frw
The Basics
- Name: frw
frw’s Recent Comments
Click here to view comment in original post
making "3rd parties" a joke
Nader was played out by 2004. Now it's an old joke, not even laughable anymore. He's doing a disservice to the goal of having a viable 3rd party. Yes, we need to break the Dem/Rep duopoly of control over American Politics, but Nader takes us in the opposite direction, by affirming anyone associated with him or any 3rd party as a fringe nut with no grasp on the reality of his situation: i.e. he has no chance of winning >5% in any vote. Build the Green Party, foster local elections, work for systemic changes. But until Nadar stops making such public and predictably irrelevant campaigns, he will not only fail to change the system he rails against, but actually makes it harder for anyone else to, as well.On Ralph Nader might jump into the presidential race posted 1 year, 9 months ago 129 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
Ignoring most environmental issues, too.
Grist, the League of Conservation Voters and most other environmental groups (to say nothing of the mainstream media) are not only ignoring most candidates, but they are ignoring every single environmental issue except one. If it doesn't relate directly to global warming.
Toxins, loss of biodiversity, deforestation, protecting roadless areas, plummeting marine populations, solid waste (the floating mass of trash in the Pacific Ocean) etc. When the enviro.'s stop talking about all of those, I guess they aren't problems anymore. I guess we must have solved all those problems during the past seven years.
C'mon grist, don't jump on the bandwagon and narrowly pursue global warming solutions that cause serious enviro. side effects, and leave the rest of our endangered treasures to be plundered while we aren't looking. You've got the bullhorn, this is you chance to draw attention to the Big Picture: All of these problems are connected...On Interviews and info on the presidential candidates' environmental positions posted 1 year, 9 months ago 53 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
to all who are naysaying this article
This is an important reminder that any approach to global warming HAS to be done holistically. How will we feel, if we succeed in lowering fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and factories, but at the cost of . . .
- accelerated deforestation (esp. of rainforests)
- accelerated extinction rates
- increased nutrient loads in water bodies (from fertilizers used to grow biofuels)
- increased soil erosion
- accelerated loss of coral reefs (due to sedimentation and excessive nitrogen )
- increased spread of toxins: pesticides, heavy metals and acids from batteries, CFL light bulbs etc.
- reduced clean groundwater/surface water supplies (irrigation for biofuels, contamination from toxins, etc.)
On Biofuels not helpful in climate-change fight, new studies say posted 1 year, 9 months ago 28 Responses- accelerated deforestation (esp. of rainforests)
Click here to view comment in original post
Why only energy issues?
It's not just Hillary, but also Grist and the League of Conservation Voters that have sudden amnesia about every single environmental issue that doesn't directly relate to global warming. Toxins, loss f biodiversity, deforestation, protecting roadless areas, plummeting marine populations, solid waste (the floating mass of trash in the Pacific Ocean) etc. When the enviro.'s stop talking about all of those, I guess they aren't problems anymore. I guess we must have solved all those problems during the past seven years.On A look at Hillary Clinton's environmental platform and record posted 1 year, 9 months ago 7 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
Energy is NOT the ONLY environmental issue
Even here, even Grist's election coverage, can't make space to discuss even ONE other environmental issue besides energy. Yes, global warming is the most popular (and among the most important) problem of our time. But there are many other VERY IMPORTANT environmental issues that are being completely ignored this election cycle. Can we PLEASE have at least SOME comparison of candidates on at least a FEW other very important environmental issues? Here are some for starters:
- Loss of biodiversity (land-rights vs. endangered spp., naval sonar testing, will Dept. of Interior define critical habitat protection for endangered spp.? Also, remember when dam removal for endangered salmon was a big campaign issue? The anti-dam-remover won, the dams are still there, why aren't we talking about them?
- Loss of old growth forests / other wilderness. Roadless area protection? Klamath, ANWR, southern Utah, many other pristine areas are under the gun, the federal government is pulling the trigger.
- Global environment: international trade accords? import restrictions? Pushing for protection of rainforests, migratory species, marine mammals, etc.
- Toxins (Chinese imports do get discussed. What about US manufacturing? Electronics, etc.? Support for organic farming?)
- Solid waste (national bottle-bill, initiatives to support USE of recycled materials, etc., what ABOUT that floating mass of garbage twice the size of Texas?)
Can we PLEASE broaden the discussion?On Obama or Clinton: who's greener? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 46 Responses
- Loss of biodiversity (land-rights vs. endangered spp., naval sonar testing, will Dept. of Interior define critical habitat protection for endangered spp.? Also, remember when dam removal for endangered salmon was a big campaign issue? The anti-dam-remover won, the dams are still there, why aren't we talking about them?