Nebfanatic
New member
It's easy to understand, Fru. The well being of the planet costs them money right now while depleting the planet of all of its resources and safeguards makes money.
The Environment
- Thread starter Mierin
- Start date
F
Fru
Guest
Yeah, I get why the 1% have utter disdain for the planet and all of it's inhabitants.
It's the GOPer that earns $35k a year that goes along with it is what I don't understand.
It's the GOPer that earns $35k a year that goes along with it is what I don't understand.
BigRedBuster
Active member
This post is full of BS.
Income doesn't have anything to do with if someone is predestined to not support environmentalism.
There are many many many 1%ers that support environmental causes. They have the income to donate to them and they also have the income to pay for more expensive services where the expense is caused by environmental actions.
On the flip side, there are one hell of a lot of people in that $35k income range that have lose their jobs or have been hurt financially due to environmental activism. The coal minors are a prime example.
teachercd
Active member
Yep and Yep.
And I would add to it that a lot of people do care about the environment but that for a lot of people recycling is really the only way they either care or know how to help.
zoogs
New member
This seems like a statement that begs evidence, not anecdotal support. Not anything?
I would agree that party lines are the strongest correlation.
Nonetheless, I think the argument in principle is sound. Some big moneyed interests drive climate science denial. To sustain their movement, they (somehow) have convinced large numbers of the poor and less wealthy to go along with it. You could swap this out with any number of GOP agenda items, really -- from upward wealth transfer to healthcare.
Last edited by a moderator:
Kiyoat Husker
New member
In the late 60's and early 70's there was a great deal of support for having our government protect us citizens from dangerous pollution and unregulated industrial activities. The Clean Air Act / Clean Water Act / Endangered Species Act were the end result. These laws have literally saved countless human lives and prevented the extinction of many species, but we have become spoiled and complacent, taking these protections for granted.
Now, it seems, many Americans would love to see the EPA get scaled back or even go away. They have been brainwashed by special interests, and the principle of "the government can't tell me what to do" like a spoiled teenager.
My fear is that it will be too late by the time we re-discover the horrors of widespread pollution that causes many kinds of cancer and other diseases.
Now, it seems, many Americans would love to see the EPA get scaled back or even go away. They have been brainwashed by special interests, and the principle of "the government can't tell me what to do" like a spoiled teenager.
My fear is that it will be too late by the time we re-discover the horrors of widespread pollution that causes many kinds of cancer and other diseases.
Kiyoat Husker
New member
Some of it is just simple contrarianism, IMO. My father-in-law is a Corn & Beans farmer here in SD. He has had so many contentious interactions with the NRCS and the soil conservation officers that he has become extremely anti-wetland and anti-environment.
He will find any way possible to drain wetlands, remove stream channels, employ conventional tilling and spray the crap out of every square inch of the world. (and not get it trouble) Not because of the potential financial gain, but more out of spite. At this point there is no reasoning with him about cost-benefit or land stewardship, or even protecting the integrity of the soil and water for his family and neighbors. He is too set in his hate. Conservative rhetoric only reinforces his hate.
I'm not blaming the NRCS or soil conservation guys. I just think that for some people, the more regulated things are, the more they will fight it, just because. I don't know the solution, but I do like organizations like The Nature Conservancy that try to create voluntary programs that benefit the land owner rather than just penalize them.
He will find any way possible to drain wetlands, remove stream channels, employ conventional tilling and spray the crap out of every square inch of the world. (and not get it trouble) Not because of the potential financial gain, but more out of spite. At this point there is no reasoning with him about cost-benefit or land stewardship, or even protecting the integrity of the soil and water for his family and neighbors. He is too set in his hate. Conservative rhetoric only reinforces his hate.
I'm not blaming the NRCS or soil conservation guys. I just think that for some people, the more regulated things are, the more they will fight it, just because. I don't know the solution, but I do like organizations like The Nature Conservancy that try to create voluntary programs that benefit the land owner rather than just penalize them.
F
Fru
Guest
Of course income doesn't ultimately determine whether or not you support the environment. Are there people at the top that support environmental causes? Of course. RFK Jr leads the fight on many clean water projects. Are there people at the top that show an utter contempt for the environment? You betcha.
My point was, I can understand why a zillionaire, let's say an oil exec for example, would be against environmental causes. What I don't understand is why someone without that kind of financial interest (like the fine folks in the video in post 253... pretty much exhibit A for who I'm talking about) would hold such contempt for the environment.
Nebfanatic
New member
Ignorance. Most of those people have no clue about the issue they just know whatever Trump does will make America great again. Clearly the Paris deal is bad and just costs America money, which in turn will be passed on to the citizens according to Trump therefore it is fact
BigRedBuster
Active member
Income doesn't matter. It's not just the "Oil exec". It's people all the way down through the oil company.
Your post was BS because proclaimed that somehow these evil rich people have all these motivations to want to destroy the Earth when their income doesn't have anything to do with it.
BigRedBuster
Active member
Big money is on both sides of this issue. Claiming big money is on the side of climate science denial while ignoring the money on the other side is not being honest.
I responded to a blanket statement thrown out with specific examples of why people in the various income ranges support various sides.....and you are asking me for more evidence?
zoogs
New member
You're really sensitive to this "evil rich person" thing.
In this conversation we can hopefully all admit the financial incentives that exist: the wealthier are both more shielded from the effects and stand more to gain from a lack of new policies, taxes, regulations, etc.
In my admittedly very brief review of this topic, I'd offer up the wholly unsurprising thesis that higher education ~ more climate change awareness, and low income is correlated with low education. Thus, the public denialism/contrarian campaigns (which clearly do have economic incentives in mind) will find easier targets among less educated people. However, again, the most meaningful correlation is with party. So party identification seems to predict susceptibility to this BS better than anything else, and that goes for both more and less educated Republicans. Rick Perry, for example, has a STEM B.S. degree, which would count him among the "educated" by most polls.
It also says "the 1%", which, you're right to point it's not the entire 1%, and I think Fru clarified that he doesn't argue that. (See above). So, I do see now where you're coming from: to say the entire 1% disdains the earth is indeed a grossly unfair broad brush.
My request for more evidence is just this: you make the competing statement that income has nothing to do with which side you're on here. I'm wondering how certain we can be of that. I understand a lot of wealthy Democrats are fighting hard for climate action. I wouldn't be surprised to see income levels play some role -- perhaps within each party? I wonder if that has been studied at all.
In this conversation we can hopefully all admit the financial incentives that exist: the wealthier are both more shielded from the effects and stand more to gain from a lack of new policies, taxes, regulations, etc.
In my admittedly very brief review of this topic, I'd offer up the wholly unsurprising thesis that higher education ~ more climate change awareness, and low income is correlated with low education. Thus, the public denialism/contrarian campaigns (which clearly do have economic incentives in mind) will find easier targets among less educated people. However, again, the most meaningful correlation is with party. So party identification seems to predict susceptibility to this BS better than anything else, and that goes for both more and less educated Republicans. Rick Perry, for example, has a STEM B.S. degree, which would count him among the "educated" by most polls.
This isn't the conversation, as I understand it. The conversation is "I understand why a rich respond to financial incentives. I don't understand why the poor fight for those same incentives that they'd never get to see." Actually, the original post specifically states "poor GOPer".
It also says "the 1%", which, you're right to point it's not the entire 1%, and I think Fru clarified that he doesn't argue that. (See above). So, I do see now where you're coming from: to say the entire 1% disdains the earth is indeed a grossly unfair broad brush.
My request for more evidence is just this: you make the competing statement that income has nothing to do with which side you're on here. I'm wondering how certain we can be of that. I understand a lot of wealthy Democrats are fighting hard for climate action. I wouldn't be surprised to see income levels play some role -- perhaps within each party? I wonder if that has been studied at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
F
Fru
Guest
You really have a hair trigger for the "evil rich person" thing don't you?
It's no secret that the GOP puts financial interests above environmental interests. Explain to me why anyone in that video posted in 253 should be on the same side as an oil exec. What's the payoff for both of them by saying eff the environment? The oil exec gets millions more in his bank account. What does Randy the welder get?