Vertically built dense cities planned around walking, biking, and transit.
Water and power usage regulations. Lights that turn themselves off when nobody is in a room.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Are any of the naysayers in this thread climatologists, or even have an undergraduate understanding of environmental science? Didn’t think so. [/quote]
How about a masters in biochemistry and biophysics combined with current research career? That about do it for you?
And I’m not a naysayer. I’ve been on DB’s ass about his and the IPCC’s asinine attitude towards it, not denying that GC exists. I’m only forced into the role because people who have zero appreciable knowledge of chemistry like to post the sort of thing that he does and paint all skeptics of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming as illiterates. You will notice, if you read attentively, that I’ve never made that blanket claim in reverse and that most scientifically active research personnel at major research universities are not making that claim either, which belongs only on fringe publications.[/quote]
You’ve been on my ass about my catastrophic anthropogenic claims, and yet, I’ve never made the claim that climate change in and of itself is or will be catastrophic. The catastrophes will occur when incremental climate change continues to take place and we do nothing to raise our level of preparedness. It’s kinda hard for the country to raise such preparedness levels if half the politicians in position to enact such preparations are in denial that any sort of significant climate change is occurring. THAT is the catastrophe, and quite frankly, there is no argument against the point that I have repeatedly made: that failing to acknowledge the preparations that should be made will be catastrophic.
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Ok then, so how about a national water system?
Whether there is exceptional drought or flooding, we would still need potable water. How could it be gone about to get it from where it occurs naturally, like all of our major river basins- to where it is needed? I would propose a closed system that can primarily tap the great lakes and provide drinking water from the foothills of the Rockies east and south. Piping significant quantities over the elevation and distance of the Rockies would be ridiculously expensive energy wise
Then there’s food supply. How can we produce basic food products like grains, vegetables and general meat products to provide for a population of our size in an expanding and intensely more arid climate?
Some areas would simply have to be abandoned as a going agricultural or living concern. Irrigating the desert southwest and southern California is already a giant waste of resources, so we’re also looking at relocation.
The northern maritime rain forest would probably remain inhabitable and productive.
[/quote]
The federal gov’t quietly added quite a lot of irrigation canals and other such waterways under their aegis after some decision from the Supreme Court expanded the scope of the Clean Water Act. I’m a little fuzzy on the details of that one.
I think the thing to keep in mind and prepare for is the fact that as droughts increase in certain areas, the groundwater that is used to compensate for the lack of rainwater will lead to subsidence. Large swaths of the San Joaquin Valley in California have dropped by 10-25 feet in the last decade or so. There is legitimate concern that the San Joaquin River will not flow to the Pacific anymore as a result. The increased salinity in that area as a result would be disastrous for agriculture.
I totally agree with the part about irrigating the Southwest and so on. Federal subsidies, which I generally abhor anyways, should be completely off the table when it comes to any sort of water-intensive crop (particularly rice), and subsidies for improving canals and irrigation ditches in those areas should be abandoned as well.[/quote]
I wouldn’t want an open source like trenches and canals for the simple problems of stagnation, contamination and loss through evaporation. Or theft for that matter. In either scenario-drought or flooding any one or combination of those could be devastating. It would be a commodity that needs to be protected. Water would become the new oil.(I’ve heard it said that it will be anyways, for a number of reasons)
[/quote]
Shit, it’s more like oil is the new water.
I wouldn’t want open sources either, for all the reasons you pointed out. I don’t think pumping water out of aquifers is necessarily the best solution, either. It takes WAY too long for groundwater to replenish itself and subsidence is already a looming issue here in California.
I still think desalination plants are the wave of the future, provided that a more efficient means of distilling the water can be realized. Unfortunately, the eco-terrorists in this country have been very successful at limiting the funds available for this type of research. They’ve really put a damper on nuclear research as well.
Huge aboveground storage tanks, like aboveground reservoirs, might work. I really don’t know how feasible that would be, but I think some of the real small reservoirs could be replaced this way, perhaps anything under 4,000 acre feet.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Assuming it actually exists…
What if the increased heat causes a massive increase in evaporation of the oceans and we end up with continent wide torrential rains for extended periods, resulting in way too much fresh water?
We can hypothesize about what might happen, but until it does we won’t really know.[/quote]
Assuming? Anthropogenic climate change most certainly is occurring. If you stack the totality of evidence supporting this against the evidence saying otherwise
[/quote]
I assume, of course, that you are perfectly capable of understanding the chemistry, statistics, methodology, atmospheric physics and other mathematical methods needed to assess the data so confidently.
I disagree that climate change is going to be the military’s #1 problem in the future. Mexico is nowhere near capable of enforcing its will on us…IF we have the will to stop them and lay down a hard line. We currently do not because of politics, not military constraints. Instead of military, I believe the problem will be policy. It is already problem now and we have done nothing really to solve it.
I’d agree though that given your scenario global warming will a driver behind foreign policy problems and conflicts. This seems much more likely given that We have only one real problematic neighbor to the south and are protected by 2 oceans from other “tribes” the will look to immigrate. If we were in Europe/ME I would revise my stance, that place will heat up rapidly (pun intended).
[/quote]
We are indeed protected from direct mass migration by the oceans. Though there are almost half a billion people on the other side of the Texas-Mexico border, if we count the nations beyond Mexico.
However, I think the military is thinking a little more indirectly–and much shorter-term. A smaller crop yield —> fewer loaves of bread in the market —> widespread unrest —> protests —> a country full of young Islamic men (and nuclear weapons?) begins to destabilize. Etc. Not that the military can really do much about any of that.[/quote]
Well I suppose seen this way it is probably true. However I tend to lump this in with foreign policy as I mentioned above, primarily because 1) the military can’t do anything about that and 2) the military should be a LAST resort of solving foreign policy objectives, so although they may in fact have to deal with this scenario (and already are in some ways) IMO that represents a failure of FP rather than a military problem.[/quote]
If I may interject here, given that your original post was in response to mine. You are confusing military problems with national security issues. The national security of this country will most certainly be in jeopardy if people start migrating in massive waves from south of the border northward. Our national security will also be at risk if we suffer massive economic losses as a result of failed crops, flooded cities, larger forest fires, larger storms, and all the other doom-and-gloom scenarios that need to be prepared for, just in case.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Vertically built dense cities planned around walking, biking, and transit.
Water and power usage regulations. Lights that turn themselves off when nobody is in a room.
[/quote]
You can’t enact water and power usage regulations! That would be a statist/nanny state approach! Don’t you think that your right to use all the water and power you want is important and needs to be protected?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Are any of the naysayers in this thread climatologists, or even have an undergraduate understanding of environmental science? Didn’t think so. [/quote]
How about a masters in biochemistry and biophysics combined with current research career? That about do it for you?
And I’m not a naysayer. I’ve been on DB’s ass about his and the IPCC’s asinine attitude towards it, not denying that GC exists. I’m only forced into the role because people who have zero appreciable knowledge of chemistry like to post the sort of thing that he does and paint all skeptics of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming as illiterates. You will notice, if you read attentively, that I’ve never made that blanket claim in reverse and that most scientifically active research personnel at major research universities are not making that claim either, which belongs only on fringe publications.[/quote]
You’ve been on my ass about my catastrophic anthropogenic claims, and yet, I’ve never made the claim that climate change in and of itself is or will be catastrophic. The catastrophes will occur when incremental climate change continues to take place and we do nothing to raise our level of preparedness. It’s kinda hard for the country to raise such preparedness levels if half the politicians in position to enact such preparations are in denial that any sort of significant climate change is occurring. THAT is the catastrophe, and quite frankly, there is no argument against the point that I have repeatedly made: that failing to acknowledge the preparations that should be made will be catastrophic.
[/quote]
I have no disagreement about that point, and you’ll note that I’ve never brought it up.
However, that is not the only point you’ve been asserting.
If you had said simply “let’s leave aside the argument about AGW for now, I want to focus this thread on assuming it is an imminent danger and id like to hear people’s ideas for solutions and/or what new problems the country might face” neither I nor anybody else would have had a problem with that. But you didn’t. You surrounded the above sentence with a lot of belittling and rather arrogant rhetoric–rhetoric which I know for a fact you do not have the subject matter expertise to back up in the degree you are asserting, while I have considerably more and more relevant–and then posited that this wasn’t a place for illiterates, though not in so many words.
Incidentally, you will notice in the previous thread I was on your ass that I had just finished taking C-dog to task for similar bullshit from the other side of the issue. I was equal opportunity.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Assuming it actually exists…
What if the increased heat causes a massive increase in evaporation of the oceans and we end up with continent wide torrential rains for extended periods, resulting in way too much fresh water?
We can hypothesize about what might happen, but until it does we won’t really know.[/quote]
Assuming? Anthropogenic climate change most certainly is occurring. If you stack the totality of evidence supporting this against the evidence saying otherwise
[/quote]
I assume, of course, that you are perfectly capable of understanding the chemistry, statistics, methodology, atmospheric physics and other mathematical methods needed to assess the data so confidently.
I disagree that climate change is going to be the military’s #1 problem in the future. Mexico is nowhere near capable of enforcing its will on us…IF we have the will to stop them and lay down a hard line. We currently do not because of politics, not military constraints. Instead of military, I believe the problem will be policy. It is already problem now and we have done nothing really to solve it.
I’d agree though that given your scenario global warming will a driver behind foreign policy problems and conflicts. This seems much more likely given that We have only one real problematic neighbor to the south and are protected by 2 oceans from other “tribes” the will look to immigrate. If we were in Europe/ME I would revise my stance, that place will heat up rapidly (pun intended).
[/quote]
We are indeed protected from direct mass migration by the oceans. Though there are almost half a billion people on the other side of the Texas-Mexico border, if we count the nations beyond Mexico.
However, I think the military is thinking a little more indirectly–and much shorter-term. A smaller crop yield —> fewer loaves of bread in the market —> widespread unrest —> protests —> a country full of young Islamic men (and nuclear weapons?) begins to destabilize. Etc. Not that the military can really do much about any of that.[/quote]
Well I suppose seen this way it is probably true. However I tend to lump this in with foreign policy as I mentioned above, primarily because 1) the military can’t do anything about that and 2) the military should be a LAST resort of solving foreign policy objectives, so although they may in fact have to deal with this scenario (and already are in some ways) IMO that represents a failure of FP rather than a military problem.[/quote]
If I may interject here, given that your original post was in response to mine. You are confusing military problems with national security issues. The national security of this country will most certainly be in jeopardy if people start migrating in massive waves from south of the border northward. Our national security will also be at risk if we suffer massive economic losses as a result of failed crops, flooded cities, larger forest fires, larger storms, and all the other doom-and-gloom scenarios that need to be prepared for, just in case.[/quote]
My response to this would be that we have noticed a constant influx from the south ALREADY that we have done nothing to abate, so I disagree that it is primarily military although I agree it will be an issue. We have the means already, but not the will. As for the other, yes that may occur but I do not agree that the likelihood of a foreign power taking advantage of that is very high…we still have the most advanced and powerful military. Unless I misread you and you are not speaking about danger from without.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]Bismark wrote:
Are any of the naysayers in this thread climatologists, or even have an undergraduate understanding of environmental science? Didn’t think so. [/quote]
How about a masters in biochemistry and biophysics combined with current research career? That about do it for you?
And I’m not a naysayer. I’ve been on DB’s ass about his and the IPCC’s asinine attitude towards it, not denying that GC exists. I’m only forced into the role because people who have zero appreciable knowledge of chemistry like to post the sort of thing that he does and paint all skeptics of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming as illiterates. You will notice, if you read attentively, that I’ve never made that blanket claim in reverse and that most scientifically active research personnel at major research universities are not making that claim either, which belongs only on fringe publications.[/quote]
You’ve been on my ass about my catastrophic anthropogenic claims, and yet, I’ve never made the claim that climate change in and of itself is or will be catastrophic. The catastrophes will occur when incremental climate change continues to take place and we do nothing to raise our level of preparedness. It’s kinda hard for the country to raise such preparedness levels if half the politicians in position to enact such preparations are in denial that any sort of significant climate change is occurring. THAT is the catastrophe, and quite frankly, there is no argument against the point that I have repeatedly made: that failing to acknowledge the preparations that should be made will be catastrophic.
[/quote]
I have no disagreement about that point, and you’ll note that I’ve never brought it up.
However, that is not the only point you’ve been asserting.
If you had said simply “let’s leave aside the argument about AGW for now, I want to focus this thread on assuming it is an imminent danger and id like to hear people’s ideas for solutions and/or what new problems the country might face” neither I nor anybody else would have had a problem with that. But you didn’t. You surrounded the above sentence with a lot of belittling and rather arrogant rhetoric–rhetoric which I know for a fact you do not have the subject matter expertise to back up in the degree you are asserting, while I have considerably more and more relevant–and then posited that this wasn’t a place for illiterates, though not in so many words.
Incidentally, you will notice in the previous thread I was on your ass that I had just finished taking C-dog to task for similar bullshit from the other side of the issue. I was equal opportunity.
[/quote]
Ah, so you’re the ethics police around here, eh? Fair enough. Of course I inserted some inflammatory language in my initial post. Don’t underestimate my knowledge of the science behind the issue. Reading up on the science behind the issue consumes a considerable amount of my free time. Granted, I do not have a degree in a science-related field (I won’t lump my political science degree into that category) and I will defer to you on the really esoteric aspects of this debate.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
Assuming it actually exists…
What if the increased heat causes a massive increase in evaporation of the oceans and we end up with continent wide torrential rains for extended periods, resulting in way too much fresh water?
We can hypothesize about what might happen, but until it does we won’t really know.[/quote]
Assuming? Anthropogenic climate change most certainly is occurring. If you stack the totality of evidence supporting this against the evidence saying otherwise
[/quote]
I assume, of course, that you are perfectly capable of understanding the chemistry, statistics, methodology, atmospheric physics and other mathematical methods needed to assess the data so confidently.
I disagree that climate change is going to be the military’s #1 problem in the future. Mexico is nowhere near capable of enforcing its will on us…IF we have the will to stop them and lay down a hard line. We currently do not because of politics, not military constraints. Instead of military, I believe the problem will be policy. It is already problem now and we have done nothing really to solve it.
I’d agree though that given your scenario global warming will a driver behind foreign policy problems and conflicts. This seems much more likely given that We have only one real problematic neighbor to the south and are protected by 2 oceans from other “tribes” the will look to immigrate. If we were in Europe/ME I would revise my stance, that place will heat up rapidly (pun intended).
[/quote]
We are indeed protected from direct mass migration by the oceans. Though there are almost half a billion people on the other side of the Texas-Mexico border, if we count the nations beyond Mexico.
However, I think the military is thinking a little more indirectly–and much shorter-term. A smaller crop yield —> fewer loaves of bread in the market —> widespread unrest —> protests —> a country full of young Islamic men (and nuclear weapons?) begins to destabilize. Etc. Not that the military can really do much about any of that.[/quote]
Well I suppose seen this way it is probably true. However I tend to lump this in with foreign policy as I mentioned above, primarily because 1) the military can’t do anything about that and 2) the military should be a LAST resort of solving foreign policy objectives, so although they may in fact have to deal with this scenario (and already are in some ways) IMO that represents a failure of FP rather than a military problem.[/quote]
If I may interject here, given that your original post was in response to mine. You are confusing military problems with national security issues. The national security of this country will most certainly be in jeopardy if people start migrating in massive waves from south of the border northward. Our national security will also be at risk if we suffer massive economic losses as a result of failed crops, flooded cities, larger forest fires, larger storms, and all the other doom-and-gloom scenarios that need to be prepared for, just in case.[/quote]
My response to this would be that we have noticed a constant influx from the south ALREADY that we have done nothing to abate, so I disagree that it is primarily military although I agree it will be an issue. We have the means already, but not the will. As for the other, yes that may occur but I do not agree that the likelihood of a foreign power taking advantage of that is very high…we still have the most advanced and powerful military. Unless I misread you and you are not speaking about danger from without.[/quote]
Yes, you are misreading me a bit here. A national security issue is not necessarily a military issue. For instance, a complete lack of education would be a national security issue, but not a military issue, although that would adversely affect our military as well.
While there is already a flood of migrant workers coming here from Mexico, that number still represents a tiny, tiny fraction of the overall population. I think there’s only somewhere around several hundred thousand who make it here every year. But imagine if several million were to arrive over the course of a year instead of a decade.
I am not talking about a military threat to our national security, nor am I talking about a threat from another nation. Imagine what would happen to our economy if large amounts of investors started losing massive amounts of capital due to the outright collapse of a major industry somewhere halfway around the globe due to climate change.
Sure, some powers could take advantage of some of this in a direct manner, but I think it would be slower and more insidious than that. Perhaps we have to start putting troops along our own borders, or get spread too thin by sending the Marines or the Army Corps of Engineers to every corner of the globe in an attempt to quell unrest in areas with resources necessary to our economic well-being. Imagine if that happened at the same time that Russia and China were starting to assert themselves in the Arctic Ocean where rare earth minerals are to be had.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The military is going to be thinking about climate change more and more as time goes on (though they already are, and worriedly).[/quote]
Oh yes. The military has already said in more than one National Intelligence Estimate that climate change is by far the largest threat to national security. People seem to forget that a large determining factor in the various “barbarian” tribes starting to invade Roman territories was due to climate change. In that case, it was a general cooling trend that forced tribes further south to the point where they encroached upon Roman territories.
We will see similar situations around the globe. Imagine everyone south of us moving northward as parts of Mexico and Central America become too hot or too arid for sustainable agriculture.[/quote]
…or
they could move FURTHER south where it is even cooler. South means cold and north means warm in different parts of the world. Just a reality check for ya.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Bert, maybe you ought to bullet point your proposed adjustments.
So far all we from you is:
-
Get someone other than government to force insurance companies to charge astronomical premiums to those who build in the “wrong places.”
-
Build more desalination plants. (Should this be market or government imposed?)
C’mon man, pick up the pace.[/quote]
While I pick up the pace, perhaps you should start your engine rather than sit in the stands and toss out the random, immaterial comment, as you are wont to do.
I never said we should “get someone” to force insurance companies to charge astronomical premiums. I said that perhaps it is something the insurance industry should start doing. You just inserted the forced action aspect of it to help buffer whatever argument you are poorly making here.
I really don’t know whether the desal plants should be a private or public sector thing. I’m inclined to go with the private sector, but gov’t subsidies have been necessary in all the plants that are currently online in California, from what I understand. I’m simply not sure if the incentive for the private sector to build desal plants will be there until it is too late to make a meaningful impact. That incentive is further eroded when large chunks of the gov’t are still denying that climate change is even occurring to begin with. It erodes market confidence if the narrative that this is all part of a natural cycle that will correct itself in short time continues to proliferate.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
… create a perfectly prioritized list, including all costs over the next 25 years, hence this thread…[/quote]
ROLFLMAO LOL
surely a Tnation thread will soon be cited as the think tank that provides the solution to…
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
The military is going to be thinking about climate change more and more as time goes on (though they already are, and worriedly).[/quote]
Oh yes. The military has already said in more than one National Intelligence Estimate that climate change is by far the largest threat to national security. People seem to forget that a large determining factor in the various “barbarian” tribes starting to invade Roman territories was due to climate change. In that case, it was a general cooling trend that forced tribes further south to the point where they encroached upon Roman territories.
We will see similar situations around the globe. Imagine everyone south of us moving northward as parts of Mexico and Central America become too hot or too arid for sustainable agriculture.[/quote]
…or
they could move FURTHER south where it is even cooler. South means cold and north means warm in different parts of the world. Just a reality check for ya.[/quote]
Holy fuck! That is beyond revelatory! Now, if you had to bet on it, do you think that the whole of Mexico and Central America are going to migrate southward and occupy the southern half of South America, or do you think they’ll just keep heading up here? Keep in mind, they won’t be migrating due to the weather itself. They’ll be migrating in search of better economic opportunities that haven’t been hurt by the changing climate. Goths and Visigoths and so forth didn’t move southward looking for warmer weather during the first several centuries of the last millennium because they preferred living in a Mediterranean climate; they moved southward looking for better land to farm on.
Climate change = global ________
is it warming or cooling?
the threat is greatly diminished once you say cooling, which it could be (no longer global warming right?)
DB, your OP assumes the world will be warming, but will it?
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
… create a perfectly prioritized list, including all costs over the next 25 years, hence this thread…[/quote]
ROLFLMAO LOL
surely a Tnation thread will soon be cited as the think tank that provides the solution to…
[/quote]
You’re the biggest douchebag on this site. The day that you and I start to agree on many things is the day I begin an intense period of extreme introspection.
Obviously you’re too stupid to have grasped that this thread is simply an alternative to literally coming up with the list that was suggested. Why do all that when we can simply discuss the issue? None of us are going to singlehandedly change much of anything regarding this issue, so to create a prioritized list would be superfluous, not to mention well beyond the purview of anyone in this thread, especially yourself.
[quote]carbiduis wrote:
Climate change = global ________
is it warming or cooling?
the threat is greatly diminished once you say cooling, which it could be (no longer global warming right?)
DB, your OP assumes the world will be warming, but will it?[/quote]
The trend has been to warm. We are experiencing a “pause” right now, one that has lasted roughly 17 years. There have been some fluctuation during that “pause” in which global temperatures have dropped slightly. But the average global temp over the course of that 17-year period has still been much higher than anything in recent memory.
A large part of why the pause happened has to do with the ocean. The majority of the evidence thus far indicates that the ocean has absorbed much of the carbon dioxide that has not been absorbed into the atmosphere. As some of the carbon is refracted back toward the surface, it heats the cool layer of water at the ocean’s surface. When the surface heats up, the gradient spanning across the top layer of surface water does not conduct heat as well, so more heat stays trapped in the ocean instead of the atmosphere.
We’ll probably see this in effect next winter out here in California. There is a very large likelihood that we experience an El Nino winter on the scale of the one we experienced in 1982-83 and 1997-98. If the Pacific Ocean has been heating up due to increased absorption of carbon dioxide, this will exacerbate a weather pattern that is already potentially very destructive. It is entirely within the realm of possibility that El Ninos like the ones in 82-83 and 97-98 begin to happen with more frequency. As the warmer water continues upwelling, it will force fish populations along the coast to dwindle, which will have a huge impact on the fishing industry out here and ultimately, the price of fish in general.
Lol, poor Coop. Creates thread asking people to not spend time on arguing about whether it is (or is not) happening. But rather focus on what can be done about it, and should be focused on because of it.
Makes it 3 fucking posts…and whamo back to a circle jerk thread.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Vertically built dense cities planned around walking, biking, and transit.
Water and power usage regulations. Lights that turn themselves off when nobody is in a room.
[/quote]
You can’t enact water and power usage regulations! That would be a statist/nanny state approach! Don’t you think that your right to use all the water and power you want is important and needs to be protected?[/quote]
No, I’m a Conservative. What kind of Conservative wouldn’t conserve the resources and natural beauty of creation? I believe you’re looking for a libertarian. The consequences of our resource usage doesn’t end at the border of some personal bubble. This steps outside of personal responsibility and personal consequence. We’re temporary stewards (listen up Christians) with a moral obligation to responsibly care for and pass on what we ourselves inherited.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Vertically built dense cities planned around walking, biking, and transit.
Water and power usage regulations. Lights that turn themselves off when nobody is in a room.
[/quote]
You can’t enact water and power usage regulations! That would be a statist/nanny state approach! Don’t you think that your right to use all the water and power you want is important and needs to be protected?[/quote]
No, I’m a Conservative. What kind of Conservative wouldn’t conserve the resources and natural beauty of creation? I believe you’re looking for a libertarian. The consequences of our resource usage doesn’t end at the border of some personal bubble. This steps outside of personal responsibility and personal consequence. We’re temporary stewards (listen up Christians) with a moral obligation to responsibly care for and pass on what we ourselves inherited.
[/quote]
I’ve always wondered why so many conservatives tend to look askance at anything having to do with conserving the environment. That goes double for conservatives who are also religious and look askance at anything having to do with conserving what is basically God’s greatest gift to mankind.