Hello all you WONDERFUL readers!! 
- Stayin’ Cool.
Soo, in light of the new Team Policy resolution for the National Christian Forensics and Communication Association, I suddenly feel extremely curious about what you guys ACTUALLY BELIEVE about environmentalism. Is the environment in need of more special attention from the government? in what ways? Is the earth in trouble? Is global Warming man-made? Go wild guys, any environmental issues… state your opinion, let your voice be heard! (or… words.. be.. rea- you know what I mean!) I’m genuinely curious. Have fun!
- Look!! o_O Global Warming!!
What I think about environmentalism:
*ACK!!!!!!!!!!! Run away!*
*follows Grace*
J/K… 
I’m an LDer…and pretty ignorant about environmentalism, except that I believe that the theory about the ozone hole is illogical. *sheepish grin*
We can talk about the War for Southern Independence, though. Oh, wait…I think we had that conversation before…;-)
I’ll be reading….unlike SOME PEOPLE I KNOW maybe I’LL learn something! JK
-DH
But hey, I’m going to be reading it too.
and POSSIBLY putting in my 2 cents… 
Whooooopeee!!!
-Dunvegan Highlander
What I think about environmentalism as a whole: It’s just a new political platform for communism. That’s about it.
But some of the issues they build their platform on are real: such as deforestation and air pollution. Fortunately Both of those are WAY down from what they used to be.
Gov. Involvement: Bad thing mostly, though it does often work. But it is incredibly inefficient and often unconstitutional. The Energy policy stuff is where it’s more allowed but often most harmful.(Cap and Trade for example)
Global Warming and Apocalypse: Yes GW is probably happening. No it is not human caused. The earth’s ecosystem is to massive and stable to be effected by the tiny doings of us humans on its crust. Our planet is not such a delicate lady as the GW proponents make it out to be. We can pollute the crust but we can’t cause significant climate change or destroy the planet. We could make it unlivable due to pollution or nuclear war, which is why those things must be carefully monitored, preferably privately(though this isn’t always possible when it comes to nukes).
That’s true…humans are so arrogant, that we often convince ourselves that the things we do have a much greater affect on the earth than we really do.
-DH
No comment.
Alex: I see your point…
“But some of the issues they build their platform on are real: such as deforestation and air pollution.”
What do you think our responsibility is to these issues? How should they be dealt with? What about endangered species of animals?
And how exactly is getting people to be more responsible with their gas mile-age communism? (referring to CAFE here) If the people aren’t concerned enough, isn’t that where the government steps in?
(TOTALLY playing the devil’s advocate here… just so you know)
(i’d really like to hear what you say to this.) 
They should be dealt with through environmental privatization, incentives, and free-market environmentalism concepts.
“What do you think our responsibility is to these issues? How should they be dealt with? What about endangered species of animals?”
We, the people, are responsible not our government, though the government can provide incentives. But the government shouldn’t Regulate!
“And how exactly is getting people to be more responsible with their gas mile-age communism? ”
Not nescessarily communism but forcing people to have good gas mileage IS socialistic. Incentive from gas prices should be enough, if not the government can offer further incentives. If that doesn’t work its the people’s free choice and they should be allowed to make it.
Hehe, well put!
*resumes arguing for the side that NO ONE ELSE wants to argue for* *sighs*
But, hey, it’s good practice… 
Okay Alex, let me propose a hypothetical situation.
The government abolishes the EPA, and everyone is allowed to do whatever they want… (environmentally speaking of course.)
The smog in major cities becomes so bad, that people are beginning to get sick…. the manufacturers and smog-making peoples are happy because their economy is doing so well, so they don’t change… only the peoples in the cities that are polluted care… so the manufacturers continue to pollute the air. When does the government step in?
What about stream dumping? are you advocating vigilante justice??
(wow, this is fun… hehehe…)
(please remember, these are NOT my thoughts on the subject, at all! I’m just getting peoples to think and stuff… I’ll post my ideas at some point… but, for now, I’m really interested in getting to the heart of y’alls opinions…)
I wish I knew more-this could get very interesting…
hahaha.
Okay, I feel like I’m about to jump from a high-dive, but, here goes:
My two cents:
The acceptable pollution level (hehe, that’s kind of an oxymoron) ought to be determined by those who are affected by it, and the government, I believe, ought to enact legislation which puts legal limitations on the amount of pollution.
Dreams of utopia,
-DH
Hmm… DH… thou confusest me!! … what do you mean by “those who are affected by it”? please expound! Are you saying, like, only the people who are sick from smog should take action against it??
“Legal limitations on the amount of pollution”… To what extent? Would you then agree with Carbon-Credits? (basically, everyone gets a rationing of “pollution” they can create, and if you go over, you are taxed.)
Dreams of riding horses like Braveheart in Scotland shouting “Freeeedom” at the top of his lungs,
-The Cameronian.
HAHAHAHAHA! LOL!
Depends on who is affected by it. A very subjective statement. What kind of pollution?
(Or perhaps, as Zachary stated, the painfully obvious, the People of the U.S. of A.)
And BTW, we definitely don’t need more taxes. They rarely are a solution.
But let me try another tack: how about we get really radical.
Let’s outlaw tampering with nuclear power, let’s figger out some type of replacement for petroleum, outlaw the manufacturing of plastics-(yikes. Even I cringe.)!
But if you ask me what kind of limitations? You might get something really radical.
Try this. It sounds a bit greeny, but let’s replace some of the manufacturing plants with RECYCLING plants, for glass, metals, rubbers, and plastics.
Also, I would contend that several types of plastics should be outlawed.
Also, we might need to look into a reform of the overuse of electromagnetic radiation. (A lot of people would hate me for that.)
However, I am sorry to say, that this kind of reform would put more power in the hand of the Federals, and might even eventually make it necessary to institute a one-world government, which is not desirable.
Clear as mud?
I’m sorry. Environment is not my strong point-that’s, as you said, Braveheart.
“History is written by those who hang heroes.”
Sure hope you guys can find someone better educated than I.
With you, and many others-FREEEEDOMMMM!
-DH
Hahaha!! Don’t worry DH, none of us here are “experts” on environmentalism.. (yet!) ;-P Maybe i should start a discussion on the LD topic? LoL!!
“And BTW, we definitely don’t need more taxes. They rarely are a solution.”
What kind of penalties would you suggest then? Jail-time?
“outlaw the manufacturing of plastics-(yikes. Even I cringe.)!”
*raises eyebrow*
Lol!
“Also, we might need to look into a reform of the overuse of electromagnetic radiation. (A lot of people would hate me for that.)”
Hmm… If they did hate you for that, it would only be because of the extensive list of everyday appliances (and some would say LIFE LINES)
use electromagnetic radiation. Electric Irons, Cell Phones, Power Lines, Power Tools, Electric Stoves, Heaters, Boilers, Freezers and Television Sets to name a few. 
So yeah, I would say it might be a little difficult to reform electromagnetic radiation…
DH, I’m curious, what do you think of the questions i asked Alex M? could you possibly take a stab at answering the “hypothetical situation”?
_the cameronian_
Hahaha! Once again, even I cringe at the thought of reducing EMR emmissions!
(addressing EMR as if it is a type of gas, or similar pollution.)
However, I still contend that these emissions could be reduced. Less convenient? Maybe. But it might be worth it.
Alright, your hypothetical situation. Let me find it….*shuffles through papers*-wait-this is on a computer screen. Never mind. *refers to comment above about incovenience*.
Here we are:
“The government abolishes the EPA, and everyone is allowed to do whatever they want… (environmentally speaking of course.)
The smog in major cities becomes so bad, that people are beginning to get sick…. the manufacturers and smog-making peoples are happy because their economy is doing so well, so they don’t change… only the peoples in the cities that are polluted care… so the manufacturers continue to pollute the air. When does the government step in?
What about stream dumping? are you advocating vigilante justice??”
Okay, I would not advocate government intervention. I would not want to put more “supply in the hand of the powers”.
Nor would I advocate “vigilante justice”, unless the situation got lethal. Then the Moral Law might require it.
So, let me offer another utopian thought (and then again, how many of solutions proposed nowadays aren’t?):
BOYCOTT.
Good luck. Sorry World. Can you say, MONOPOLY?
So, what do ya think?
-DH
Hahahaha! Wow… this is quickly becoming fun!! I’m getting excited about this year’s debate season.
“However, I still contend that these emissions could be reduced. Less convenient? Maybe. But it might be worth it.”
The word that jumps out at me the most in the above statement is “might”.
When a government is passing legislation to basically “outlaw” certain appliances that we’re so used to, (ERGHHH!) 1st off, it’s a HUGE breach of the citizens RIGHT TO PRIVACY. If people aren’t DYING from their toasters, it’s up to them. 2ndly, if you are going to pass a legislation of this magnitude, you better be a WHOLE LOT more sure about it than “might”.
“The government abolishes the EPA, and everyone is allowed to do whatever they want… (environmentally speaking of course.)
The smog in major cities becomes so bad, that people are beginning to get sick…. the manufacturers and smog-making peoples are happy because their economy is doing so well, so they don’t change… only the peoples in the cities that are polluted care… so the manufacturers continue to pollute the air. When does the government step in?
What about stream dumping? are you advocating vigilante justice??”
“… BOYCOTT…”
Lol!!!
Hmmmmm…. not sure about how well that might work… you see, as i was careful to add “only the people who are affected, that live in some of these cities even care.” So, let’s say it’s a clothing manufacturer… if peoples in the city don’t buy from them… it’s not really going to affect sales. And remember, they are now free to do whatever they want (environmentally speaking) so they don’t have to adhear to the expensive “government regulations” so economically, they have never been better!
Actually, I think I am certain that on a “might” scale, it’s a |—–|—+-|
There are definitely things that are overused. Cell phones, for instance.
Hehehe! That’s what I said, can you say, monopoly? Basically, I’m saying that we the People are helpless, of course, with the exception of VJ.
-DH
“there are definitely things that are overused. Cell phones, for instance.”
That is TOTALLY a matter of opinion, and not fact. I could honestly contend that they are under-used, because over use, and under use are merely matters of opinion. In my mind, i don’t think we should pass governmental policies based solely on matters of opinion.
I KNOW that’s not what you meant… but, that’s precisely what it sounded like. (you’re really beginning to scare me DH) 
VJ by definition, is morally wrong. Vigilante Justice = someone who takes the law into his/her own hands by trying and/or punishing another person without any legal authority.
Breaking the law, and undermining the God given authority of the Government’s Justice System. (which, inevitably will lead to “mob rule”)
However, i don’t think that we are talking about VJ here… not buying from a certain clothing store isn’t against the law..
It’s more of a market strategy… or something like that… but again, that solution wouldn’t work unless you got a VERY VERY large number of people to CARE. 
@Ben
Read Cato!). Also state and local authorities have the right and possibly the duty to take control if things get bad.
Privitazation of pollution control would take affect here(Don’t ask me to explain how it works.
“What about stream dumping? are you advocating vigilante justice??”
Explain to this un-educated person please…
Alex
“Privitazation of pollution control would take affect here (Don’t ask me to explain how it works. Read Cato!).”
Umm… pardon my utter ignorance, but i have NO CLUE how that would work… I assume you would have to have government authority in order to tell manufacturers what they can and cannot do… so, it wouldn’t work…????
“Also state and local authorities have the right and possibly the duty to take control if things get bad.”
Define “bad” then. One person dying? Two? and what’s the difference between states taking control, and the federal government taking control of a manufacturer? It’s STILL “taking control”. No difference in my mind.
“”What about stream dumping? are you advocating vigilante justice??”
Explain to this un-educated person please… ”
DH got this correct, citizens taking action when they believe justice should be served, but the government won’t/can’t do it. (a good example of vigilante justice was the olden times “lynching”)
So in essence, i was asking if you were advocating that people go to the manufacturers and scream, shout, and threaten violence in order for “environmental problems” to go away… are you??
Vigilante justice, I believe, (correct me, Ben, if I’m wrong), is, basically citizens taking matters into their own hands
I won’t ask you how it works, Alex, but, if you’ll excuse my ignorance, what is “privitazation of pollution control”?
-DH
Exactly right, and ditto.
What do I think of environment? Well, I honestly think the government wanted to “create jobs” So they thought up global warming and “saving the environment”.
But, I haven’t thought it through yet.
Sure, Global Warming is happening, but we can’t stop it or harm it any more. Basically, it’s not man-made. And about the whole “tree-saving” thing: While I love trees, if the trees would be of more use cut down, then by all means cut them down. But if you can help it, I think you should avoid cutting them down, but not because I believe in “saving the trees.”
Woohooo! Someone else has joined us.
I think you may be onto something with your theory.
However, would you mind enlightening me as to how global warming is actually happening? Just curious.
Hey, hey, hey! I don’t know, and I’m not a hippie, but I think we ought to stop the mass destruction of our forests. I’ve been looking around on Google earth, and it’s sad to see all the places whose forests have been destroyed. Forests are not only beautiful, but also useful. Hey, and they supply a good deal of oxygen, too!
-DH
Hi Hopie!!! Thank you for commenting!!!!
(hey guys, this is my debate partner for this year! WOOOT!!!) 
(one of the reasons i’m epically excited for the season to start!) 
I’m not sure myself, what the motivation of the government (to create global warming) even was… unless it was to seize power from citizens..
I’m still formulating my own opinion at this point, but eventually, i’ll tell you all what i _REALLY_ think.
Thanks again sis!
“Umm… pardon my utter ignorance, but i have NO CLUE how that would work… ”
Haha! Neither do I, that’s why I told you to read Cato. I read it once and it sounded good. I know it doesn’t include government control especially not federal.
“Define “bad” then. One person dying? Two? ”
What ‘bad’ means would have to be up to the local governments.
“…and what’s the difference between states taking control, and the federal government taking control of a manufacturer? It’s STILL “taking control”. No difference in my mind.”
The difference is that it is constitutional for local and state authorities to regulate. Whether it would work well or not I wouldn’t know. You’d have to ask an economist. But it sure couldn’t be worse than federal control.
“vigilante justice”
There’s a HUGE difference between your definition of ‘vigilante justice’ and citizens taking action, which is what I was proposing. It’s legal for citizens to try to make their environment better, but lynching is illegal.
The definition I heard did not define VJ as something which violates the moral law.
I’m sorry, it sounds like we’re going ’round in circles…and I’m beginning to feel like some kind of ship being pounded by 36 lbers! All my suggestions are sunk, and “she’s breakin’ up, Cap’n!”
However, Alex, how would you suggest that citizens make their environment better? Privatization of pollution control? Cato? Lol!!!!
I don’t think this is worth going down with colours flying!!!! Lol!!!!
-Nathan H.
Lol. The only example of vigilante justice I heard was lynching.
Also, to tell the truth: Despite researching all summer I really don’t know enough about Privitazation to defend it or even to explain it. Pretty pathetic I know.
Totally a matter of opinion? Hmmm. I guess you could say so. But I tell you Cameronian, you are kind of beginning to scare me Lol
…really, do you think that cell phones are underused? (this is not a personal attack, just a question.)
I believe that even now, people are trying to enact “texting curfews”. I really think that (texting) is overused.
Come, on, Ben, you’re a debater! Do you mind providing a source for your definition of “vigilante justice”? I’ve heard the term VJ broken down, and defined as something morally justified. Now lynching is a different matter.
Sorry I scared you…though what exactly was it that scared you, just for my future reference? My comment on cellphones being overused? Or one of my comments about VJ?
-DH
Lol! no DH, i don’t personally believe they are under-used, but you may be missing my point. It doesn’t matter what “i believe” about someone using their phone. That has nothing to do with me. That is a personal decision that should be based on each person’s individual convictions. For example: if it is a wealthy business man who needs to be 60 places at once, the cell phone would be an amazing tool and would in no way be viewed as ‘over-used’. however, i do believe a lot of teen-agers who are constantly texting (and yes, EVEN while driving!!
) do over-use their cell phones… but that is again, just my opinion. The government regulating such a thing is so scary that, I don’t even want to think about it. 
(I mean, come on! the freedom to CALL PEOPLE??) idk HOW you would enforce that either. thinking about it is giving me a slight headache. 
And yes, (as a debater) I would be proud to provide *a* source that agrees with my definition.
This is from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Vigilante+justice
It defines a “vigilante” as: “someone who takes the law into his/her own hands by trying and/or punishing another person without any legal authority. In the 1800s groups of vigilantes dispensed “frontier justice” by holding trials of accused horse-thieves, rustlers and shooters, and then promptly hanging the accused if “convicted.” A mother who shoots the alleged molester of her child is a vigilante.”
See?? it even used my example of lynchers.
And Alex,
you said: “There’s a HUGE difference between your definition of ‘vigilante justice’ and citizens taking action, which is what I was proposing. It’s legal for citizens to try to make their environment better, but lynching is illegal.”
I said, just before that:
“However, i don’t think that we are talking about VJ here… not buying from a certain clothing store isn’t against the law.. It’s more of a market strategy… or something like that… but again, that solution wouldn’t work unless you got a VERY VERY large number of people to CARE.”
Yes, Ben. You are absolutely right about “scary”. The freedom to call people, aye.
There is no solvency, so long as we continue to propose to put more “supply in the hands of the power”.
Also, we’ve ruled out VJ.
We’ve also ruled out BC.
So, Mr. TP debaters, Mr. LDer is feeling pretty helpless. *Submissive look*:-D. Could you help him out…give him some solvency that might be legit?
-DH
Don’t even kid me yall. Global Warming is so here.
Haven’t yall seen it? It’s called “sunrise” and “sunset”. It gets warm and then gets cold.
Wow.
Hehe-do you have solvency for that, Paul????LOL!
-Nathan
Two words: Jack Bauer.
He’ll get to the bottom of polution, no matter what he has to do to get there.
Although, he might overuse his cell phone a little.
Haha! Right on, dude.
Thanks for the comment, Dan! Hey, I have a more recent-ish blog project at http://www.jibenow.com/myjournal if you’re interested! 