a question or two for the right

[billy.pilgrim]

would it have been better to have continued to allow the use of ddt (we'll save Freon for later) after we realized that it was killing our large bird populations, or was using government regulation the best response?

we could have had cheaper groceries but no eagles, owls, vultures, pelicans, and by now probably hawks,
but we, as responsible citizens, responded with our own government by eliminating the ddt threat through regulation and replacing this hazardous material through innovation

liberals did drag conservatives kicking and screaming into passing the various endangered species, environmental, air quality and pollution regulations that saved the big birds

please explain why it’s okay to destroy our environment? Feel free to compare the conservative’s support of ddt in the 1960s with today’s support for using up fossil fuels as fast as possible – no matter the cost

the truth was simple then
as it is now - at least according to actual scientists

[Vrede too]

... (we'll save Freon for later) ...

Talk about coincidence! I was just arguing elsewhere with someone that claims that the ozone hole was overblown hooey. So, I looked up rstrong, who I really miss.
http://www.blueridgedebate.com/forum/vi ... ion#p78366

An interesting related article just recently:

In Homo sapiens 200,000-year history, we know about several close shaves with extinction. One came 70,000 years back when the numbers of fertile Homo sapiens dropped to just 10,000. The cause may have been linked to the Toba supervolcanic eruption around this time (74,000 years) — the biggest eruption in 2.5 million years — which would have led to a volcanic winter enveloping the planet, possibly for centuries. Indeed, eruptions continued 15-20,000 years after the first blast according to recent research. However, the supereruption theory for H. sapiens population crash is disputed.

The second close shave is a little more recent and linked to our love of cold beer. In 1928, scientists created "safe" new chemicals for refrigerators and air conditioners — CFCs. But the first C in CFCs is an angry little element, chlorine. Apparently unbeknownst to the scientists and their corporate overlords, these chemicals had a vociferous appetite for ozone in the upper atmosphere. The ozone layer has protected life on Earth for billions of years. Without it, the sun's radiation would sterilise the surface. Even weakening this shield would lead to crop damage making our survival questionable even if we shovelled on the sun cream. When the ozone hole was discovered in the 1980s nations agreed to outlaw CFCs and disaster was averted.

If we had not noticed the growing hole, or decided to sit on the problem, humans would have run into a catastrophe more serious than warm beer by the end of this century. Worse, if chlorine had been swapped out for its angrier, less stable sister, bromine — an entirely logical choice that would have kept beer just as cool — then H sapiens demise may have been sooner than expected. Bromine's ozone killing properties make it almost one hundred times more dangerous than chlorine. By the 1970s there could have been a catastrophic ozone hole everywhere all year round according to Paul Crutzen who was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work on ozone.

So we were lucky we didn't go with bromine. And even then we were lucky we noticed AND acted, lucky the British and US Antarctic research stations existed and that the US Congress didn't turn anti-science a few decades earlier.

I know that CFCs are very bad, never thought of them as possibly extinction level bad. Thanks . . . I think.

Holy shit, y'all, and a good Sunday morning to you.
Perhaps it's a blessing that the world ends tomorrow.

[GoCubsGo]

Might be a question best served up to your friends at LNF.

[billy.pilgrim]

Might be a question best served up to your friends at LNF.

Same as cat, they wouldn't answer honestly if they answered at all.

[GoCubsGo]

Might be a question best served up to your friends at LNF.

Same as cat, they wouldn't answer honestly if they answered at all.

Of course not, but it would be amusing.

[billy.pilgrim]

maybe if it's up here where he can see it

[GoCubsGo]

maybe if it's up here where he can see it

Nice avatar, but if you're gonna go raccoon, you gotta go Rocket.

[bannination]

would it have been better to have continued to allow the use of ddt (we'll save Freon for later) after we realized that it was killing our large bird populations, or was using government regulation the best response?

we could have had cheaper groceries but no eagles, owls, vultures, pelicans, and by now probably hawks,
but we, as responsible citizens, responded with our own government by eliminating the ddt threat through regulation and replacing this hazardous material through innovation

liberals did drag conservatives kicking and screaming into passing the various endangered species, environmental, air quality and pollution regulations that saved the big birds

please explain why it’s okay to destroy our environment? Feel free to compare the conservative’s support of ddt in the 1960s with today’s support for using up fossil fuels as fast as possible – no matter the cost

the truth was simple then
as it is now - at least according to actual scientists

I've been around a right winger or two in my time, I'll try to answer for them.... the damage won't affect them in any meaningful way in their lifetime, and they don't give a fuck about anything else.

[billy.pilgrim]

maybe if it's up here where he can see it

Nice avatar, but if you're gonna go raccoon, you gotta go Rocket.

I'm trying to promote a softer Naturally more laid back Call Me the Breeze look as part of my trap.

[billy.pilgrim]

would it have been better to have continued to allow the use of ddt (we'll save Freon for later) after we realized that it was killing our large bird populations, or was using government regulation the best response?

we could have had cheaper groceries but no eagles, owls, vultures, pelicans, and by now probably hawks,
but we, as responsible citizens, responded with our own government by eliminating the ddt threat through regulation and replacing this hazardous material through innovation

liberals did drag conservatives kicking and screaming into passing the various endangered species, environmental, air quality and pollution regulations that saved the big birds

please explain why it’s okay to destroy our environment? Feel free to compare the conservative’s support of ddt in the 1960s with today’s support for using up fossil fuels as fast as possible – no matter the cost

the truth was simple then
as it is now - at least according to actual scientists

Come on cat. If you don't want to talk about the environment, how about why you bible thumpers play pick and choosie with Leviticus' Rules for Stone Age Sheepherders.