Why are we using trees? Clean the oceans, we get more air from there.
@That one lurker, damn right, gotta save the ocean ecosystem it is very important for us all.
@That one lurker, also, I hate that some treat saving the environment as a political issue, nah man we fvcking live here lol. Gotta take care of our home. Sorry I got off on a tangent lol
@Mantis Tobaggan, no problem, the problem with the political side of this revolves roughly around rabble-rousing.
Two sides of a coin can still call it self a coin, but one will come out on top.
I'm a conservative, conservation is about conserving. Not breaking down the economy to bring about a communist Revolution.
My problem is is that we're not flipping the same coin. We got eco-terrorists over there, and sensible people over here. Where those paths meet is politics.
China and India are massive polluters.
One side of our coin says sanction, the other says we need to lead by example.
That other wonky looking coin over there, says blow up dur shît or blow up all our shît.
That's the problem with the politics of the environment.
@That one lurker, I agree, but imo the main problem is that almost everyone on the left or right will disagree with the other side just because the other side said it. The left/right could cure cancer and the other side would oppose it. They are only worried about disagreeing, not about making the country better. That is the problem with pretty much everything is Washington imo. Like, Jesus you can at least meet in the middle on some stuff, it's ok.
@That one lurker, also, why do some oppose finding an alternative to fossil fuels? Of course we can't just stop using them tomorrow but alternative means shouldn't wait to be developed until the day we run out of fossil fuels.
But also some people want us to stop using them tomorrow. That's dumb as hell too.
@Mantis Tobaggan, there seems to be this weird perfectionist mindset about clean energy where extremists on both sides refuse to move to solar, wind, etc. until those technologies can meet 100% of our energy needs 100% of the time. This sets up this ureachable goal that keeps us from investing enough into clean energy for it to ever move beyond a small scale. We need to be able to find a middle ground where we slowly integrate clean energy and phase out fossil fuels. But the longer we wait, the harder that transition will be- and it WILL hit us like a truck if we keep procrastinating until there’s no oil left.
@Kyroll, yeah man. For sure. Gimme a reset button on Washington I'd push it in a second
@Mantis Tobaggan, you miss understood what I said. Conservatives and liberals agree that something should be done. We're arguing the minutiae.
I.e. china/ geopolitical ramifications of the soul enforcement of an idea being tyrannical. To the Logistics of how to wean off of gas or oil.
Conservatives put forward nuclear, since it's zero emission.
Liberals put forward the fact about disrepair, and what that will cause to the country.
But putting forward Renewables like solar and wind aren't working in the long term since we do not have a sufficient way to store the energy.
On topics like pollution the two agree on several topics.
It's the eco-terrorists on the other end that you're referring to as "the other."
They are the separate coin in my analogy. People who are so diametrically opposed to you that you can't reason with.
How can you compromise with a person whose core ideology holds the idea "by any means necessary."
Does this make sense or do you find a to unreasonable?
@That one lurker, no I'm sorry, I was unclear i think. I know both sides want to do something but too many have political biases and can't agree, and the extremists on either side make the problem much worse. Indidnt mean meet halfway with halfway with crazies, or even about this one topic, I lumped it in with many of the problems I have with our government, and I am sorry my meaning got muddled. What you say makes sense and I agree, I was meaning to add what I thought the problem was to what you said. Does that make sense?
Tldr: I agree with you, but I think what I said is another part of the problem.
@Mantis Tobaggan, sure, I see what you mean, it's a rather moderate stance from person that's not into modern politics.
The "disparity" in this country falls on the head of the failures of democracy as a political system.
I'd be curious if you know what America's system is?
Please answer that for me.
Because I think that's the major pin that's holding back America that's causing such a deep divide.
@That one lurker, democratic Republic. Yeah I'm pretty moderate. More right leaning in most things, but leftish on a few.
@Mantis Tobaggan, sure, but I'd like to hear your answer. What system does the US use?
Or do you not know?
@That one lurker, we should use a three sided coin then. Amateurs
@That one lurker, I said democratic Republic in my previous comment?
@Mantis Tobaggan, climate alarmism is a huge problem too, we know fossil fuels will run out, and that climate change is real, but the climate will take 1000 years for noticable affect on our oceans. Some act as if our weather is getting worse or our oceans are flooding next year. It's causing children huge amounts of despair and the political alarmism is the cause, not the actual scientists stating we have an effect on our environment
@Mantis Tobaggan, my apologies then.
No, we are a representative Republic. We elect leader to represents the general wishes of a sovereign body of states to a federal body. We are the united states for this reason.
This is generally understood by Republicans.
Democrats believe we are democracy. And "they" will use "that" decisive language, "my/our" democracy. It appears that the democrats have the overall goal of abolishing states, to create a federal democracy. Or what is known as a pure democracy.
I bring this up as a fundamentle break in this nation that I have no clue how to fix. The policies between the two or so opposed that things are growing crazy.
How can there be compromise when either side demand subservience?
What should we do when all the demands come from one party?
@Mantis Tobaggan, well we have to how else do you expect everyone to ignore the problem
@That one lurker, oh I gotcha I must have gotten my republic types mixed up. I got nothing either on that issue, unfortunately.
@Mantis Tobaggan, There are wildly different opinions (all based in good faith) about how and why to do it.
@That one lurker, cause the aliens are down there
Cool! Can we target PETA, the EPA, and anti-vaxxers? I think they probably have the most negative impact on the environment, so it's probably amplify the effect.
@Empshok, am I missing something? Is the EPA hypocritical?
@18bluecat, the EPA only helps the environment when the sitting president wants to help the environment. If they're opposed to eachother, the president just fires a bunch of people as it's apart of the executive branch and replaced them with people he likes.
Presidents have put oil execs in charge of it before, so they don't even pretend to make it look reasonable.
@18bluecat, they mandated the wind power in Idaho that costs more to maintain than it produces. And when they banned CFCs in aerosol cans, the replacement ended up notably worse for the ozone layer. For quite awhile, it seems that any time the government mandates something, everything just gets worse.
@Empshok, I would suggest with the epa, make them more independent from Washington, and then they could probably actually get something done instead of being hamstrung just because they are the opposing party of the current president.
Peta and anti vaxxers can die and be buried for our new trees sustenance though.
@Mantis Tobaggan, Are you planning on killing them?
@Mag3rPayne, for legal reasons I can't answer that.
@Empshok, I would take anti-vaxxer off your list, seeing as that phrase doesn’t mean what it meant two years ago.
Easy there Thanos
So Hitler was an environmentalists then?
Are we on short supply of Oxygen now?
Yeah Thanos had a point
There’s 7 billion people on the planet. We can afford to lose 6 billion. Think of the air savings!
Something about that number doesn't seem right