Quote:
Originally Posted by Tchocky
(Post 1425786)
If CH hasn't heard of it, then it ain't worth caring about.
|
Tchocky, I believe in environmental conservatism. That means using the resources we have responsibly. This can be done without disturbing habitats generally. But, just like the border patrol, environmental issues such as "the noise of a truck might disturb the bird in its natural habitat" are keeping us from doing what needs to be done. Or "the emissions of fossil fuel vehicles might harm the habitat". Give me a break. Driving a SUV down a road 4 or 5 times a day to keep illegals out is going to be the death of all the animals and trees? Bull! Especially considering the trees absorb CO2 (which they need) and give off oxygen. Remember - we are talking a national FOREST! A few trucks once in a while are good for em. Its when its in EXCESS that it becomes a problem.
Its not that if I haven't heard of it that its not worth caring about. But environmentalism has gotten out of hand. There are places you can go in texas and see idle oil wells, the towers still sitting there. Nothing around em for miles - but oh - they can't be used because somewhere something might be adversely affected. Well not using them is adversly affecting not just me and my family, but just about every family in America.
Why do you think oil from shale was shut down so quickly? There is more American oil in shale under the soil of this nation than is under the Middle East oil fields combined. But environmentalists (who by the way are often funded by ME oil cartels) are against us using it. Well the question is this, should a frog get woken up occasionally in the middle of the night so a barrel of domestic oil could sell for $16 dollars, or should we continue to pay $70+ (not counting shipping charges) to import it from South America (where don'tcha know they are just taking every step THEY can to save the environment while they get all that black gold!) and the ME which creates a drag on the economy of this country.
Hmmmm.
Sleepless Frog vs US Economy
For me, that's not really a hard choice.
The fact of the matter is that most (but not all) environmental objections are politically based. Sure there are things that need to be done to insure the ecological health of an area. But there is a big difference between doing things responsibly and not doing them at all.
You want to know how to set it up to insure private businesses are responsible. Its a valid question, because they cannot be trusted blindly. Simply put, they are on the hook for every dime of damage they cause, AND they will be barred from business going forward in the US for a minimum of 10 years should a major industrial accident occur.
Yes, that would apply to folks like BP. Simply put, you make it more economically attractive to be responsible - and then stick to it. Same thing as the law that pertains to hiring illegals. We do need a couple of new laws regarding immigration, but we don't need one regarding hiring them - its already on the books. The government needs to simply enforce it broadly. If companies (domestic or foriegn) were looking at a closed market for 10 years, as well as damages, then it is in their best interest to be responsible. Yes, some regulation can help assure it - but its time we started acting responsibly instead of basically throwing up our hands and saying "well we might screw it up so we better not do it."
Being so afraid of failure that you don't try is a failure unto itself.
Also - I see no one wanted to touch the fact that the rig that is at the heart of this was a known problem months prior and that the people this administration put over the relevant offices did nothing. I guess the buck only stops with Obama when he can't find anyone else to blame for his administration's incompetence.