Dennis Anderson: 'Natural wonders' absent in debates

  • Article by: DENNIS ANDERSON , Star Tribune
  • Updated: October 21, 2012 - 7:07 AM

 The silence on the environment is deafening, but our indifference or inaction allows politicians to remain mum.

  • 9
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
  • 1 - 9 of 9
pdf123Oct. 21, 12 7:47 AM

Some good evaluation and description, but I disagree about where the public is, the polling is showing that the solid majority wants action on global warming and support the conservation achievements of this country. I agree that Obama has no or limited personal experience with nature, but he sees the value and his administration has done a good job on conservation matters within its authority. He understands the value of the outdoor constituency even if he can't speak to it personally. What is puzzling is why he isn't beating Romney over the head on some of these issues, because he could actually be gaining votes. The polling is showing that independents strongly disagree with the rabidly anti-conservation positions that Romney has taken. The decision for conservationists is clear: Obama. But what is disappointing is he will be re-elected without a mandate on environmental protection. Any progress will be through his good appointees, Ken Salazar at the Interior, and Lisa Jackson at the EPA.

6
2
millarscorOct. 21, 12 9:02 AM

Obama and Romney both are poster children for the nature deficit disorder so common among the 78% of the US population that lives in cities and suburbs.

3
2
smarterthanuOct. 21, 1210:25 AM

I support the environment, but what we really need right now is jobs. Any regulation kills jobs, so that is a non-starter. Maybe in the future if times get better we can worry about the "nice to have" things like the environment.

2
14
viktorvaughnOct. 21, 1212:47 PM

Maybe in the future if times get better we can worry about the "nice to have" things like the environment.

Clean water and breathable air are just 'nice to have'? Aren't they dire necessities for human survival?

10
1
millarscorOct. 21, 12 2:24 PM

Yep, air to breathe and water to drink are really nice to have. If the detractors want to pay extra to make my water safe to drink after they pollute it thanks to less regulation, they could do that instead. Just don't raise my taxes to pay for business pollution. The other is to deregulate water and air pollution and increase taxes on just the businesses (not the taxpayer) to pay the bill. I bet that would be a job creator.

0
3
george13Oct. 21, 12 6:12 PM

Also, what good is the environment if I can't afford gas for my pickup and boat? It would just sit there and go to waste. I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one.

0
10
wildfoxOct. 21, 12 8:04 PM

Sad to say it may be to late to resuscitate planet Earth. Earth is 66% water and only 3% is used for human consumption. Once our clean water is gone humans will perish.

2
1
arielbenderOct. 21, 1211:04 PM

george13Oct. 21, 12 6:12 PM Also, what good is the environment if I can't afford gas for my pickup and boat? It would just sit there and go to waste. I guess we have to agree to disagree on this one._________-LOL...ever heard of a canoe?

3
2
beveryafraidOct. 22, 1210:11 AM

You are well to thank Roosevelt. His words are tacit permission that is a noble thing to love all of nature while at the same time satisfying a childish preoccupation with killing its inhabitants. As a devotee of Roosevelt, his fascination with killing is the one I struggle with most, and I feel sure that if he were alive today, he would would be a strident opponent of baiting, and would take to task anyone who used the term "harvesting".

2
0
  • 1 - 9 of 9

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT