Americans Again Pick Environment Over Economic Growth.

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for Master_Live
#1 Posted by Master_Live (18817 posts) -

Partisan gap over priority largest recorded

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Look at the divide between Democrats and Republicans. I personally believe in a more balanced approach.

Avatar image for Serraph105
#2 Edited by Serraph105 (31898 posts) -

The massive drop off of republicans that care about the environment since late 2007 is incredibly stark.

Avatar image for AdamPA1006
#3 Posted by AdamPA1006 (6422 posts) -

People are sick, no other way to put it. Climate change has always happened since way before humans were around. Why should I prioritize my life and money to stopping something that has always happened for millions of years??

Avatar image for dave123321
#4 Edited by dave123321 (35333 posts) -

@AdamPA1006: who is denying that?

Avatar image for AdamPA1006
#5 Edited by AdamPA1006 (6422 posts) -

@dave123321: Denying what? Sorry I dont know what you are referring too.

Avatar image for Barbariser
#6 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -

The economy and environment aren't necessarily in conflict. Damage to the environment generates negative externalities (healthcare costs, resource consumption, land devaluation, .etc) that reduce economic growth, and in the long term an economy that guzzles less resources and produces less pollution will be more efficient and more able to sustain a high standard of living.

Avatar image for mattbbpl
#8 Posted by mattbbpl (14810 posts) -

@Barbariser said:

The economy and environment aren't necessarily in conflict. Damage to the environment generates negative externalities (healthcare costs, resource consumption, land devaluation, .etc) that reduce economic growth, and in the long term an economy that guzzles less resources and produces less pollution will be more efficient and more able to sustain a high standard of living.

True. Perhaps they're prioritizing short term economic growth over economic impact and long term economic stability. Or perhaps the question is simply phrased as a stark dichotomy.

It's hard to tell without digging into the wording of the poll.

Avatar image for LostProphetFLCL
#10 Posted by LostProphetFLCL (18526 posts) -

Of course the elderly are the ones who give the least of a shit about the environment. They don't have to stick around to deal with the long-term consequences of hurting the environment...

While I am not one who goes along with Gore's "OMG GLOBAL WARMING IS GOING TO KILL US ALL SOON!" theory, we cannot ignore our effect on the environment and need to make sure we take as good of care of the environment as is reasonably possible.

I really do not understand why people cannot see how important it is to preserve the planet we live on. Until we learn how to colonize another planet, Earth is the only planet we got and if we screw it up bad enough it could be the end of everything we love.

Not only that, but nature has a tendency to be inherently beautiful and I can't understand why people wouldn't want to keep that beauty around. We do not need to freaking build buildings on every square inch of the planet...

Avatar image for Barbariser
#11 Posted by Barbariser (6785 posts) -
@mattbbpl said:

@Barbariser said:

The economy and environment aren't necessarily in conflict. Damage to the environment generates negative externalities (healthcare costs, resource consumption, land devaluation, .etc) that reduce economic growth, and in the long term an economy that guzzles less resources and produces less pollution will be more efficient and more able to sustain a high standard of living.

True. Perhaps they're prioritizing short term economic growth over economic impact and long term economic stability. Or perhaps the question is simply phrased as a stark dichotomy.

It's hard to tell without digging into the wording of the poll.

They're probably just playing on the conventional wisdom that environmental regulations -> higher cost of production -> lower economic growth, which to be fair to them, is true to some extent. Also I'm sure Americans care a lot more about income growth in, say, the next ten years than in the next one hundred.

The graph is interesting because it shows that the environment tends to be prioritized less when the economy is recessed. This suggests that Americans are beginning to prioritize the environment again because they're more confident and optimistic about the economy's ability to handle these regulations.

Avatar image for HoolaHoopMan
#12 Posted by HoolaHoopMan (9403 posts) -

@Barbariser said:

The economy and environment aren't necessarily in conflict. Damage to the environment generates negative externalities (healthcare costs, resource consumption, land devaluation, .etc) that reduce economic growth, and in the long term an economy that guzzles less resources and produces less pollution will be more efficient and more able to sustain a high standard of living.

I would gather that a lot don't think long term. It takes industrial disasters, large in scale or in their own back yard, before many people start understanding the benefits of certain regulations.

Avatar image for vfibsux
#13 Posted by vfibsux (4497 posts) -

I agree with the foreigners here....Americans in general are fucking idiots.

Avatar image for dave123321
#14 Posted by dave123321 (35333 posts) -

@AdamPA1006: that climate change has been occurring throughout earths history. Prior to humans and all that.

Avatar image for dave123321
#15 Posted by dave123321 (35333 posts) -

Like who is denying that. It's brought up like there is some underlying point that people who support the idea that we are causing some significant and changeable negative impacts haven't considered.

Avatar image for ferrari2001
#16 Posted by ferrari2001 (17762 posts) -

While both are important issues, you really can't afford to combat the human contribution to climate change if you don't have a stable economy that can build an income base that will provide the funds necessary to pay for the things needed. Economy should without a doubt be the priority, otherwise you put people's well-being in immediate danger to combat climate change.

Avatar image for Guybrush_3
#17 Posted by Guybrush_3 (8308 posts) -

This is really a question of do you prioritize short term economic growth at the expense of long term economic growth or vice versa.

Avatar image for The-Apostle
#18 Posted by The-Apostle (12195 posts) -

lolmorons

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#19 Posted by comp_atkins (34393 posts) -

the groupings by age are not all that surprising. why give a shit about the environment if you're going to be dead in less than 20 years?

Avatar image for vl4d_l3nin
#20 Edited by vl4d_l3nin (1093 posts) -

I guess it's that licorice-flavoured water is West Virginia.

Avatar image for DaBrainz
#21 Posted by DaBrainz (7908 posts) -

It's all about keeping poor people poor and rich people rich through environmental policies.

Avatar image for comp_atkins
#22 Posted by comp_atkins (34393 posts) -

@vfibsux said:

I agree with the foreigners here....Americans in general are fucking idiots.

hurtful

Avatar image for bforrester420
#23 Posted by bforrester420 (3480 posts) -

You think the economy is bad now? Just wait until the coastal cities are under 10 feet of water.

Avatar image for bforrester420
#24 Posted by bforrester420 (3480 posts) -

@The-Apostle said:

lolmorons

Says the guy that believes there's an invisible parent figure watching and judging every action every human who has ever existed has ever performed. You are the expert on moronic thinking.