Are the supposed "Conservatives" who don't want action truly concerned about America's security?

Question

The nations intelligence agencies have issued a report detailing how, if we do nothing, America's security will be seriously damaged.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/06/environmental-g.html

Congressional hearings on Wednesday.

Answer 1

I always thought it was interesting that when it comes to the environment conservatives are radical and liberals are conservative.  

Prudent is neither, it's realism.

Those who don't want action are out of touch with reality.

Answer 2

I think it's pretty clear that what they're concerned about is the potential impact on their own lives, i.e. a carbon tax.  Their rants are always about taking away their "rights", as though the Bill of Rights specifies the right to drive a gas-guzzling SUV and the right to damage the environment as much as we want.

I don't think they're willing to admit that global warming could adversely impact our national security.  By remaining in denial, they don't have to be concerned about it.

Boatman - just because you can afford to buy a can of oil doesn't mean you have the right to dump it out into a river or lake.  My pocketbook can afford a can of mace, but it's not my right to walk up to you and spray it in your face.  And owning an SUV is not a prerequisite to being happy.

Answer 3

This doesn't answer your question, but here's my two cents – if driving a gas guzzler is what makes Americans happy, then I think that our country has some very messed-up priorities. Especially since that continued reliance on greenhouse emitting fossil fuels for energy production will most likely cause hardships for billions of people around the world.[1] What about their happiness? Why is our happiness more important than theirs?

Answer 4

I think you hit a nerve here, the answers are all over the board so far.

These hearings should be very interesting, to say the least, because afterwards, I expect there will be citizens -- what I call a conservative and what you or Boatman does might not be the same -- who accept the theory of global climate change that didn't before.  The military has a unique way of looking at things, and with what this country has been put through since 9-11, I believe that many are in the right frame of mind to buy into something knowing it could help preserve America's best interests.

However, the action you refer to is not necessarily the action that, say, an environmentalist would want.  Or that a climate science would recommend.  I don't know enough about how the government conducts its business on this, whether we've gotten to the point of having a steering committee with representatives from each U.S. agency involved. Who would be qualified to chair such a committee?  Points to ponder.

This is something all Americans have a right to be concerned about.

Edit: Boatman, you take offense at a comment of Dana's, and cite what you perceive as your "... right to drive whatever my pocketbook can afford ..."  But whether its a hardfast right as you protest or more of a privilege, I don't know.  I think, given what's known, given what's at stake, that this "right" you speak of isn't right at all, it's very wrong.

Answer 5

It's not conservatives --- it's the Democrats and environmental lobby-- I know you read my editorial on my blog so you know I am FOR a comprehensive energy plan--

http://www.neighborsgo.com/boatman1

which includes substantial tax CREDITS for development and deployment of renewable energy. However I also believe that it will take an all out national "moon shot" style program to do this. (I just don't see Congress putting together any complete energy plan.)

I also believe that the 100 lb gorilla is Nuclear energy which we have largely ignored for the last 35 years. The dollar cost for remediation however is so HIGH -- I have extreme doubts that the Western countries will ever commit to the dollars needed. (BUT-- ask me again when fuel hits $6.00 a gallon!)

Edit-- I guess I should also say that my reasons for this is NOT GW-- I just don't like sending money to despots and dictators all over the world. However if this "policy" helps you achieve your goals with remediation of CO2 -- it's OK with me.

Edit-- for Dana-- actually I DO have a right to drive whatever my pocketbook can afford-- and it is called "the pursuit of happiness" in the constitution. However if you like you could have that amended out of the document.

Edit-- guess there must be a Communist or a Fascist  lurking around Yahoo Answers-- that gave me a thumbs down-- their tactics are so similar I get their government policies confused sometimes!

Edit again-- for Dana-- I don't believe I ever said anything about DUMPING oil into lakes anywhere in the posting-- I would tend to put anyone who did that UNDER the jailhouse and throw away the key.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liber...  you do away with this "clause" and MANY other things in our law would come crashing down.

Edit -- Amy-- "pursuit of happiness" in the Constitution is used to write such laws as "the right to privacy", abortion rights laws, and "taking property" laws among others-- suggest you read the INTENT of the words in the Constitution and the case law surrounding it-- and again you can always get Congress and or the states to pass a Constitutional amendment removing "pursuit of happiness" .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life,_liber...

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/right+t...

Edit-- for Bob-- you provoked a lot of good discussion with your question-- I enjoyed seeing and responding to the answers--

Answer 6

Interesting question, however I am not sure how driving a SUV pertains to national security as suggested by some of the answers. I know many conservatives that live very efficiently already and many who do not, I can say the same for the liberals I know also.  However that being said, having served in the military I know that the military is more aware of the world more then most people realize and the ability to adapt to a changing environment has always been apart of military strategy.    Right now with global warming I am interested in  our national sanity then security.  By the way Bob here is a interesting quote, those who give up freedom for security will lose both and deserve neither.  Freedom will allows us the ability to solve more problems and we can and will solve the energy problems we face.

Answer 7

It is just more of the same with you people.  Sources say this, sources say that.  

Here is a pertinent quote:

"Generally, the Earth's climate is changing, it has always been changing, so that's not anything but a blinding flash of the obvious," Engel added. "We really want to understand extreme weather events because they are very important as they potentially put at risk the infrastructure."

I don't disagree with a changing climate.  As a geologist, I understand that is the norm. What I do disagree with is putting sgovernment in charge of fixing it.  The fix is far worse than the problem. Anybody that cares about American security and our future should ensure that we move away from government and/or socialist "solutions" that will inevitably make things worse.

Note: The military is prepared for all sorts of alternatives.  Just being prepared for alternative does not constitute expectation of that alternative.

Note:

you said:

isolationism is no longer a viable strategy for dealing with the world. We buy and sell too much, and too many important things, for it to work. And we'll never win the war on terrorism alone.

So I guess that means you aren't voting for Obama?  I hope you are not suggesting that Bush or McCain (who aren't true conservatives anyway) are isolationists.  That would be the height of naivete.

Answer 8

I feel really bad for people like you, dana and amy.  Being as smart as you are must take a toll.  Having to talk to all of these dumb people who don't have a clue.

And to answer your question yes they do.  It is because of their skepticism of man made climate change that they do nothing.  America's security will not be impacted at all by climate change of the man made variety

Answer 9

There is no such thing as man-made global warming.  What we have is a one-man-made global scam.  Is Al Gore still ranting about this in the USA or has he given up?