. I'm not bragging, I'm not dismissing environmentalists, and I sure as hell care about the environment quite as much as I say I do.

The operative word here for what you're doing is 'trolling'.

[CreekDog]

41. and your point in bringing up Earth First?

No, I'm not a fan of them...but here's the thing:

you OWN TWO CARS!!! and you're proclaiming yourself a better environmentalist than other people.

get in touch with reality.

lots of people don't own cars. lots of poor people only take public transit or walk.

i don't begrudge people driving but i take issue in your bragging that you don't drive much because you're bragging about something that lots of people superpass you, millions upon millions in fact surpass you by not driving at all and not owning two cars --heck not even owning one!

what you've posted is ridiculous.

you better have mighty mighty good environmental bragging rights before you start an OP deriding environmentalists for not caring about the environment --and you failed at that miserably.

the others are being nice to you, i'm being honest with you.

[porphyrian]

14. Does the average American really understand our complex relationship with the natural world?

For many, the TV weather is too technical. Don't worry, they'll be on board by the time that it's too late.

[LiberalAndProud]

15. Would we have to disallow imports?

I would support tying tariffs to pollution reduction. If we imposed punitive tariffs on countries with high pollution emissions in the beginning, we could offer tariff relief tied to the rate of emission reduction. A carrot/stick solution.

And if I were king of the world, I would place alternative energy research under the purview of our military budget. Republicans would have to stfu about it. This is a national security issue.

[Zalatix]

20. And that is just the start. Well, a damned good start, actually. Well said!

I'd also push for more solar energy deployment, immediately, to go along with funding more research. Hefty tax incentives for homeowners, and mandatory use of solar for Federal government buildings. Hopefully State governments would follow.

[CreekDog]

16. this OP is just designed to make even well intentioned people angry or upset

most people here didn't even support NAFTA and would prefer our manufacturing to be done here at home or in countries that are good to their workers and their environments.

but as you kinda cluelessly ignored --we haven't gotten our way.

we care, but none of us has figured out how to make the entire country do exactly what we want.

so take off.

[Zalatix]

21. The problem is the GOP. And also some folks here do support NAFTA.

I would name names to you, but that's probably against the rules.

[99Forever]

18. Which "we" would it be that you are speaking of?

Is that sort of like "some people say?" I can't get TPTB to give a shit about ANYTHING that matters to me, how am I supposed get them to do what you suggest? Sorry, I don't have a few hundred million$ to toss around to get them to do my bidding. Maybe you do? No? Then perhaps you have an alternative way to get them to not only just pay attention to us, but actually do that which is in our best interests. I'm all ears. Lay it on me, immediately, if not sooner.

[joshcryer]

22. Heh, when Rio+20 fails...

...you know we're fucked.

Rio+20. Latin America's climate summit.

Latin America.

Venezuela sided with the US at Rio+20.

Think about that.

No one cares despite that the Arctic sea ice will be gone in 3-4 years.

edit for substantiation: After Rio, we know. Governments have given up on the planet

It is, perhaps, the greatest failure of collective leadership since the first world war. The Earth's living systems are collapsing, and the leaders of some of the most powerful nations – the United States, the UK, Germany, Russia – could not even be bothered to turn up and discuss it. Those who did attend the Earth summit in Rio last week solemnly agreed to keep stoking the destructive fires: sixteen times in their text they pledged to pursue "sustained growth", the primary cause of the biosphere's losses.

The efforts of governments are concentrated not on defending the living Earth from destruction, but on defending the machine that is destroying it. Whenever consumer capitalism becomes snarled up by its own contradictions, governments scramble to mend the machine, to ensure – though it consumes the conditions that sustain our lives – that it runs faster than ever before.

[XemaSab]

24. 3-4 years?

Such optimism.

[cali]

26. higher gas taxes (and they're high already) are REGRESSIVE

they disproportionately penalize the poor.

And there is no sweeping "we". there are lots of people- some of them in government- who REALLY do care about the environment.

[Zalatix]

31. What about food shortages due to droughts... is that progressive or regressive?

[cali]

33. and just what does that have to do with regressive taxation?

if you think that higher taxes on gasoline would make a difference there, you're wrong.

[Zalatix]

37. You know what, you figure it out.

Hint: there are bigger threats to the poor than high gasoline taxes. Cheap gasoline is a direct harbinger of said bigger threats.

If you can't figure that out then hey, it's not worth my time.

[cali]

40. bwahahahaha. typical you.

and as someone who is poor and can barely afford 5 bucks of fuel a week to get to the store and physical therapy, I really resent someone who has 2 cars telling me what to fucking worry about.

If you can't figure that out... oh never mind, you're the only duer who most definitely is a total waste of... time.

[Zalatix]

46. ROTFLMAO, typical you, you don't know what's causing these droughts

and you have no idea what that'll mean for food prices.

You'll never figure out how gasoline got us to that situation, either.

Edited to add: Cali, let's just be honest. You know better, and I know you know better than to spout the... stuff... that you just posted. You know damned well that we can and we must reduce all emissions and pollution as close to zero as possible, for the sake of humanity. You also know that we can get off of fossil fuels entirely, and make it affordable.

You're not at all sincere like The2ndwheel downthread. You know better. You're just trying to start a fight.

[raouldukelives]

29. Sure, as long as we can make money off it.

Have to figure out a way to make people think making the world a better place is worth more to them than a dividend.
That working for having a world that still has Aspen forests and dolphins is a better thing than a well paying job that at the end of the day only supports Citizens United.

[wiggs]

30. Environmental issues, alone, should be enough to win elections if

the dems messaged well enough and citizens united went away. It is that important.

[Zalatix]

32. Yes.. this.

[The2ndWheel]

35. It's the economy or the environment

We can't do both.

[Nikia]

36. Eventually the whole economy is going to come crashing down because of the environment

If we don't make the transition to mostly clean energy soon. Some scientist think that there will be extreme changes even if we could stop adding carbon emissions in the next couple decades. Regardless, making the change sooner or later, will prevent extreme changes that will likely lead to wordwide anarchy or dictatorships and many deaths. The climate change, including extreme weather causes there to be less food as well as destruction of homes and businesses. There are some highly populated places that will become unliveable either because it will be 100+ all year long or because the land will be underwater. I don't know how anyone thinks that this won't affect the economy. There is such an emphasis on short term economy though that few people seem to consider the long term.

[Zalatix]

38. I believe we can. I believe we must.

[CreekDog]

39. What? That's ridiculous. It's both, in fact, it's economically better to do both

the environment provides your economic resources and if you allow them to be trashed or allow them to be degraded that people are harmed (air pollution, water pollution) then people are harmed and that harms the economy. nevermind that polluted water and a polluted environment works against economic growth.

i can't believe you posted such an anti-democratic talking point. your post sounds, frankly, Republican.

[The2ndWheel]

42. The history, momentum, and complexity of the last few thousand years

so far says that we can't do both.

Anti-democratic talking point? Republican sounding post? I was going for more of a physical limits sort of thing. If we want to grow the economy, then we can't get our environment issues dealt with. If we want to get our environmental issues dealt with, we can't grow the economy. I don't see that as ridiculous. I see that as physical reality, since the economy exists within the environment.

[CreekDog]

44. your thinking is based on philosophy, not facts or history

The Clean Water Act ended up saving water which saved energy and improved economic conditions as well as efficiency of business in general.

The environment-friendly policies of the German economy have made it among the strongest in the world.

Your PHILOSOPHY (which is not a FACT), merely a belief that you hold --is not based on history or reality.

It's 2012. Get with the program.

[Zalatix]

47. Wow, attack much?

The2ndWheel merely said we can't both eliminate pollution and have a healthy economy. They didn't say we shouldn't stop pollution. A lot of non-Republicans feel that way.

You need to approach people like that with education not condemnation.

This is PROBABLY WHY we haven't been able to move forward with more eco-friendly solutions: you've got one side fearing the economy must suffer if we make these changes, and the other side BLASTING them as evil Republican-minded people.

The2ndWheel, I also feel that we can create an eco-friendly economy that is also affordable to the masses. I do also understand your fears. We need to make a stronger case for people like you who are the majority of America.

[CreekDog]

49. Two responses to your points:

1) on the attacks: both of you either attacks environmentalists without basis or longstanding liberal and Democratic positions. i didn't criticize you before both of you did those things --in fact, i ramped up my criticism after you both doubled down on your initial volleys.

2) 2ndwheel already has his/her mind made up with little knowledge to back it up. not going to change that person's mind if their mind is made up already.

[Zalatix]

51. We're not attacking environmentalists.

I for one am saying we need to take MORE action. More, specific action.

When the US government rejected Rio and the Kyoto summit, why didn't we come back with "we'll do even better than that"? I'll give you three words for that: Republicans, and Blue Dogs.

"We" includes, sadly, Blue Dogs.

[flvegan]

52. What did you eat today?

I'd like to know because it would be quite telling about how much you "REALLY care about the environment" beyond scolding others.

[Zalatix]

53. First of all, know who I'm scolding.

I'm scolding the Third Way people and the Blue Dogs, whom we all know routinely sacrifice leftist (including environmental) interests in favor of compromising with the Right.

First, you need to understand that.

[flvegan]

55. Not what I asked.

[Zalatix]

57. You accused me of scolding others. I chose to address that first, because your accusation was wrong.

I'll name names as to why I wonder how much we care about the environment. We've got people HERE on the DU who think our pollution laws are somehow a BIG part of why we're driving jobs out of the country.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1289521

As long as you have people spouting this, you aren't going anywhere with environmental causes. Like I said, FIRST, know the people I'm scolding.

What did I eat today and just about every other day? Food grown locally. I would cite the specific farms but that would approximate where I live.

[limpyhobbler]

54. Global warming is a fucking emergency.

We need a strong active government here at home and international cooperation abroad to address the issues.

Stop burning fossil fuels. That's the top problem. Keep that shit in the ground. That means coal, oil, and natural gas. It causes global warming.

Create millions of jobs instanly with a green New Deal jobs program to build and install solar and wind power everywhere, fund clean energy R&D, modernize the electric grid, and convert vehicles to electric.

Ban oil and gas companies from advertising propaganda on TV, the same way that we ban cigarette ads. It's the biggest public health issue there is.

Those of us who watch CNN and MSNBC, let's stop and ask ourselves why Chevron and BP are spending so many millions of advertising dollars sponsoring news programming. What do they get out of it? Do the ads affect people's views on issues? Does it affect which stories get told on the news?

And yes we ought to consider these issues in our international trade policies.

Our governments are failing us big time. America should be the leader for a sustainable future. Instead they are failing us when it come to fossil fuels. They are opening up new areas in the arctic for drilling, opening up the national forests, committing to 100 years of natural gas for America, talking about converting truck fleets to run on that shit, and would probably like to be able to approve that fucking tar sands pipeline. They certainly have not taken a principled position against it, saying instead that it depends on the route. This is barely better than climate change denial. They admit there is a problem, but they don't do anything to address it.