Environmental Greenism, Redism, Stupidism

The Earth flag is not an official flag, since ...

Just one. Your Kidding? Dumbass

People share a fundamental concern and appreciation for the beauty of our natural environment.  At what cost thought? All products come from the Earth. Sustainable Development’s populist ‘anti thesis’ was designed and delegated to left wing state collectivists. These collectivists rally rank and file liberals around the concepts of social justice and environmental protection. The “battle” between the left wing and the right wing moves society downward. The moves are left – right, step by step toward the new world order of Sustainable Development.

Plebiscite, “We can agree that putting big dollars into road improvements will not get us where we need to go environmentally.” Hell no!!! Way off, way wrong. No more “big” road improvements? Actually my harshness is towards any of you, who had any agreement with that statement. That statement has a huge shortage on facts and processes. Proof follows. First off, enviro gets worse with more congestion; that’s what road project stoppage would lead to.

All developed nations spend big money on roads.The US has the most extensive railroad system, even with the gradual removal of 100,000 miles of track that Highman cries about. And on that system, the US has a higher portion of goods moved, than just about any other nation. Most other nations use trucks more. Just about all other nations also have fewer products per person, due to lower income. The few richer [per capita] nations, also have fewer material goods because of taxes and/or other higher costs of living.

Where do we want to be environmentally? What have big roads done? What’s big problem? How would trillions of miles be traveled instead? The air is pretty clean. Car exhaust is only at about 4% of 40 years ago. Other countries have worse air, especially India and China and they have far fewer drivers and even fewer roads. Most trains run on diesel. Big rig trucks are tremendously important.

PP, your ideas, in reducing VMT, have been ongoing for decades. You shouldn’t really jump into new topical blogs about unfamiliar material. Do you make comments on medical and chemistry blogs too? Don’t feel bad though, many posters here actually have schooling in this area and or read about it, yet are very short on reality, including basic principles. The problem is, that much of the material is biased and avoids many items, plus not so historical, but distorical.

People choose cars and non-high density. A century ago, there was much higher density in cities, and people had many fewer choices, including no car.
Now about 85% of the population, live at densities below the level (~8,000) for fairly widespread transit.

Consider this: If your idea was followed, much of the transportation network would not be here. This is theoretical, not suggesting to remove existing. No 42,000 miles of Interstates; no additional 10,000s of other expressways; no costly bridges. Standard of living would be much lower. Delivery of goods would be really difficult. Using smaller roads increases exhaust.

In following through, for humans to not hardly do anything that has a disturbance on the environment, it leads to just being hunters and gatherers. The Earth’s carrying capacity for that might be <500,000,000.

Wanting no development? That’s how we would have to live for the implementation of the goals for about any enviro group. That’s how their “watermelon” ideal would be achieved. But their level of “equality” would be horrible, obviously, but their Marxist goal could be achieved. Except for the fact that there would still be elites.

here was a mention of one path: behavior modification by coercion, which has been ongoing for urban issues for decades, with failure. Do you mean differentiation with forceful planning vs. people having “their” taxes build wanted public infrastructure? Hey, the Warsaw Pact dissolved.

The intent of “antiplanning” is missed. All building needs planning. It’s referring to heavy government planning, that goes against many people and choices and freedoms. Roads are obviously planned and built by gov, but are clearly wanted, driven on by 80%+ and all benefit from.   The area that is taken up by 80% of the population can all fit in Wisconsin.

For those who are unaware of a terminology that I used, definition: green on outside, red in center. Get it? Oh, to those who are short on brain operation, in preferring much less car usage for society, by authoritarian action: You are most likely hypocrites too. There are several 1,000 of square miles of urban area (out of 75,000), that have have a fair amount of transit. Live there.

Although, with no car and that density, it’s tougher to enjoy the environment. Unless, do Enviro lovers really enjoy Manhattan? Great nature hikes? Those people in rural areas must be miserable. And with only cars for transport, the enviro must be awful.


About Randall
A contrarian, not for conflict, but because many decisions are made, without considering the full impact & consequences.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: