Logan City votes with Al Gore and other Left Wing nuts > Logan Utah, Cache Valley, Bridgerland, Local Community Forums, News and Information > Bridgerland, Logan Utah, Cache Valley Utah

Unanswered Active Topics

Forums Search Members

Forums > Public Policy > The City of Logan & Cache County

Subject: Logan City votes with Al Gore and other Left Wing nuts

Prev Next

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 2

Author

Messages

nonleft
Posts:123

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

03/24/2007 9:52 AM
I'm wondering when they became so enviro crazy around here. They had all these environ Mentalists present information to them. Utah State University had their say, why didn't the average person get any say? It seems like the environ Mentalists shape policy for Logan city and Cache County. Of course, we allow our leaders in this state to appease these groups by trying to be nice and standing down. The health department thinks they have greater power than Deity. Utah State University is use to getting anything they ask for. We have a problem in Utah where people who are in power forget that we live in the USA and that we have personal freedoms. They also forget that the public play the top roll in setting policy. In this situation, the public wants lower power costs driven by a free market system not a government owned system! We also want deregulation by all these Government groups, not additional regulation based on junk science, the UN, Al Gore and all the left wing Universities.

Debator
Posts:47

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/09/2007 12:47 PM
Nonleft, if the government doesn't act to prevent private property owners from polluting the environment, how do you suggest we prevent it? Assuming that Global Warming is junk science, how should Logan City deal with other issues like air and water pollution? What if I own a cabin on the south shore of Bear Lake and Garden City keeps dumping human waste into the lake which then washes up on my beach? What power do I have to force Garden City into an agreement under the free market system? To me, it seems that the only solution to environment problems is to allow the government to act for us through our elected officials.

ineffable
Posts:8

New User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/10/2007 10:24 AM
wow... enviro-crazy? Appeasing left-wing groups? An infringement on personal freedoms? What are you smoking? Oh yeah... coal. I'm sorry, but polluting and raping the planet is not a right. You're pissed off about the coal plant being voted down because you're concerned that you might have to pay a little bit more on your electric bill. Boo hoo. There are more important things than money. Like public health. You seem to be unaware that northern utah is a series of MOUNTAINS and VALLEYS. Air pollution tends to get trapped here. Or do you already not remember winter inversions? One of the appeals of utah is that it is wild, it has tremendous natural beauty. Clean air should be a part of that. We don't want to have air quality like Los Angeles- where one out of eight (non-smoking) residents (between 18-25) have lesions inside their lungs. Regardless of your belief or nonbelief in global warming, this was the right call. By the way... junk science? The only scientists who doubt the reality of global warming are in the payrolls of Exxon-Mobil, a company which pours tens of millions of dollars each year into junk science, because, let's face it, when you're an oil company... the truth is very, very bad for business.

nonleft
Posts:123

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/11/2007 8:54 AM
All I can say in response is that the bad air around here is mostly natural occurring. I have lived here for 30 years. Every year is about the same when it comes to the pollution. The roll we play in adding to that pollution is so small! The one thing you forget is that people have to continue to live. There are many liberal, UN style naturalists who think we should go back to the ice age when it comes to our living style. They feel that nature should have more rights than Humans. You imply that I’m selfish because I don’t want to pay higher energy costs. I’m sorry for actually standing up for myself! I will continue to stand up for myself!!! Any normal person would! You say that public health is more important? Ok, well why don’t you tell your hypocritical tree hugging hero’s over at the Health Department and Logan City to quit the mosquito spraying. They moan and groan all winter about BS 2.5 yet they spray/fog the he** out of us with highly toxic chemicals which kill wildlife, make humans very sick and even kill people who have bad immune systems, asthma and congestive heart failure. These chemicals are also scientifically known to cause cancer. Speaking of hypocrites, do you really believe that those people who constantly talk about global warming and bad air actually practice what they proclaim? No! They make $300,000+ yearly government salaries at our expense. They fly in private jets, drive government owned SUV’s, live in multi million dollar houses that require more energy than 50 normal houses considered to be too big by the same loony left people who live in the bigger houses and make the laws they find loopholes to violate themselves. Now we have “carbon offsets” which is a load of crap! People like Al Gore, the Kennedy’s USU professors, Democrats in general, Health Department Officials, Logan City personal, BRAG and many more tell us we should move out of our big houses, quit driving automobiles, quit flying, stop burning wood burning stoves and move into small little government owned, socialist/European style apartments in the city only. Would they do these things themselves? No! All the above mentioned liberals love Europe and want to force Americans to live the same way. My personal favorite loony left idea from Europe now is to force people to get a permit for $500 per season in order to have a BBQ on their own grill in their own back yard. Don’t put this one past Logan City, Cache County or Bear River Health Department. As crazy and power hungry as they are, they could consider this one next! The fact is that we live in America! We like our freedoms! People will continue to burn fires, drive their cars and SUV’s, go boating, snowmobiling, and building houses we want and so on! I’m for doing things as clean as I can. I don’t try to pollute the environment. Do not lecture me on the environment and the so called goodness of the wackos who come up with all this crap! It is very clear that I’m not going to agree with you and you won’t agree with me. This will most likely be the case with anyone on ether side of the debate. What Logan City has done is to cut off an additional power source and hope some USU liberal will spend our Tax dollars finding out an alternative source of energy before the people are out of power and paying through the roof at the same time. What they should have done was to sign onto it with the agreement of cutting it off when a viable source I might underline is found. The people as usual will be the ones to get double screwed here. Make no mistake about it, those council members won’t make it to the next term! They will be voted out! I will do everything I can do to make sure of it along with many others!

Debator
Posts:47

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/11/2007 11:22 AM
Nonleft, You make a very passionate argument - I assume that it was in response to ineffable's comments. While I appreciate the intensity you both seem to feel for this issue, I believe that a more intelligent debate can be had by refraining from personal attacks and straw man arguments (This applies to ineffable as well, so don't take it personally - that's not my intent.). Ineffable's position aside, how do you respond to my questions about the free market being unable to solve certain environmental problems? Or are you only concerned about people using air quality and global warming as reasons for enacting environmental legislation? Nevertheless, I will respond to the argument that I think you are making. It appears that your argument is that people should still be allowed to do what they want, independent of the consequences to others because it is within our personal freedom to do so. First, your position seems to have no limits. How far can I go in exercising my personal freedom while interfering with yours before the government should step in to stop it? If I open a sulfur processing plant that is both pungent and releases deadly toxins into the air and water, is that enough to justify government intervention? What if I just start raising cobras on my property, is that enough to justify government intervention? It seems to me that personal freedom has limits set where actions infringe on the freedoms and rights of others. I will concede that my position does also seem limitless the other way, I believe that certain bounds can be set by way of a constitution or other laws which will define how far a citizen may go before she infringes on the rights of another. Second, you don't seem to provide any solution to the environmental problems that I posed in my comment above. While I am grateful that you do what you think is best for the environment, I still see many others who do not show the same courtesy (this includes hypocrites like those you indicte above). It is hard for me to see how absent government intervention, we as humans will be able to stop the rapid depletion of our natural resources and beautiful wilderness. Third, as for the issue of global warming, I will assume for the moment that it is junk science. Nevertheless, I believe that adopting a more pro-environment policy is good for the country. If we reduce the amount of oil our cars consume, the less we will be dependent on oil from countries that hate us (many of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian; the President of Venezuela referred to our president as Satan). Furthermore, we have a responsibility to our children to give them a world that is better than the one we received. I personally very much enjoy being outside and in nature, but when air pollution is so bad that my doctor has recommended that I stay inside, I lose that enjoyment. Why don't we want to try to create a world that has cleaner air and water, more forests, and cheaper-running cars? Not only that, but our fossil fuels (coal, oil) will run out eventually. So, why not preempt that problem by creating alternative sources of energy now, before the crisis? Finally, if the actions of the City Council were a violation of personal freedoms, as you suggest in your initial post, why don't you bring a citizen's lawsuit against the ordinance in addition to posting your thoughts here? There are more ways than one to protect our freedoms.

ineffable
Posts:8

New User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/11/2007 11:27 AM
you know what? I was posting that last thing to try and make you think, but... nevermind. Go ahead. Keep denouncing those left wingers, those Professors and the University. Keep your anti-knowledge slant. Keep listening to Sean Hannity like he's some kind of prophet (the only way he's ever won a debate is by being louder than his opponent, and just plain shouting them down till he thinks he's won). Keep watching FOX news. Keep raping the planet that gave you life. Go ahead. Keep worshipping that elephant as he rampages and destroys EVERYTHING THIS COUNTRY ORIGINALLY STOOD FOR. You're too dogmatic in your thinking to do anything else. And when this Empire crumbles under the weight of it's own arrogance, because of the needless wars it wages to appease it's corperate sponsers (see EVERY war since world war II, for example), and the incompetence of it's foreign and domestic policy, I will be there. To say I told you so. Because if this country keeps heading in the direction the GOP has pointed it in, it will fall. If you don't believe me, then, well... read about Rome, about Egypt, about any empire that ever was. That is where we are going if we don't change. It's the law of nature-adapt or die. Which option seems better to you?

Debator
Posts:47

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/11/2007 11:27 AM
I have one last question. Do you have any examples of elected officials (other than the President) making $300,000+ a year in salary? Even if you count in benefits, I can't think of any elected or appointed official (again, other than the President) who makes that much nor can I think of anyone (other than the President, Vice President, Ambassadors and Governors) who live in multi-million dollar houses at the expense of the government. As far I have been able to research, every member of Congress that owns a house that expensive purchased it with funds acquired through private activities. Again, if you have any examples of such pompous living, I'd like to see them so that we can bring them to the attention of the press.

unfettered_kittens
Posts:26

Junior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/11/2007 5:30 PM
What about acid rain in the 80's and 90's. What happened to that? It was scare tactics then and new scare tactics now. Logan got suckered into it all!

Debator
Posts:47

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/11/2007 7:14 PM
UK - the reason acid rain is no longer such a big a problem is because in 1990, Congress passed the Clean Air Act which reduced emissions of acid-causing chemicals by 40% by the year 2000. http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/peg_caa/pegcaa05.html. It's still a huge problem in other countries (like Chile and China). Acid rain is not mere "scare tactics" but a real problem that is being solved by government intervention.

unfettered_kittens
Posts:26

Junior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/11/2007 8:49 PM
Posted By Debator on 04/11/2007 7:14 PM "in 1990, Congress passed the Clean Air Act which reduced emissions of acid-causing chemicals by 40% by the year 2000." "but a real problem that is being solved by government intervention." So Clinton and the Democrats are the answer to our problems then? Big/more government is the answer?

Debator
Posts:47

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/12/2007 6:46 AM
Actually, the Clean Air Act was passed by a Democratically controlled congress and signed by President Bush I. (Bill Clinton wasn't elected until 1992 and didn't take office until 1993.) And yes, in this case, big/more government was the answer. We have a federal government to regulate things that people won't regulate on their own. Since businesses weren't taking the steps necessary to reduce emissions of harmful chemicals, the government had to step in where the market failed. If you read the link in my last post, you can see that the Clean Air Act is actually one of the (if not the) most successful and universally applauded pieces of environmental legislation. It is successful, requires little government intervention and is relatively flexible in how businesses want to comply. While the Act is bigger government (some oversight is necessary), it's just as appropriate here as it would be for monitoring the hiring of illegal aliens, ensuring safe working conditions, or monitoring the safety of our food.

Gunrights
Posts:672

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

Intergalactic Multi Phase Dementsion

04/13/2007 11:26 AM
Those who claim only stooges of the oil and gas industry counter anthropomorphic global warming are simply lying! or have been brain washed! Show me any evidence that this is so. There are tens of thousands of reputed scientists who disagree about the claims made by Mr. Gore and company. I would be happy to debate anyone regarding this issue.

Debator
Posts:47

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/16/2007 12:22 PM
Gunrights, even if global warming is junk science, how do you respond to my arguments that we should nevertheless adopt pro-environment legislation because it is good public policy? To me, it seems that we should be working hard to reduce our use of petroleum, coal, and other types of air and water pollution for non-environmental reasons. For instance, by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, we decrease our reliance on some of the more unstable oil-rich countries of the world. Also, by reducing air pollution, we decrease the instances of asthma hospitalization, thereby driving down insurance costs while providing everyone with a more beautiful vista. Utah's biggest draw for the rest of the country is its natural beauty. When we pollute and obscure that beauty, we are destroying one of our most valuable resources.

nonleft
Posts:123

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/18/2007 10:03 PM
Posted By Debator on 04/16/2007 12:22 PM Gunrights, even if global warming is junk science, how do you respond to my arguments that we should nevertheless adopt pro-environment legislation because it is good public policy? To me, it seems that we should be working hard to reduce our use of petroleum, coal, and other types of air and water pollution for non-environmental reasons. For instance, by reducing our dependence on foreign oil, we decrease our reliance on some of the more unstable oil-rich countries of the world. Also, by reducing air pollution, we decrease the instances of asthma hospitalization, thereby driving down insurance costs while providing everyone with a more beautiful vista. Utah's biggest draw for the rest of the country is its natural beauty. When we pollute and obscure that beauty, we are destroying one of our most valuable resources. Yes, it is good to find other sources for future energy. You don't have to tell me that burning petroleum is old school. There has to be a better way out there that would provide unlimited energy and be clean. We don't have give into alarmist’s theories and live in the ice ages until then. This is my argument. The economy is also very important. Just because some people who happen to have a degree or two say that life as we know it will be gone if we don't stop driving cars say so doesn't mean its true. This is their opinion. These are also the same people who don't believe in a God. Most of these Earth Liberation Front (Terrorists) and other international extreme enviro organizations have other agendas. They would like to destroy our countries power, wealth and freedoms.

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/22/2007 8:14 PM
This is my problem with the global warming thing. Do I believe the science? No, there are too many problems with it. But the more important question is why would global warming be such an issue? By the way, 20 years ago global cooling was the big scare. Who stands to profit by this? I believe that this is really just a push to global government. Why? What is the solution offered by the globalists? It is a global tax. World bodies do not have the power right now to tax people directly and can only be funded by members of the said groups. Now if there is a good reason for a global tax doesn't this sound like a logical one? Look at the history of taxes. It starts with something small and then grows. What was the original ceiling for the income tax? Now, what would this tax be used for? I am against world governments as they seek to take away the sovereignty of the nations involved. I believe that our Constitution was given to us by our Creator and do not want to trade it for a king. On the other hand, I strongly believe that we need to preserve our environment. It does not seem that the government has done a good job at all with the exception of regulating emissions.

Sound1
Posts:27

Junior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/25/2007 12:01 AM
mulhollandj - I have not had the opportunity to do much research on the subject of global warming, but I tend to agree with your view on this.

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/25/2007 8:49 AM
Read what the JBS has to say about it. http://jbs.org/search/node/global+warming

Debator
Posts:47

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/26/2007 2:20 PM
As to nonleft's point about giving in to alarmists: I don't think that the theory of global warming is only supported by a few scientists "with a degree or two", but is building a consensus among the scientific community. Nevertheless, I contend that we should do exactly what you say, we should take a hit in our standard of living so that current problems are solved while we continue working towards cleaner energy. Air and water pollution are huge problems in Utah that should be addressed now, not in 10 or 20 or 50 years when we develop cleaner energy. I do not want my children to grow up not knowing what mountains look like because they are blocked by the haze in Utah. The fact that we do suffer more from inversions than other locations makes it even more important that we address these problems, and soon. As to mulhollandj's point about world government: Aside from the alarmist view you take, I take issue with your conclusion. You agree that we have a duty to take care of the environment, (I contend that it's a matter of stewardship), but I do not see any way to do it without international cooperation. If Canada decides to start dumping nuclear waste into any of the Great Lakes, it will have profound consequences for the United States. If Mexico City dumps millions of tons of sulfuric acid into the air and it gets dumped into the Gulf of Mexico, US fishing, tourism, and quality of life wil all suffer. If global warming is a problem, it doesn't matter where the polluter is, it hurts everyone. That being said, the solution does not, and will not be linked to a tax. Trading credits, voluntary reductions in emissions, international cooperative agreements (Kyoto treaty) can all solve the problem without a tax. Countries have lots of power to coerce action without instituting a tax. It seems to me that there are a lot of better ways to create a world government than to base it on global warming. It seems to me that peaceful dispute resolution, combating lawlessness, promoting economic interdependence would be much more persuasive, stronger arguments more capable of uniting a fractured world.

mulhollandj
Posts:230

Senior User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/26/2007 4:20 PM
I agree that taking care of the earth is our stewardship. I also agree that there are many international issues. But I do not think that these issues should be handled by a world body. By doing so we surrender the sovereignty of our nation. There are plenty of trade incentive the United States can offer to ensure that its neighbors respect the environment. If they don't then make them face economic sanctions or increase tariffs. But instead of this approach the globalists are taking this issue and making it some sort of rallying cry to give themselves power. The question to ask yourself about the scientists is where are the research dollars? Are they there to prove or disprove global warming? Now, we must realize that the government is doing an increasingly large percentage of research in our country. This is paid for by grants and these grants have certain conditions. Now let us say that there is a 10 to 1 ratio of grants to prove global warming than to disprove it what conclusion will scientist reach? And it is well known that your career as a researcher mostly depends on your ability to get money. With this base of researchers established it is quite easy to drown out any opinion of those who disagree. You simply cut their funding or don't publish their material in peer reviewed journals. I need to also point out that I do not oppose world bodies but world government. It is my understanding that the LDS church promoted the League of Nations in General Conference. I do oppose the UN but they are a completely different animal. I would be more than happy to discuss how we are headed to world government and why it is bad if anybody wants to.

Debator
Posts:47

Advanced User
Online Status: User is Offline

04/27/2007 8:07 PM
First, any time we enter a treaty that has any kind of obligation, we surrender a little sovereignty - but only as much as we are willing to give. That's how it works with every world body that we are a part of. There is nothing that obligates us to cooperate any more than we are willing to. Even UN Security Council actions are subject to US approval. If that ever were to change, we would still only be obligated as much as we wanted to be. My point is twofold: First, because of these weaknesses in treaty power, to get actual change in environmental standards, there needs to be more cooperation, more power to bring to bear on uncooperative countries. This is done through vast treaty organizations (which is all that international bodies are). Second, environmental problems are just one example of why the US needs to be more involved, not less in international matters. While it's true that becoming more international makes us more dependent on other countries, that's not necessarily a bad thing. The wider our influence, the more we can make positive changes in other parts of the world. As other countries become dependent on us, we have more bargaining power with them. This is why we can't get N. Korea to stop building nukes, but S. Korea and China can. As to your point about tracing the money, it's purely conjectural. You say, "Now let us say that there is a 10 to 1 ratio of grants to prove global warming than to disprove it...." That statement alone shows that you have no basis for your conclusions. In fact, in the last 7 years, less, not more government money is going to reverse many of the policies that are based on curbing global warming. While other countries and other world bodies are taking more steps to curb it, we are taking steps back. The EPA just loosened restrictions on air pollution, both for power plants and cars. Not only that, but as pointed out by others in this thread, there are many scientists who are doing research that counters the claim that humans are causing global warming. In fact, two of the biggest industries in the world, oil and auto, have a huge interest in supporting scientists who disagree with the theory of human-caused global warming. I do not think that the world government types are going to get much traction from this, at least in the US. At the end of the day, if humans are causing global warming, then it is incumbent upon us to do something about it. But in the meantime, I have no problem with pro-global warming policies because as I stated earlier, they are good policies for totally different reasons. I don't really care about why we get there, I just want to see those policies enacted.

You are not authorized to post a reply.

Page 1 of 2

Forums > Public Policy > The City of Logan & Cache County > Logan City votes with Al Gore and other Left Wing nuts

ActiveForums 3.7