Originally Posted by jazzguru
I was referring to the pictures. I used myself as an example because I have already stated I believe in being environmentally responsible, developing cleaner more efficient energy and production technologies, etc.
It is possible for someone to be mindful of the environment without believing all of the hype and politicization of the issue.
Of course, it may not be all hype...but that would be impossible.
Do we need to be good stewards of the planet on which we live? Absolutely.
Do we need to enact legislation to further infringe upon the right of the people to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property) in order to "save the planet"? Absolutely not.
For a bibically based political movement I find the association of happiness with property to be a dubious one.
If the problem really is a need to "save the planet" then it would be hard to hang on to the right to life if we failed.
The real problem is "saving the planet" isn't the issue. The planet will be perfectly happy with or without humans. The real problems is whether human effects on the environment will indeed impact the pursuit of life, liberty and the pusuit of happiness.
That doesn't require catestrophic effects on the environment. It merely needs to affect key US fertile growing areas to impact the US in a significantly negative manner. Even a little bit of change can impact the US economy in a long term fashion.
Those who are short sighted should take into account that when you are on the top of the food chain anything that may measuably affect the status quo is typically a "bad" thing that may result in someone else occupying the top of the food chain if the change is significant enough.