WHAT APPROACH WOULD YOU PREFER WHEN DEALING WITH ENVIROMENTAL ISSUES?

=== Whether John McCain or Barack Obama, remember to register to vote! ===

WHAT APPROACH WOULD YOU PREFER WHEN DEALING WITH ENVIROMENTAL ISSUES?

user ballots

Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes

Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz

TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase

Discussion
Bug Report

political : WHAT APPROACH WOULD YOU PREFER WHEN DEALING WITH ENVIROMENTAL ISSUES?

[+] serious ballot by herzog
created Tue May 16, 06
Legislature the limits growth, or increased funding for clean technology?

Obviously both would have an impact, but which would you prefer (for whatever reasons; safer, more reliable, more effective, etc).

Limiting growth would mean fewer industries, fewer people, cars, powerplants, cities, etc. All of which create pollution.

New technology would contain the promise of cleaner energy sources and less damaging industries. Imagine 100 years ago in the US when all power sources pretty much came from coal, now we have much cleaner methods and the possibilty of even better ones in the future.

So which would you prefer if you were in charge of the enviroment?

More technology
limited growth

Ballot #94274 : SEE RESULTS

Comment:

show your vote with comment?

v 2.0 © BESTANDWORST.COM

smile bank:

similiar ballots:
75983. The enviromental costs of Alberta's oil
122281. Which Country Produces the Most Waste, Pollution and Enviromental Hazards?
126850. You approach a gas station. You ____________
110568. After Farting Do You Warn Those Who Approach You, Or Stay Silent?
111555. In dealing with illegal immigration, what should come first?
103263. How would you assess Bush's success in dealing with the Axis of Evil?
95057. Does it seem to anyone else that Democrats attack Republicans on issues but Republicans attack Democrats on personal issues?
91684. Do home schooled children miss out on an important aspect of schooling, social interaction and dealing with others?
77979. Is the British approach to the use of "deadly force" appropriate?
125819. When you approach those speed limit signs that show your speed

COMMENTS:
Tough call, if one has to choose between the two.

In a perfect world, I'd say 'Technology.' But we are not in a perfect world and 'technology as a means to address environmental concerns' seems to be a chimera that unregulated Business will not pursue.

Limiting growth is an effective short-term strategy, but it does come at a cost.

If I had to choose between the two, given the realities of Business and Government, I'd say 'Limit Growth,' only because I know that will be effective.

That said, I'd still prefer a rational combination, with more than lip service to the 'technology' part.

by Cathexis on Tue May 16, 06 8:20am [+]

Tech. The means to reduce pollution are available or can be made to be available. You wouldn't be able to significantly reduce growth in the US without causing a revolt. Reducing growth also might cause a recession or depression - also likely to cause people to throw out their leaders.

by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Tue May 16, 06 9:53am [+]

I prefer the Republican approach: pollute the air, pollute the water, chop down all the trees, destroy what's left of the environment, go live in a gated community, count your money.

MAG_afro

by cranky on Tue May 16, 06 12:32pm [+]

I'd like to see both, personally, and I can't see how the loss of jobs in one couldn't be offset by retraining workers in use/production of the newer technologies. Maybe I am naive, but I like to think that I'm based somewhat in the realm of logic.

by Truthseeker013 on Tue May 16, 06 1:17pm [+]

it's a Pitiful Shame so many monkeys have to be bullied into changing.. a Disgrace that businessmen can't see how to insure their future.
Never underestimate how short-sighted people can be :) Ten years from now some stubborn lil boys will still be denying that 6,900,000,000 people can have any affect on a planet this small IC_earth

by Jyl on Tue May 16, 06 5:46pm [+]

And tobacco doesn't cause cancer, nicotine isn't addictive, Iraq had WMDs, Saddam and Osama were lovers, and global warming is a hoax.

MAG_afro

by cranky on Wed May 17, 06 5:29am [+]

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy | Contact