Environmental and Cultural Activism / News    (This section in honor of James Cameron) > Environmental News and Events

Environmental Topics in US Elections of 2016

(1/2) > >>

A lot has been said about the US Presidential elections that are heating up now. Most of the talk focuses on income inequality, racial tensions, social systems, and so on. There are plenty of places for people to talk about the stuff like immigration, war, refugees, bankers, and so on. Those issues are already being covered thoroughly in the news and other online venues.

But I'm curious-- what do we know about the various candidates' environmental views? Oddly enough, I haven'y heard it come up much beyond "Macro" level talk: basically a sort of "mumble mumble Global Warming bad yadda yadda" and then on to another subject.

I think in a way it reflects that a lot of the positions are already staked out and everyone knows what to expect, so there's no need to get too wrapped up. Everyone expects the Republican candidates to downplay environmental worries in general; while in some manner the Democratic candidates are at least going to pay some lip-service attention to the issue.

 But has anyone heard concrete yes or no policies? Like solar and wind subsidies? Hydroelectric benefits juxtaposed against their effects on river ecosystems? Funding for climate study? Geoengineering? Smart grids? How about nuclear power, whether of or against?

It seems so weird that while climate change and environmental challenges are on everyone's minds these days, I hear very little about it in the political field.

Oh, and, hello again, everyone.  ;D 

IMO they are focusing on subjects that could make people vote for them.


--- Quote from: Vawmataw on February 10, 2016, 04:12:53 pm ---IMO they are focusing on subjects that could make people vote for them.

--- End quote ---

I think that it's true.

`Eylan Ayfalulukanä:
The sad thing is there is very little common sense being used on either side. From what I have read, the environmental view on either side is extreme. The Republicans what what's generally good for business-- drill, mine, cut, burn. These things all benefit people and generally improve the quality of their lives, but have significant medium and long-term environmental consequences. The Democrats want environmental-friendly change, but also seem to want in-your-face environmental change that disturbs peoples' quality of life in a rather uncomfortable way, as well as 'socialize' them. The approach that is needed is somewhere in between the extremes, coupled with a realistically long-term view to improve things for both people and the environment.

If I ever ran for office, I would be that rare conservative who also work for sensible, achievable environmental reform.

Environmental issues would make me more likely to vote for them.


[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version