I've had a theory for awhile and it won't be very well backed-up because I developed it in my head. But it has basis in reality.

Conservatives are against Global Warming. They don't think it's real, they don't want to regulate businesses to protect the environment, they don't want to increase taxes for anything related to it. Why?

I think they don't want to regulate the businesses because they never want to regulate businesses, and that's fine. But why deny Global Warming, why choose not to protect your environment even not for Global Warming but just for pollution and deforestation?

Here's my line of thinking. Please don't feel insulted. We all know my mind is very liberal and I don't want anyone to take this the wrong way.

Conservatives are generally religious. Generally Christian. Christians are generally Creationist. They don't typically support evolution to the fullest extent. Perhaps their religious beliefs transcend into them not caring about the environment as much as someone who does believe in Evolution or someone who thinks religion is unimportant compared to the planet.

On the other hand, liberals are sometimes eager to regulate businesses for the greater good. They may tend to want to protect the environment more for future generations and would rather overspend and overshoot and still succeed in protecting it, than not giving enough help and having something terrible happen.

Feel free to flame me. But it's been on my mind and it's just a theory. I don't even know if I think it's true or not.

tis a good point well made. people who are in the business of making money off the back of others have no care for the environment. A capitalist society is unsustainable as it requires the production of surplus which means we need to keep removing more resources and creating more junk.

Because that is not the goal.

The goals are money, power, influence, control. You have to want to solve a problem to solve it. The politicians are owned by the special interest groups who's interest is gaining more power, influence and control.


Most special interests have sided with either the "D" side or the "R" side... either way "we the people" are the least important factor in how policies are formed.


[edit on 27-6-2009 by infolurker]

I posted a comment this morning about how hard it is to really know which side, if any, is right about the warming of the planet. I tend to agree with the OP that the christians could care less about the future since they think Jesus is coming back and the planet is going to be burned up and somehow resurrected. Yet the post above mine makes a powerful point, they could solve this but they don't want to.

I think that the don't care attitude is prevalent everywhere not just industry. I just moved to a large complex and the dumpster in our area has two big trash cans for recyclable items. I am just about the only person out of the 7 buildings using it that ever puts a thing in there! If we can't get ordinary people to care enough to rinse out a few cans and put paper in a recycle unit they how the hell can we expect greedy businesses to do anything either.

Makes me sick really, this is our home and it is a beautiful place that is soon going to turn a corner that we may never recover from.

In a word? PROGRAMMING. This isn't limited to conservatives. THEY tell you that the world has heated and cooled many times over the course of it's existence and then try to say, "No global warming because Canada had a record frost this year."

THEY say that "Man hasn't caused global warming so why should we change"? Here's an analogy. Lightning strikes a tree in your back yard. There's a fire. Is it beneficial to throw gas on the flames just because you didn't start it? We may not be responsible for GW but we ARE exacerbating the problem. That hurts us all.

Why is this happening? PROGRAMMING. THEY are telling you this because money and power can be lost on this issue. Big oil. They're #1. Electric companies. HUGE money makers. What if everyone went solar? WAIT!!! I heard this one before. It would cost the average household $20,000 to equip a house with solar. Think about that. I spend about $2000/year on electricity. In 10 years I won't have to pay for coal generated electricity EVER AGAIN!

Sorry, I was wrong. It's about 2 words.... PROGRAMMING and THEM. And don't think that they don't have their fingers all through Washington. THEY do.

Originally posted by ravenshadow13

On the other hand, liberals are sometimes eager to regulate businesses for the greater good. They may tend to want to protect the environment more for future generations and would rather overspend and overshoot and still succeed in protecting it, than not giving enough help and having something terrible happen.

While I truly believe your heart is in the right place and I have many liberal friends who are some of the nicest people I know, there are several problems

Who regulates the people who regulate?

Who makes sure that those who decide what is bad or good are held up to standards befitting their positions?

Since the topic is on the environment, this brings up an excellent example, Al Gore. Mr Gore is on the verge of becoming a billionaire should the new cap and trade bill passes. Gore lives in a giant energy hogging house and flies around in a carbon spewing private jet.

Al Gore constantly pushes his global warming theory and constantly pushes that we the public use less energy and pay more for that energy we use. Yet he turns around and spews more carbon than thousands of average citizens.

This is the case with many environmentally active elite. They spew all kinds of carbon for their daily lives yet constantly push for more environmental regulations that will cost us, the regular people, even more.

The reason why they push for this is because for the global warming elites, paying $7 a gallon gas and double electricity rates hardly hurts them but it severely limits our freedom.

Now if the Earth was truly in great danger, should not Al Gore and the global warming elite be forced to travel around in crammed planes and dinky cars as well? Shouldn't they be forced into some energy quota to offset the fact they can absorb higher energy costs? Obviously those that are pushing for cap and trade as well as other environmental regulation are not suffering and sacrificing themselves.

And why is it that active debate about global warming seems to be so regulated itself. Why do scientist that show facts and question man made climate change as well as demanding any proof of said climate change get punished by being de-funded or discredited? Why is it that the debate is "over"? Is it cause Al Gore said so? Why has "global warming" suddenly being called "climate change"" Is it because the last 10 years there was no real warming and that the original premise has been proved laughable?

Liberalism has the same flaw as capitalism. That flaw is the human desire for more power.

Liberalism requires regulation in order for the greater good and greater freedom (supposedly). But the regulators start becoming the elite class and start implementing more regulation in order to preserve control through restriction or dependency. This growth in the number of regulators increases many times over and what we get is a government class with poor effectiveness ( there is a reason why education sucks in this country) and lack of accountability. There becomes a vast pyramid of control led by a few elite and served by a large complex of minions that don't actually do anything but suck resources from the public, the same thing that liberals fight against in the first place if it is a private institution.

While free market capitalism produces the bad stuff like nasty monopolies and dumping of toxins into rivers, these things have been broken up in the past and are always possible to break up. It is always possible to punish a company or person, even though it is sometimes difficult. There were days of robber barons, tycoons, and monopolies in the past, but it has been dealt with.

Big government institutions, complex regulatory bodies, economic command systems, and giant bureaucracies are historically more resilient than monopolies or whatever unfettered capitalism can bring about.

To me, capitalism is a lesser evil and the corruption that occurs from capitalism is and has been proven, much easier and less bloody to defeat. Besides it is much harder for a monopolist to tell me what to do than a bureaucrat unless the monopolist owns the bureaucrat. Capitalism and free markets tend to be more open to dissent and thus more allowing of a public to fight back against any attempted tyranny than a controlled and regulated society.

Ironically, liberalism is used many times in order to create monopolies that suck resources from the public in order to feed the wealth and power of a select elite. Communism seems good and fair on paper but in reality, an entire economy is completely controlled by a small group of brutal dictators with near infinite power and wealth. In fact, liberalism is used many times by corrupt capitalists in order to gain extreme control. Bankers have been using the vast pyramid of government regulation in order to gain the huge amounts of power they have today. Companies like Monsanto use bureaucracies like the FDA to basically run over more organic farmers and seed companies.

Environmentalism is turning out to be the same thing. A few select elite that can absorb high energy costs while the rest of us starve. A few select elite become billionaires through their carbon credit firms while the rest of us are forced to ride bikes. A few select elites will be able to control the entire economy while we have to beg for food.

Catholics are not creationists. Catholics are about 50% of the Christians in the world. I'm not a creationist. I have 500,000,000 year old fossils in my room. If you study the climate change of that 500,000,000 years, or to be simple, 50,000 years, it is obvious that the recent "global warming" is insignificant. Please, go to a library and learn about it. It's extremely interesting that "global warming" has been the hype when in fact, we are about to go into an Ice Age. The facts are there, plain & simple. It's like "evolution" being so clear yet creationists still exist to deny it. The "global warming" hype is a false religion, used to control people's lives.

It's true that the world's population is rising, but the details show that urban areas grow while rural areas are losing people, and nature is taking over. The Congo jungle of Africa is growing quickly, especially with wars & disease on top of migration to the urban cities. In many parts of the world, nature is taking over again. The idea of "global warming" deals with the lie that the human population is too large for this world. It is a religion that can ignore millions of Africans dying because "there is just too many of them," even if Africa could feed 10 billion people, and with their natural resources should be the wealthiest continent, yet is the poorest continent.

The "global warming" religion wants to stop using foreign oil, yet doesn't have a solution. Drilling for Alaska's oil might kill a polar bear, and they are more valuable than American troops. The religion denies admitting that oil will still be used in the next generation, and wants the troops to come home, but oil is money, and since we can't drill our own because of radical environmentalists, we're stuck in the Middle-East.

The "global warming" religion ignores the fact that China is polluting the world more than all other countries put together. Why should we stop our small amount and destroy our economy (?) while China sells us cheap crap we don't need, while we should boycott China if "global warming" was real.

if you need more examples, let me know.