Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Brwn_eyes0511
....I have no problem with conservation and using resources in an efficient fashion, but it seems to me that the environmental movement is no realistic and not focused in its goals. As someone pointed out recently in an article I was reading, they resist nuclear power at almost all costs but offer no realistic alternatives. They attack the United States and demand massive concessions on what is "generally" one of the cleanest and most productive economies in the world, but allow nations like Russia, India and China exemptions from protocols that work to reduce CO2 emissions and other pollutants.
The environment movement would do better to be more balanced and more realistic and help all of us put forward a sensible plan to become good stewards of what God has given us.
|
What about solar power? or wind power? or water power? What about mass transit instead of individual cars? Nuclear power is clean but the materials used to make it are toxic and there is no safe place to store the waste.
Bush has consistently eroded the environmental protections and safeguards, and allows older factories to continue spewing crap into the air/water and not force them to upgrade to acceptable levels of filtering. WTF?
And whether you agree or not, it is a FACT that Americans are primarily responsible for the sorry state of the global condition by our rampant consumption and vehicle use. I will say that China looks to surpass us in a very short while, but WE are responsible for the depletion of resources because we are a greedy nation of "right now" consumers, we do everything on a large scale, and the entire world pays the price. I personally think we do need to own up to our global responsibility and make a nation-wide change. We could start with our factories, and our car manufacturers and all plant a tree
