[Growler]

/headdesk

Can someone - anyone - answer this simple question, without it being in any way related to politics?

What's the harm in taking measures to protect the environment wherein we live? Actual harm, not financial, political, or biblical?

The economy sucks with all the environmental damage already done. So doing MORE damage will help how?

When will we stop defecating where we eat?

I'm tired of seeing people's plastic refuse, paper trash, and oh-yeah-let's-not-forget human waste in the Inner Harbor. I'm tired of suffocating in Baltimore in the summer heat because people won't use mass transit (which is cheaper than the ~$10/day minimum parking fees, not counting the gas wasted sitting in traffic) or can't (which sucks, because there's no political will to encourage people to use it, which would allow it to MAKE MONEY and CREATE JOBS as it expands by ADDING INFRASTRUCTURE).

Or simpler still - if we, in the US, are to expect others to cut their carbon emissions, maybe instead of being hypocritical about it, we ought to, you know, be actual Americans and LEAD THE WAY. But instead, we have debates and arguments about it, political grandstanding and posturing on both sides, and no real willingness to take risks that lead to growth.

Nuke power is where we need to be looking, until viable large-scale renewable alternatives are financially viable. And the further you live from where your power's generated, the more you pay. That's the cost of living in a modern, wired society, and it would encourage people to do smaller things to save energy - turn off lights, run washers only when necessary, maybe small-scale renewable energy AT the home.

We have to get outside of the boxes we've been operating in, both for a cleaner world, and one that's more profitable for us all. Until the politicians, corporations, and their lawyers and cronies get out of the way, there will be no solution, because it's better for them to keep US divided.