Quantcast

Comments about ‘Letters: Environment 'conspiracy'’

Return to article »

Published: Thursday, April 18 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
ECR
Burke, VA

Excellent letter Mr. Weed. The idea that environmentalists are out to destroy the economy is ludicrous. How could that possibly help their cause. It is only with a strong economy that we can afford to do the necessary things to improve the environment and stop environmental sabatage that eventually costs all of us in terms of tax money for clean-up and a reduction in the livable environment. We are stewards of this good Earth and we have a moral obligation to leave it better than we found it. It is here for our use and benefit but that will only work if we treat it with respect and honor, not abuse and desecration.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

"The environmentally conscious people with whom I've interacted have no vested interest in hurting the economy"

One can make a reasoned argument that some of the climate change proposals could have a negative impact on the economy.

But, it is just absolutely ludicrous to think that "hurting the economy" is a goal.

People who further that notion lose all credibility.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

What are the jet streams that linger all day? Rummer has it that they're aluminum clorhydrate. Its suppose to build clouds and reflect heat from the sun.. Isn't aluminum clorhydrate what is believed to cause Alsimhimers disease.

george of the jungle
goshen, UT

Fluoridated water Is another conspiracy that is in our environment that is thought to cloud the brain. There is so many censer causing things that dis-ease is the only industry left.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

It's utterly amazing that so many journalists and others inundate us regularly with scare stories demanding that the United States take fierce anti-warming action while scarcely ever pausing to mention the possible futility of it all — or the cost
Those costs will get us if we don't fight back, and those saying so aren't just radio hosts of the kind that make leftists urge censorship. They are people like William Nordhaus, a Yale economist. He has calculated what would happen in the long haul if the world were to implement an anti-warming plan like Al Gore's and has some numbers to share: Costs would outweigh benefits by $21 trillion.
In the meantime, it sure is cold here today! And in many part of our country we are having unusually cold temperatures. Don't fall for this global warming hoax! Its all about money-taking yours (carbon taxes)!

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't doing whatever may be necessary for planet to continue to sustain life, especially human life, trump whatever "economic concerns" may arise?

Hint, with no life, there is no economy to worry about.

That being said, as the technology becomes more readily available, and less expensive, it would result in a net gain to the economy.

silo
Sandy, UT

@mountanman

How valuable are your posts? How truthful are your posts?

Many of us already apply the necessary 'filters' to your posts, but for the benefit of others, I'll simply offer this...

Your statement:
"[Nordhaus] has calculated what would happen in the long haul if the world were to implement an anti-warming plan like Al Gore's and has some numbers to share: Costs would outweigh benefits by $21 trillion"

The actual summary of Nordhaus work:
"Nordhaus’s optimal plan yields net benefits of approximately $3 trillion. Yet some of the other popular proposals have abatement costs that exceed their benefits. The worst is Gore’s 2007 proposal to reduce CO2 emissions 90 percent by 2050; DICE 2007 estimated that Gore’s plan would make the world more than $21 trillion poorer..."

So the most poorly design proposal costs money, but the best designed plan actually saves money. Funny you didn't mention the one that saves money. Why is that?

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

When people drive around all winter in their SUV’s with a ski rack on top – do they consciously intend to create more air pollution in Salt Lake – NO – they intend to go skiing and have a fun day.
Simply because environmental hysterics do not intend to ruin the economy does not mean their actions cannot do so
The road to hell is paved with good intentions

Climate has never not changed
Hysteria seldom results in good
Greenwash is not productive

jjjdsd
CENTERVILLE, UT

"Please correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't doing whatever may be necessary for planet to continue to sustain life, especially human life, trump whatever "economic concerns" may arise?" Human life is such a small fraction of living creatures on this earth that have come and gone, why should human life trump. Evolution says human life will wink out and other life will be created. Humans on their own have not the ability to destroy all life. If you don't believe in a god that has his hand in it then you have no business trying to be that god. Cleaning up pollution is a truly admirable action. But claiming conditions that existed at the time humans came into being, is pollution is just plain wrong. The earth returning to that same state is not bad.

Ernest T. Bass
Bountiful, UT

The amazing thing about humans is our ability to make changes to how we live. We can recognize there needs to be change and we're capable of making a living in some other way.
I simply don't get why people don't consider future generations when it comes to environmental causes. The concept of using every resource as rapidly as possible makes no sense.
"Drill baby Drill" will do nothing but hurt future economies and generations.

Grover
Salt Lake City, UT

The conversation about the left trying to ruin the economy and the right being uncaring about the environment we leave our children as usual is off the point. The real conversation is about the opportunity cost of doing something or not doing it. Let's say for this point that the science in undecided at this point, but the argument is complicated by the possibility that not doing something now, makes action in the future much more expensive or even impossible. This could be paraphrased as "pay me now or pay me later". There has to be a certain amount that is worth spending now to minimize the chance that there could be catastrophe later. The non partisan brain would I believe arrive at this conclusion rationally, but instead we let ourselves be tossed back and forth by claims of certainty from the right and left on a question that no one has a clear cut answer to.

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

Mountanman,

While I often disagree with you, I believe that many are your arguments have merit.

But, oftentimes, it would appear that you intentionally mislead, use erroneous or incomplete information or take things completely out of context in order to bolster your point.

Why not be honest and forthcoming? Are you arguments so weak that you feel the need to mislead?
Do you feel that the truth does not make your point? Is the truth just not sensational enough?

Your summary above is misleading at best, telling only the worst case scenario.

You completely lose credibility.

Thanks to Silo for posting the ACTUAL unedited summary which tells a very different story than the one Mtnman has suggested.

Lastly, you post "In the meantime, it sure is cold here today!"

That is called weather. Longer term pattern are called climate.
To my point above, you use a days weather to bolster your point. But, I am sure that even you know that today's temperature is irrelevant to the discussion.

But you use it anyway.

procuradorfiscal
Tooele, UT

Re: "The environmentally conscious people with whom I've interacted have no vested interest in hurting the economy."

Hmmmm.

So why is it the "green" movement defies the bell curve, with EVERY one of their initiatives more than two standard deviations from the norm on the harm-to-economy scale?

And, why is it that they are so willing to commit and expend such vast sums of national treasure on untried, untested, not-ready-for-primetime enterprises that have such an appallingly poor track record of benefitting either the environment or the economy?

And, why is it that the "green" movement is peopled primarily by redistributive socialists, many of them retreads from 60's-era anti-everything movements?

Seems to me they're not being entirely forthcoming about their vested interests.

Informed Voter
South Jordan, UT

Those who think environmentalists are not out to hurt the economy have never deal with the zealots in government and nonprofit organizations who have hijacked the movement. Speaking against "saving the earth devotees" is like condemning motherhood and apple pie. Everyone wants help the earth, but most people fail to recognize that too many in regulatory or lobbying positions have a far more deceptive motive than what most people think the cause is all about.

Counter Intelligence
Salt Lake City, UT

Grover
You said it well
I will gladly "pay now" for real; just not for overwrought zeal

JoeBlow
Many of your comments to Mountainman are those that I have often thought about your posts
Perhaps that is the price of a 200 word limit - complicated issues do not fit into a sound bite

Darrel
Eagle Mountain, UT

@jjjdsd

"Human life is such a small fraction of living creatures on this earth that have come and gone, why should human life trump."

You are right, we are a small fraction, but no other life form has had as deep impact on the Earth as we have. No other form of life has contributed as much to the climate crisis as we have.

"Evolution says human life will wink out and other life will be created. Humans on their own have not the ability to destroy all life."

We have no evidence that Evolution, until humanity has created another sentient species, which is why we have survived (we certainly are not the biggest, fastest or strongest) We do have the ability to destroy life with our incredible nuclear arsenals.

"If you don't believe in a god that has his hand in it then you have no business trying to be that god."

I really hope you are not trying to imply that the existance of a Creator gives us a free pass. I believe this world was a gift from Him to us, and he will expect an accountability from us for how we treat our mortal home.

Mountanman
Hayden, ID

@ Silo. You conveniently left out and misquoted Nordhaus' conclusions. I didn't say he didn't believe in man made global warming but I did accurately quote his conclusion that the cost of implementing the "changes" would outweigh the benefits by a cost of $26 trillion. Whether you believe in man made global warming or not if you don't get the Chinese and the East Indians to comply, nothing we do will matter anyway! We will be wasting our time and precious economy. In the meantime the reason I post on here is to "filter" the baloney coming from the left as much as I can. It would appear my side is winning because fewer people everyday are buying this man made global warming hoax. 50 years from now, when the climate has varied cooler, as it is now, rabid environmentalists will still be using junk science and hysteria to promote some other silly theory and wanting more money. And yes, we are having a colder than normal spring over much of the country. If it were warmer than normal, I guarantee it would be presented as "proof" that the climate is in danger!

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Simple question to you repubs...

If cap and trade was proposed by YOUR party and sponsored by YOUR President (daddy Bush) and was looked at as a viable option to aid in man influenced global warming then why is it looked at as a socialist, unconstitutional, and evil liberal proposal now?

What has changed?

I'm sure that the "campaign contributions" from Energy Solutions, Exxon Mobile, and the Koch Bros has had no influence upon your elected officials (like Michael Lee).

JoeBlow
Far East USA, SC

@Counter.

"Many of your comments to Mountainman are those that I have often thought about your posts"

Sorry you feel that way. My intention is never to mislead, intentionally or not. When I post what I call facts, I research them. I look for reasonable sources and I list them.

Much of the time, I do post information supporting only one side of the argument, but that is because the other side has already been presented.

I certainly have opinions, and they are just that. But, when I substantiate my positions with facts, they are researched.

Don't know if you notice but I constantly reveal that I think both R and D are to blame for our problems. Both R and D increase our debt. Both R and D have moral failings.

That gets me labeled as a liberal as no real "conservative" would point out GOP failings.

I seldom defend the Dems. But I do combat those who seem to think the GOP does no wrong.

Recently MM blasted LBJ for raiding SS. I pointed out that the R and D have consistently done that.

MM's comment on that was partisan. Was mine?

See the difference?

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Matthew Weed" it isn't a conspiracy. See the movie "Cool It". That is a documentary made by some liberal economists where they look at the legislation being proposed and what the politicians want to do and come to realize that economically the politicians plans are a failure.

So, if the politicians are proposing plans that economically are a failure, what would you call it? Do failed economic policies help or damage the economy?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments