From solveclimate.com and staceff, “On the one side of the ocean, you have the Democrats, who have built substantive platforms that add up to US energy independence and solutions to climate change. On the other, you have the Republican candidates, whose plans begin and end with business-as-usual.”
Technorati Tags:politics of environmentalism, republican and democratic platforms, opinion, green, environment, conservation, energy conservation, alternative fuels, activism, global warming
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator
A practical solar solution:
Subscribe by mobile device
Chemistry for a Sustainable World
-
Recent Comments
Find Solar Installers, Tax Information and more:
To subscribe to my RSS feed, click here:
Click here to subscribe by email:
-
-
If you search the web, blog or have an online business you might want to check out Squidoo (free membership, lots of resources) 
Feed from Green site Hugg- An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
- My fiction blog
- White Bird Black Bird, Epic Novel of the Rights of Native Canadians vs. the Development of Oil and Gas Resources
- Magdalen Nabb and Thomas Perry: mystery-thriller writers from different worlds
- Palace Council by Stephen L. Carter
- See the Blog Crime Fiction by Author Leigh Russell
- Detective Fiction Set in Laos, Australia and Spain
-
-
My Flickr Photos
More Photos
January 5, 2008 at 12:44 pm
It appears to me that, as usual, there is some confusion on the differences between Republicans and Democrats on the part of the author of the referenced article. At the danger of making too broad a statement, the greatest difference isn’t one of recognizing problems, it is one of how to approach solutions to those problems. Democrats typically believe that government regulation and spending are the only solution while Republicans typically believe that free enterprise and individual initiative are much more efficient problem solvers.
January 5, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Perhaps, but the author says in later text of the same article, “So there’s plenty to be hopeful for in the GOP on the climate issue, just not with any of the frontrunner candidates for President of the United States.” So, I think that there is little generalization here regarding Republicans, just specific opinions about the GOP candidates likely to win the nomination, who are clearly differentiated from the GOP as a whole by the author.
Not that I agree with the author, entirely, either. The article is a discussion point, and I appreciate your taking the time to provide comments.
For example, Republicans are responsible for huge tax cuts related to corn ethanol production. However, some Democrats are also strongly in favor of these (espcially while they are in Iowa). As discussed in a variety of places, this kind of ethanol program is socialism for big agri-business (and small farmers) and is nothing but harmful to the environment, even though it is presented as “environmentalism”.
Personally, I have nothing against a little socialism. I just don’t think it should be directed to the GOP’s wealthy friends or at fundamentally and economcally flawed programs, and I don’t like the hypocrisy shown when socialized “social” programs, like medicine, are branded evil and un-American by the same people who allow no-bid contracts to their friends in the defense business and who ship out buckets of tax dollars that just “go up in smoke” through the corn-ethanol subsidies.
That is not to say that either side has a monopoly on hypocrisy, unfortunately. I wish there were more to separate the political parties than there is. Best wishes, Jim