Republicans are now planning to kill the endangered species act

[The_Doctor]

Nixon founded the EPA but the Democrats in Congress are the people who actually originated the EPA. Not that I like it; I'd like to return to Teddy Roosevelt's pro-environmentalist leanings and Gov. Reagan's environmental record in CA.

[The_Doctor]

Nixon founded the EPA but the Democrats in Congress are the people who actually originated the EPA. Not that I like it; I'd like to return to Teddy Roosevelt's pro-environmentalist leanings and Gov. Reagan's environmental record in CA.

My point is that they weren't always this extreme.  What happened all of a sudden?  We're probably the only country in the world where one of the two major parties is so anti-environment and anti-science.

The GOP has been notably anti-environmentalist since the 1980s. The shift happened in 1976-1980, when the Reagan right took over the party, fueled by the Sagebrush Revolution. That's probably the big antecedent for the GOP's modern behavior.

Also, yeah, what ag said. I +1 his comment.

[The_Doctor]

1) This would be a terrible move, and I would love to see CONSERVatives adopt CONSERVation as won of their principles.  Protecting the environment should never, ever have been adopted as a strictly "liberal" position.

2) The GOP has historically pretty much done what business wanted it to do, so long as it didn't directly conflict with its moralist base, LOL.  Its environmental policy has not exactly followed a principled pattern.

3) Every five years, the threshold for when Republicans were "sane" gets bumped up five more years into the future, LOL.  In 80 years, Democrats will be talking about how Reagan was a liberal for his time because the Democratic Party of his day had two Senators from Alabama or some bullshlt like that, and they'll say Reagan would be a Democrat today.  You can make your case about the current GOP - an institution that I have as much issue with as most any Republican - without feeling the need to praise Republicans from history that still represented the basic conservative principles that you would take huge issue with.

This seems a reply to me.

I don't have as much of a problem with the basic conservative principles that exist during Nixon-Reagan, except of course, on the environment. I do think the GOP has been misguided on the environment dating to the 1980s. If you mean the environment, I do, yes, disagree strongly with the conservative premises there.  

I agree with #2. The GOP has always been a pro-business party since the 1860s.

[The_Doctor]

1) This would be a terrible move, and I would love to see CONSERVatives adopt CONSERVation as won of their principles.  Protecting the environment should never, ever have been adopted as a strictly "liberal" position.

2) The GOP has historically pretty much done what business wanted it to do, so long as it didn't directly conflict with its moralist base, LOL.  Its environmental policy has not exactly followed a principled pattern.

3) Every five years, the threshold for when Republicans were "sane" gets bumped up five more years into the future, LOL.  In 80 years, Democrats will be talking about how Reagan was a liberal for his time because the Democratic Party of his day had two Senators from Alabama or some bullshlt like that, and they'll say Reagan would be a Democrat today.  You can make your case about the current GOP - an institution that I have as much issue with as most any Republican - without feeling the need to praise Republicans from history that still represented the basic conservative principles that you would take huge issue with.

This seems a reply to me.

I don't have as much of a problem with the basic conservative principles that exist during Nixon-Reagan, except of course, on the environment. I do think the GOP has been misguided on the environment dating to the 1980s. If you mean the environment, I do, yes, disagree strongly with the conservative premises there.  

I agree with #2. The GOP has always been a pro-business party since the 1860s.

I guess parts of it might have been directed at you, but I'm guessing we agree on this.  After all, in my first point I made it clear that I think environmental protection should be a tenant of conservatism.

Ah, OK. My ideal Republican Party would institute a revenue neutral carbon tax that would send back revenues to the middle class and businesses that come under emissions guidelines (set by a scientific panel rather than Congress) in the form of a tax rebate. Much like the Washington GOP's carbon tax proposal that was voted on in 2016 (didn't pass, though).

I certainly don't want to save every environmentally endangered species or think that we should grind development to a halt in the process. But I think there's definitely market friendly policies that exist.

[The_Doctor]

1) This would be a terrible move, and I would love to see CONSERVatives adopt CONSERVation as won of their principles.  Protecting the environment should never, ever have been adopted as a strictly "liberal" position.

2) The GOP has historically pretty much done what business wanted it to do, so long as it didn't directly conflict with its moralist base, LOL.  Its environmental policy has not exactly followed a principled pattern.

3) Every five years, the threshold for when Republicans were "sane" gets bumped up five more years into the future, LOL.  In 80 years, Democrats will be talking about how Reagan was a liberal for his time because the Democratic Party of his day had two Senators from Alabama or some bullshlt like that, and they'll say Reagan would be a Democrat today.  You can make your case about the current GOP - an institution that I have as much issue with as most any Republican - without feeling the need to praise Republicans from history that still represented the basic conservative principles that you would take huge issue with.

This seems a reply to me.

I don't have as much of a problem with the basic conservative principles that exist during Nixon-Reagan, except of course, on the environment. I do think the GOP has been misguided on the environment dating to the 1980s. If you mean the environment, I do, yes, disagree strongly with the conservative premises there.  

I agree with #2. The GOP has always been a pro-business party since the 1860s.

I guess parts of it might have been directed at you, but I'm guessing we agree on this.  After all, in my first point I made it clear that I think environmental protection should be a tenant of conservatism.

Ah, OK. My ideal Republican Party would institute a revenue neutral carbon tax that would send back revenues to the middle class and businesses that come under emissions guidelines (set by a scientific panel rather than Congress) in the form of a tax rebate. Much like the Washington GOP's carbon tax proposal that was voted on in 2016 (didn't pass, though).

I certainly don't want to save every environmentally endangered species or think that we should grind development to a halt in the process. But I think there's definitely market friendly policies that exist.

I would be a big fan of this ... there are so many pro-business incentives that you could offer that would target environmental waste and avoid the stigma that environmental protection is this heavy-handed thing that is laid down by the government, with no private investment (but rather simply *following t he rules*).

Last post here. I agree. I'm not a fan of using government regulations to create environmentally friendly outcomes. It's also asinine. Mandating x or y is just grounds to create a bucket list of strange regulations that force everyone to fit a one size fits all. Encouraging environmentally good market outcomes that don't add to the state's financial coffers in the process is probably the best way to solve climate change and to protect the planet.

I believe there was one study that making salmon farmers in the New England region stakeholders in the farming of salmon made them more environmentally conscious and allowed them to keep it a profitable and yet environmentally conscious enterprise. I don't remember how they did this, but it's the example of the kind of environmental policies I wish Republicans would pursue instead of simply allowing the Democrats to just claim the issue to ram government down our throats in mandates.