Questions for American Environmentalists

23rd May 2006

Questions for American Environmentalists

posted in Environment, Politics |

For the hard-core American environmentalists - you know who you are:

Who are America's enemies today?
Do these groups and nations have a good track record on environmental issues? (hint: merely signing the Kyoto Protocol doesn't count)
Is it possible these groups and nations could - by force or economic means - seriously hinder the ability of the US to acquire oil from other countries?
If the US is not willing to resort to force to acquire sufficient oil, could the US become sufficiently crippled to the point where our enemies are able to defeat us?
If our enemies have control of our resources, will they be more or less likely than the US to put environmental concerns ahead of exploiting those resources?
If our enemies have control of our resources, will they be more or less likely than the US to allow you the freedom of speech to protest that exploitation?
Don't you think you should sit down and shut up so you don't look so stupid?

Share and Enjoy:

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 23rd, 2006 at 10:27 and is filed under Environment, Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

1 On June 1st, 2006, adrian said:

I'm a tad confused. Most hard core environmentalists (and yes I know who I am) advocate efficiency, and the use of energy sources other than oil, in part for the reasons you point to above.

If the cost of using oil is very expensive oil wars, it seems like the Market would indicate we look to other sources for energy and transport, and to be more efficient about we already have.

This seems like something we could agree on.

2 On June 1st, 2006, SteveO said:

My point is that hard-core American environmentalists have kept us from using our own resources, and are thus putting us somewhat at the mercy of groups and nations that would certainly exploit those resources.

Wouldn't it be nice if environmentalists would allow responsible drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and allow expansion of our operations in the Gulf?

3 On June 6th, 2006, adrian cotter said:

We can be a noisy bunch no doubt. But surely you overestimate our power.

Even Jeb Bush was, at least for a while, against drilling off the coasts (he recently changed position?). Arnold is against drilling off CA. Moderate Republicans in the Senate have joined Democrats in voting against drilling in the Arctic. It's not just whacko environmentalists who are reluctant to give up these places.

What I and other enviros don't understand is the reluctance on the part of Republicans to fund alternate/renewable energy sources. Isn't America at its greatest when it is innovating?

Drilling in the Artic or off FL CA VA whereever is not really going to lessen our dependence on foreign oil to any great numbers — especially as we continue to use more and more.

If you look at the presidents energy proposal there is some 3 billion devoted to nuclear and clean coal, and a paltry 200 million devoted to alternate wind and solar.

Then compare all that to how much money spent on Iraq?

4 On August 20th, 2006, The Owner's Manual said:

#142 Best of Me Symphony…

Monday, August 21, 2006 Oh, yeah? Edition 142 Gay Rights the Stonewall Riots Kiss a cop for the War on Us By TFS Magnum By Owner's Manual Before the 1980s, gay bars operated under the radar with no guarantee the…