I fancy some of the older vintages of The Glenrothes (1975-1985)…as well as their single casks. The Glendronach has become popular throughout the UK.

The cattle industry, for example, leaves a large carbon footprint (as well as other greenhouse gases) than that of all of the automobiles in the U.S.

Just consider how the introduction of cheatgrass in the mid/southwest changed things. Or an non-endemic specie being introduced for asthetic purposes can affect industry even.

The lamprey eel being introduced to lakes in New England. Great idea at first. It provided a cheap food source for thousands of newly poor families after the crash in ‘29. It also put thousands more people out of business who worked in the fishing industry because of poor planning. The eel was introduced and its offspring proliferated. Depleteing oxygen levels in the waters and killing off carp and other species that could not survive in the new ecosystem that was created by what became the new keystone species.

Killing off one species or adding a new one changes things drastically. Just like adding different ingredients, or leaving one out, drastically changes a recipe. Like the difference between Irish Whisky and Scotch.

And…I suppose Intelligent Design or Creation Theory explains to us all the clear reason why men have nipples and everyone is born with an appendix?

Yeah…tell me again WHO is the “weak-minded?”

The sun rotates on an axis just like the Earth. Slow down its rotation, and it won’t thorw-off as much heat.

There is no preponderance of evidence in support of Evolution, either.

These are just THEORIES, foisted upon is by the lib’ruls.

Therefore despite the preponderance of evidence and a broad worldwide concensus of scientists about the existence of man-made global warming, the right-wingers stay in denial.

I don’t agree that there is even a preponderance of evidence in support of global warming, much less broad worldwide concensus, much less among the scientific community. Taking measures to promote environmental conservation is not inconsistent with my political beliefs, as you will note if you actually read my earlier post, and furthermore, this can best be accomplished through the free market, as is also briefly noted above.

If you assume that we are on opposite sides of the fence on issues like civil rights, the 19th Amendment, child labor, the rights of workers to organize, and funding of community colleges, Progressive, then you must build your fences arbitrarily.

Keynesian econ. is the solution for modern financially backed markets.

There is nothing wrong with the government steering the economy….just so long as it is not running the economy.

We are in agreement about ethanol.

The problem with the involvement of Congress into what is produced is that they do not know what they are doing and simply adopt the position of the most lucrative lobby. This is why ethanol was introduced, this is why so many failed programs come out of congress.

The best arbiter of what is right and wrong is the free market, not a bunch of lawyers in Washington.

Congress is not passing laws requiring consumers to buy “x.” They are steering manufacturers to do so.

That is how you get people to do things. Like stopping child labor or creating a minimum wage. Neither of those ideas would naturally occur without intervention.

Ethanol, for the record, was pushed by the agribusiness lobby. They have an economic interest in its production.

Polluted water, polluted air, food tainted with growth hormones and fertilizers will put the U.S. into bigger problems than phasing out old inefficient technology will.

That boogeyman that Doug Deal speaks of does not exist. His faction of the GOP believes in borrowing and spending for short term gains…but not investment for the future security of our nation.

Yes, you know me so well. If this passes as a test to your degree of accuracy, then we can simply ignore everything you write.

You know as well as I do that no one is out there championing polluted water. This is not an episode of Captain Planet, where mustached villains sail large ships around the word for the sole purpose of dumping pollution everywhere they go.

The environmental movement has come down to championing the cause of less energy usage. Not by convincing people to be conservative with their own resources, but by passing laws to change the lifestyle of every man, woman and child. People need cars to go to work, it’s not like people are burning gasoline out back for the fun of it.

Ethanol is clearly a boondoggle, and even electric cars need generated electricity. Where is that going to come from, if not from coal, when nuclear power has been declared off-limits from the same group of people?

What is there to replace the automobile? Scientists and engineers do not invent by legislative fiat. If they did, perhaps Congress can pass legislation revoking the first law of thermodynamics as 140% efficient machinery would go a long way in solving every problem we have.

Hugging trees might make one feel better, but the practicalities of reality need to be considered, unless you want to lead to societal ruin. I am sure the Chinese would love to supplant us at the top of the food chain.

How did we get into this recession again?

A bunch of ideologue conservatives pretended to be economists.

Liberal Republicans, who are often called traitors now, have always championed environmentalism and conservation. As has the “left.” This garbage that the Eco-left wants humans out of the environment is total BS.
We have always wanted the land conserved for recreational use…not merely for it to exist.
Demonbeck if full of crap.

Sure whacko groups like Green Peace get a lot of attention,…but do not forget the difference between the two camps. Both camps use nature for recreation…whether it is camping, fishing, hiking or hunting and everything in between.
There is the science aspect that begets disagreement. The “right” traditionally has had a hands off…”environmental science is junk science and can not be proven” mentality.
Big deal if those on the left do believe it…they have more documentation and support in the science/academic community on that issue.
It inevitibly comes down to the business vs. environmentalism paradigm that was brilliantly invented when technology was, what we now consider, primitive.
That boogeyman that Doug Deal speaks of does not exist. His faction of the GOP believes in borrowing and spending for short term gains…but not investment for the future security of our nation.
Environmentalim does not have to be bad for business…it can, but the two are not mutually exclusive.
Clean water, clean air and a few places to get away from the city are important. I applaud Perdue’s half-@ss effort to help out…to bad he had the Oaky woods were sold to a developer rather than Nature Conservancy.
People like Doug Deal will always tell you that environmentalism is bad for business. Rather than going along because he looks like you, ask why? Deal is not an expert. Neither am I, but I am not preaching anything but tolerance and education.

Environmental issues have undeniably become a greater concern to voter groups that are critical to the GOP, particularly younger voters who will constitute the largest group of active voters in coming years.

I’m not promoting an environmentalist agenda at all, and I have little respect for politicians (cough, Al Gore) who have no knowledge of scientific method yet continue to address the American people and the science community as though they do. Fear mongering is indeed an excellent term for this. I surely hope that voters continue to prioritize job creation and lower taxes, as it’s tough to worry about much else with a collapsing economy at hand. My point, ultimately, is that the two platforms are not mutually exclusive; rather, they will be mutually dependent in the near future. Focusing on alternatives to current methods of production and current fuel sources, for example, promotes entrepreneurship. So long as any efforts that are made to increase environmental conservancy are done so second to limiting government and protecting the most important of public interests, such as the economy, giving greater attention to such issues in future elections might behoove the GOP.