The Environment

[BigRedBuster]

And...for the record, I don't think I ever said anyone in this thread hates rich people.

[Fru]

k

[ZRod]

And...for the record, I don't think I ever said anyone in this thread hates rich people.

But if, in fact, someone said that you said, in this thread, that "you hate rich people", then defacto, you actually think they hate rich people? Savy?

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I get why the 1% have utter disdain for the planet and all of it's inhabitants.

 

It's the GOPer that earns $35k a year that goes along with it is what I don't understand.

This post is full of BS.

 

Income doesn't have anything to do with if someone is predestined to not support environmentalism.

 

There are many many many 1%ers that support environmental causes. They have the income to donate to them and they also have the income to pay for more expensive services where the expense is caused by environmental actions.

 

On the flip side, there are one hell of a lot of people in that $35k income range that have lose their jobs or have been hurt financially due to environmental activism. The coal minors are a prime example.

Of course income doesn't ultimately determine whether or not you support the environment. Are there people at the top that support environmental causes? Of course. RFK Jr leads the fight on many clean water projects. Are there people at the top that show an utter contempt for the environment? You betcha.

 

My point was, I can understand why a zillionaire, let's say an oil exec for example, would be against environmental causes. What I don't understand is why someone without that kind of financial interest (like the fine folks in the video in post 253... pretty much exhibit A for who I'm talking about) would hold such contempt for the environment.

Income doesn't matter. It's not just the "Oil exec". It's people all the way down through the oil company.

 

Your post was BS because proclaimed that somehow these evil rich people have all these motivations to want to destroy the Earth when their income doesn't have anything to do with it.

 

Semantics. Wouldn't you say someone who thinks a group of people is evil probably hates them?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I get why the 1% have utter disdain for the planet and all of it's inhabitants.

 

It's the GOPer that earns $35k a year that goes along with it is what I don't understand.

This post is full of BS.

 

Income doesn't have anything to do with if someone is predestined to not support environmentalism.

 

There are many many many 1%ers that support environmental causes. They have the income to donate to them and they also have the income to pay for more expensive services where the expense is caused by environmental actions.

 

On the flip side, there are one hell of a lot of people in that $35k income range that have lose their jobs or have been hurt financially due to environmental activism. The coal minors are a prime example.

Of course income doesn't ultimately determine whether or not you support the environment. Are there people at the top that support environmental causes? Of course. RFK Jr leads the fight on many clean water projects. Are there people at the top that show an utter contempt for the environment? You betcha.

 

My point was, I can understand why a zillionaire, let's say an oil exec for example, would be against environmental causes. What I don't understand is why someone without that kind of financial interest (like the fine folks in the video in post 253... pretty much exhibit A for who I'm talking about) would hold such contempt for the environment.

Income doesn't matter. It's not just the "Oil exec". It's people all the way down through the oil company.

 

Your post was BS because proclaimed that somehow these evil rich people have all these motivations to want to destroy the Earth when their income doesn't have anything to do with it.

 

Semantics. Wouldn't you say someone who thinks a group of people is evil probably hates them?

 

Oh...so now you are allowed to read into my posts what I didn't say.

[knapplc]

You can argue semantics all day. Several people get this impression from your responses to these kinds of discussions, BRB. I'm one of them, although I haven't participated in this particular talk.

 

If this isn't the impression you want to give, perhaps you should modify your approach to these responses. If you don't mind having this conversation over and over, then by all means continue as you are.

[BigRedBuster]

And...I will continue to point out when I feel people over generalize a group of people.

 

I'll do it with this particular group just as I would if someone came in here and posted:

 

"Why are poor people lazy?"

 

Just like if someone says..."Why do rich people hate the earth and all it's inhabitants".

 

Over generalizing a group of people should be confronted when it happens.

 

If people have a problem with me doing that.....meh....

[Moiraine]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I get why the 1% have utter disdain for the planet and all of it's inhabitants.

 

It's the GOPer that earns $35k a year that goes along with it is what I don't understand.

This post is full of BS.

 

Income doesn't have anything to do with if someone is predestined to not support environmentalism.

 

There are many many many 1%ers that support environmental causes. They have the income to donate to them and they also have the income to pay for more expensive services where the expense is caused by environmental actions.

 

On the flip side, there are one hell of a lot of people in that $35k income range that have lose their jobs or have been hurt financially due to environmental activism. The coal minors are a prime example.

Of course income doesn't ultimately determine whether or not you support the environment. Are there people at the top that support environmental causes? Of course. RFK Jr leads the fight on many clean water projects. Are there people at the top that show an utter contempt for the environment? You betcha.

 

My point was, I can understand why a zillionaire, let's say an oil exec for example, would be against environmental causes. What I don't understand is why someone without that kind of financial interest (like the fine folks in the video in post 253... pretty much exhibit A for who I'm talking about) would hold such contempt for the environment.

Income doesn't matter. It's not just the "Oil exec". It's people all the way down through the oil company.

 

Your post was BS because proclaimed that somehow these evil rich people have all these motivations to want to destroy the Earth when their income doesn't have anything to do with it.

Semantics. Wouldn't you say someone who thinks a group of people is evil probably hates them?

Oh...so now you are allowed to read into my posts what I didn't say.

What's your answer to the question? Do people generally hate something or someone they think is evil?

 

To your above post, I've already stated that's almost never what happens in these conversations. I've already given examples of times you've done it when no one was making generalizations but you accused me of having a persecution complex instead of responding to the actual post.

[BigRedBuster]

Here is what drives me so crazy about so much in politics.

 

If you are thinking about banning a product I make, I would damn well think you would talk to me or my industry first.....but fricken be up front about it and also talk to people who want to ban it...and be up front about it.

 

Then make a wise choice.

 

[zoogs]

It probably didn't take Scott Pruitt that meeting to decide in favor of ignoring his scientists.

 

As a citizen who doesn't head an industry or run a company that uses products potentially harmful to me, I damn well hope that those vested interests within industry aren't getting outsize access and influence to the EPA chief before making these calls.

[BigRedBuster]

It probably didn't take Scott Pruitt that meeting to decide in favor of ignoring his scientists.

 

As a citizen who doesn't head an industry or run a company that uses products potentially harmful to me, I damn well hope that those vested interests within industry aren't getting outsize access and influence to the EPA chief before making these calls.

 

 

They shouldn't have more access than people who are concerned about the products. But, they should at least have a voice.

 

I know of way too many times false information is passed along to try to get environmental regulations put in. The industry should have the ability to correct that.

 

But, the process shouldn't be something the politicians feel they need to lie about.

[Moiraine]

I would hope they would have to do scientific research in order to:

 

a) produce a product in the first place, especially if it's related to food, like pesticides

b) ban a product

[Danny Bateman]

 

It probably didn't take Scott Pruitt that meeting to decide in favor of ignoring his scientists.

 

As a citizen who doesn't head an industry or run a company that uses products potentially harmful to me, I damn well hope that those vested interests within industry aren't getting outsize access and influence to the EPA chief before making these calls.

 

 

They shouldn't have more access than people who are concerned about the products. But, they should at least have a voice.

 

I know of way too many times false information is passed along to try to get environmental regulations put in. The industry should have the ability to correct that.

 

But, the process shouldn't be something the politicians feel they need to lie about.

 

 

I agree with your take on the process.

 

But the necessary context is that Scott Pruitt is demonstrably NOT a neutral arbiter.

[zoogs]

I do agree it's sensible for industry to play some role in advocacy. Being the one party with casual face-to-face access on top of their lobbying power is at least not good optics, in this case.

 

Generally, I'd imagine tobacco companies felt the same way when it turned out they had a cancer-causing product. Or much-maligned healthcare industry now that their profit models are being threatened. Or the gun lobby, or the oil industry, both of which have somehow managed to conjure up the counter-specter of the "anti-gun lobby" and the "environmental lobby" in people's minds. I have some sympathies to industries needing to protect themselves, but their interests are orthogonal to those of the public and sometimes it's best that they lose these fights. At the least, it's best that they do not become invulnerable.

 

You raise fair points; these are just the concerns on the other end.

[Danny Bateman]

A good look into what's going wrong at the EPA under Pruitt

 

In testimony before a House science subcommittee on May 23, the scientist, Deborah Swackhamer, chairwoman of the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors, raised numerous concerns about what she saw as a political agenda at the EPA to "marginalize" and "politicize" scientific data used to shape agency policy since Scott Pruitt was confirmed as the agency's administrator in February.

--------

In both her written and her live testimony before the subcommittee of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee, Swackhamer stressed that she was speaking as a private citizen and an independent scientific expert, not in her role as head of the EPA advisory committee.

 

But internal EPA emails published this week by Republicans on the committee show that before the hearing, Ryan Jackson, Pruitt's chief of staff, sent a memo saying, "I need to contact Ms. Swackhammer [sic] as soon as possible to get a copy of her testimony and discuss her question period before the Science Committee."
-----

But speaking more generally, Swackhamer lamented what she characterized as EPA leaders' campaign to skew raw science to push a political agenda.

"My concern is that the science that is needed to develop good environmental policy, whether it's done at the state or federal level, will simply not be available if the path that we're going down currently continues to be followed," Swackhamer testified May 23.

"My personal fear is that the actions taken at the federal government [level] are, in fact, diminishing the role of science," she said. "Certainly, they're not celebrating the role of science."

 

She is the Chairwoman of the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors. As I understand it, that is their top scientist. Not only did Pruitt oust half of her advisory committee, but they tried to submit to her a list of talking points to use when visiting Congress.

 

They're trying to tell the scientists at the EPA how to science. That's not how science works.