Right.....and the left just keeps on consuming the natural resources from the Gulf and are happy little campers. But anything goes wrong and it is always the right at fault.....Geez!

Right. That's why Teddy Roosevelt (a Republican) established the National Parks system to preserve our natural resources.

Indigo; that is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard stereotyping all republicans. Do you honestly believe all democrats are stewards of the environment. Please be reasonable and do your homework; the environmental movement at the grass roots level is typically true to their beliefs but if anything the democratic party has hijacked the environmental movement for political gain an posturing. I could go on for hours about the hypocrisy on the left in Washington. Gore, Pelosi, Reid, Kerry ($7miilion dollar yacht) you think their stock portfolios dont include things that would make an environmentalist cringe.

I have long wondered why the fundies hate the environmental movement and everybody and everything associated with it. That and proponents of global warming. After all, it's their world, too, and their progeny and their progeny's progeny and so on until attidtudes like theirs wipes out life on earth as we know it.

If the world is God's creation, what possible reason could they have for not wanting to take care of it, for not feeling compelled to take care of it? Or at least let those of who do care try to take care of it for them?

I am truly baffled by this attitude that is so against their best interests. Is it fear? If so, of what?

Now Pat, I'm certain that the folks you mention only invest in things like "Save The Whales"... ;-) But no worries... they can always buy carbon credits to assuage their guilt!

the peoples Republican party has changed a lot over the years- look back to when nixon started the environmental protection agency. now, the onoly thing that really matters to the peoples Republican party is the allmighty $$$.

Indigo Halo:

I am on a quest to make English the official language of the United States. This is important because we are in very deep trouble and we will not be able to find solutions if we do not understand each other. (For an example, see the Sacred Book of BS which includes a story about the Tower of Babel.)

In any case, I refer to your use of the term "Christian Republicans". Say what? It is very easy to disprove generalities because there are always exceptions. However, the gulf states have a disproportionately high concentration of bigots. Bigotry is a function of education, and these are very low-performing states in that world. Bigotry is NOT a principle of Christianity. Secondly, "Republican" no more describes those people than flexible describes the Sphinx. The Republican party has been destroyed by "religious" zealots who accept the existence of an invisible sky guy without question. These people fancy they are possessed of a purity unknown to the great unwashed. To the extent that they are purely stupid, I suppose that is correct.

In any case, my point is there is no such thing as a "Christian Republican" in our country. A true Christian would run like hell from these people. True conservatives have already run away. What's left is a collection of "totalitarian delusionals". That's the proper term.

A new take: What has 24 legs, 17 teeth, and an IQ of 12? That's the front-row pew at a Mississippi "church" service.

By the way, if you aren't familiar with the word "externalities", check it out. Megabuck Monstrocorp has been reaping enormous profits by refusing to clean up the messes they make. Those messes are externalities. They are the socialized costs that we must pick up; the abandoned mines, the dead bodies of water, the clear-cut forests.

Jim, if you think for one moment that Teddy Rossevelt would be elected to nationwide office in today's GOP, I have some Gulf front property to sell you.

This won't change for the same reason the environmental dissemation in Applachia won't change. The minute anyone proposes regulations to help solve or avoid problems, industry threatens to take all of the jobs away... and the spineless politicians on both sides cave. It would take something other than short-sightedness to handle this problem, which means it won't get handled until it is too late.

The "left" has been warning about pollution for decades, to the deaf ears of the right wing. All my life I have heard negative and antagonistic remarks and opposition from the greedy right on environmental issues.

It was that way concerning tobacco and smoking in public exposing others to 4000 chemicals. Remember, just ask someone to please not smoke? Then the fist fights..asking an addicted dope addict to please not take his fix in an area that affects you and your family? Good luck and even today the fat draft dodger, pill addict, Limbaugh, tells his audience that smoking is not dangerous and that asbestos needs to be brought back along with thousands of banned carcinogenic chemicals.

The right wing is focused on one thing..money, to the exclusion of everything else.

Now, we have more oil spills in rivers, one up North, threatening a Great Lake.

We all knew that the Gulf was a dumping ground and that the rich could always go to Hawaii, for now. Maybe we need to put some oil rigs on Wakiki Beach about 200 yards out and a paper mill there too, stink up the place. One in front of Limbaughs beach house in Florida too, since they are nooooo problem.

You see, folks, red neck riviera is ok to use as a toilet because the "small" people use it for recreation. But, try and use the rich folks playground as a toilet and watch the fur fly.

Mafreed: Put it this way: ask any fundamentalist Christian about ecology and they'll say "It doesn't matter what happens to the planet because we are in the 'Last Days'." You know... the same "Last Days" we've been in since John penned the Book of Revelation.

And mankind, in his quest for "beauty" in view from his/her front door step, has destroyed natural barriers along every coastline by building on them (Outer Banks, NC, LA barrier islands, the rest of the Gulf Coast barrier islands just as examples.) We have filled in swamps and other natural water channels to build upon more land. We have clear-cut forests to build upon or farm upon. And as others have noted, polluted our air and waterways with chemicals of all kinds from both agriculture and manufacturing, all to satisfy our greed for "more and better things" in our lives. We are all to blame for the earth's destruction, including each of us sitting in front of our computers making these comments.

Poorly educated. Selfishly driven. Absorbed in following blind leadership. In love with the military, proving that no questions ever need to be asked. The Bible Belt to Texas and up the grain belt- the ignorant, while secretly very dependent on the "system" cries victim here. Faith based, why has god foresaken these people? Without knowledge these poeple don't know a good deal from a bad deal, but "Johnny reb" is alive and well.

And next up to bat, after the redneck voter blinks and then shrugs, with an "oh well, we were wrong"....the western conservative, straight from Cheney's home state....espousing "Us, all whites know how to run a diverse country with diverse problems". Good luck, there. You can't possibly know, any more than your southern brethren. purposely removed from responsibilty and accountability, don't look for sympathy. Acknowledge who put you in your dilemma, the harlots of Corporate america has caused your problems...all of them...from illegal work force, to banking and risk, to trashing your environment.

@Indigo Halo

What does your atheistic view have to do with the subject of this article?
Is it really your stance that Republicans and Christians don't care about the environment?
Is it your position that all Democrats and atheists are the only people concerned about the environment?

If you had read the article you would have noticed it mentions that much of the pollution in the Gulf comes from the Mississippi river. And if you look you will see that river starts way north of the Gulf States.

Two things:

The EPA was formed under a Republican President (Nixon). George W. Bush declared a huge section of the Pacific ocean near Hawaii as protected. I'm not even Republican or Christian and here I am defending them against the idiot ramblings of Indigo Halo.

Second, as an environmental engineer with a PhD specializing in wastewater treatment, I can tell you that blaming this problem on treatment facilities is complete nonsense. The standards are increasing in the Gulf states, and they were already pretty tough already.

All of this is just to divert attention away from the massive volume of oil that was released into the Gulf, along with the vastly more poisonous Corexit that was pumped into the oil stream to keep it below water. DO NOT believe a word that the NYT prints about this, much less anything else.

@BuckWheat

What does your atheistic view have to do with the subject of this article? I'm not an atheist. I'm a Wiccan. I think one's religious views directly impact whether one cares about the environment. The three Abrahamic faiths view the Earth as disposable. Paganism does not.
Is it really your stance that Republicans and Christians don't care about the environment? Absolutely.
Is it your position that all Democrats and atheists are the only people concerned about the environment? I think a Democrat is much more likely to care about the environment than a Republican. I think Christians, in particular, are the least likely to care about the environment because they think we are in the "last days" and the "Rapture" will come soon and whisk all the Republican Christians up to Heaven while sending all us evil liberals, atheists, witches, homosexuals, and environmentalists straight to Hell.

If you had read the article you would have noticed it mentions that much of the pollution in the Gulf comes from the Mississippi river. And if you look you will see that river starts way north of the Gulf States. It doesn't matter. The Far Right is still the faction that thinks pollution is no big deal.

@Indigo Halo

At least your honest about your position, wrong, but honest.

@Deke

Excellent post.

Wow I'm a left leaning moderate but have to also disagree with the statement. Not all Republicans are disconcerted with the environment.

This article is still pressing for the bad pub on the oil industry and industry in general. The Gulf is NOT TOXIC! Just look at the fishing industry there, it's alive and well. You can go deep sea fishing and do very well, take whale spotting tours, you can never go out and not see a dolphin, and yes millions of birds STILL migrate to the Gulf. The dead zone is not from toxicity as the author is trying to say, it's from the heavy nutrient load of the Mississippi. It is not only from agriculture but is a natural process as well! It happens in waters all over the world.

What I find funny about the article is that Gulf residence, who are typically on the far right, are complaining about the federal government not regulating industry and protecting the environment enough! LOL! You can't have it both ways republicans. Either you are going to be for funding government agencies that do this or keep being against "big" government and continue to have loose regulations. Your policies change whenever it's convenient.

@Indigo Halo

I think one's religious views directly impact whether one cares about the environment. The three Abrahamic faiths view the Earth as disposable. Paganism does not.

Actually, passages on the beauty of nature feature prominently in the Bible and it's mentioned that humanity's first job was to take care of Earth. It even suggests that destruction of nature is related to wickedness ("How long will the land lie parched and the grass in every field be withered? Because those who live in it are wicked, the animals and birds have perished. Moreover, the people are saying, 'He will not see what happens to us.'" -- Jeremiah 12:4).

It doesn't matter. The Far Right is still the faction that thinks pollution is no big deal.

I know of few people who think pollution is ignorable. Many midwestern evangelicals (including some in my family) worry about sustainability and land condition because they're farmers. The land is their life. I think you'd find that there's a large number of Republicans who'd surprise you if you looked around. Maybe you should get off your computer, do a little traveling. Find out who this faceless "Far Right" really is.

Oh, and I'm not Republican. Don't think I'm talking about myself.

@famousperson

I am truly baffled by this attitude that is so against their best interests. Is it fear? If so, of what?

I think it has to do with people doing things with their party. Lots of Republicans either grow up in a Republican family or join for one or two particular issues (i.e. abortion). That in itself isn't so bad as the fact that everyone starts viewing their party as better than everybody else and votes the way higher-ups want them to vote. This is a disease on every side of the political spectrum.

David Walker -

Thanks for your insightful post (#1.7). You have dissected and analyzed the creature beautifully.

Every time I start to feel like this site has little to offer, I come across a post like yours.

Fac: I wish there were more Christians like you. But you do realize that you are part of a very small minority in the Christian faith, right? The mainstream Christian thinks that God sends hurricanes and earthquakes to punish cities for not killing gays and witches.

@Indigo Halo

Fac: I wish there were more Christians like you. But you do realize that you are part of a very small minority in the Christian faith, right? The mainstream Christian thinks that God sends hurricanes and earthquakes to punish cities for not killing gays and witches.

It's not as small a minority as you might think. I'm sorry that you've had some issues with the SC police, but they're not the average Christian.

Much like any other group of people, Christians have a couple of loonies who become controversial voices and get lots of attention while a bunch of the more normal people kind of hunker down.

As for the destruction of cities because of homosexuality: those people are idiots. There are some passages in the Old Testament about the desctruction of some cities (Sodom and Gomorrah) which people take way too far. It just mentions that they're particularly evil cities (they try to gang-rape some angels), but it's not specific as to the full extent of their ills. People just say that they were a city of homosexuals and that they needed to be destroyed because they were full of gays and that will always happen to cities full of "homosezzuals." That's absolutely not true.

Although there are scriptures which refer negatively to homosexuality, people seem to choose to pay attention to those over what Jesus himself said was the number one and number two things every Christian should follow:

One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

--Matthew 22:35-40

Anybody who stands on a street corner waving signs about "God hates fags" is an idiot on Jesus's wrong side.

I think this parable also illustrates how Christians should try to view people:

"Then the King will say to those on his right, 'Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.'"

"Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?'"

"The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.'"

"They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?'"

"He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.'"

--Matthew 25:34-45

@Indigo Halo

"The mainstream Christian thinks that God sends hurricanes and earthquakes to punish cities for not killing gays and witches."

Indigo I don't think I have ever heard of someone more ignorant and obtuse than you.....really. I think it's pathetic that you obviously don't travel and expose yourself to more of American culture, or you wouldn't make such asinine statements like this.

Tracey: Your leaders (Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson) have said those things. If you Christians don't feel that way, then stop sending those people money each Sunday. Get better leaders!

I hate to see post number one start up with a partisan flame war. It sets the tone for the discussion. Too many of our Newsvine discussions become partisan flame wars. When I think of the Gulf coast, I think of the natural habitat, wetlands, white sand beaches, etc... Why can't everyone relate to the tragedy of the Gulf becoming as polluted it is today after the BP oil spill? Why is it all of us beyond our partisan labels can't relate to the pollution issue?

My biggest concern about the Gulf pollution is that big oil will keep us addicted to oil for as long as possible and shut out the competition until its too late. Drilled oil will start becoming scarce and big oil will want to recover sand or shale oil, a process that is a parallel to strip mining. Then perhaps we will have to switch to natural gas. In short, the pattern is remain addicted to the same multi national, multi billionaire corporations, who together will monopolize the resources.

The time to develop oil alternatives is NOW instead of later when we will all be in long lines to pay $10 a gallon at the pump. Developing alternatives would create "green jobs." In fact, we need to jump into the competition for those green jobs with other countries or we will be dependent on them for our future energy. We need to develop those jobs ourselves and maintain them in America instead of being outsourced.

Powering the Future is an excellent new series on the Science Channel.

Most of the carmakers fight increases in fuel economy tooth-and-nail. And yet... the British version of the Ford Focus gets almost 70 MPG, while the American version barely gets 30 MPG.

Bingo halo! I'm glad someone finally said it. It's the "elephant in the living room" of our time. These right wingers and so-called "conservatives" are the exact ones - whether repubs or other, that still believe that all of the Earth's resources are unlimited and that somehow, we as humans have a "god given" right to use them and abuse them as we see fit! I challenge ANY of you morons out there to prove that one wrong. Oh yeah, and the answers ain't gonna come from FAUX NEWS either - so keep trying and beat that old dead horse... History (if there is to be any) will judge this era as the one where we had a choice to make and blew it by relying on lies, deceit and conservative ideology, instead of trying to save our home planet from the mounting evidence of overheating, pollution, toxicity, and destruction of the oceans.

@Tracy1973

Keep it civil, please.

@Indigo Halo

Tracey: Your leaders (Fred Phelps and Pat Robertson) have said those things. If you Christians don't feel that way, then stop sending those people money each Sunday. Get better leaders!

Fred Phelps is disliked by most Christians-- even a majority of the super-right fundies. He's an absolute loony that nobody agrees with.

As for Pat Roberts, most Christians I know feel that televangelists are rarely worth any attention at all. They're associated with money-grubbing and unstable philosophy.

As I said before, there're certain controversial individuals who receive lots of coverage because they're controversial.

Job 12:7-10. But ask the animals, and they will teach you; or birds of the air and they will tell you; or speak to the earth and it will teach you; or let the fish of the sea inform you. Which of all these does not know that the hand of the lord has done this. In His hand is the life of every creature and the breath of all mankind.

Straight from the Christian Bible, folks. Christianity is concerned about the natural world, but some not-so-good Christians have lost sight of this in their human pursuits.

Another reason to legalize hemp!

Don't get me started on the cotton industry too.

I would bet good money if we had the same type of people lobbying for makers of chamber pots when the toilet was invented, we wouldn't have running water or indoor plumbing.

When I grew up on a farm, we were still doing crop rotation to replenish the soil. Today's farmers are too few and far between with the natural method of fertilization (clover and soybean crops plowed under for the nitrogen rebuilding, animal manure spread on the fields, etc.) Most farms today are part of the AgriBusiness system, with thousands of acres to harvest with huge expensive machinery instead of the small 80-100 acre farms of my day.

Anti-Trust: Isn't it awesome how the government gives ADM billions of dollars each year in corporate welfare while all the family farms have been driven out of business? ::sigh:: The billionaires and trillionaires will probably end up living in pristine, domed, pressurized estates while the masses choke to death as the ecosystem crumbles.

I doubt the corn industry will fail, the demand is too high for that. But, I would agree there is some manipulation in the seed and fertilizer industry. It seems in years when the market for corn soars, the next year inputs increase, which force farmers to rotate crops to remain profitable. Which in turn reduces supply, and increases demand for corn.

Soy is not the answer either. Soy is a legume, legumes produce their own nitrogen, alfalfa is a legume as well. Canola yields approximately 4 times as much oil as soy, but like corn, requires nitrogen. Canola is a better choice for producing biodiesel, because of the yield factor.

Corn is a better food crop, than a fuel crop. The reason being, corn contains starch, which must be converted to sugar to produce ethyl alcohol. Whereas, there are a variety of sugar bearing canes, and beets, that are a more direct conversion.

But, I am not buying the nitrogen argument, of the nutrients we use for crop production, nitrogen has the short lifespan, it is generally the most expensive as well, so farmers try to use it effectively to reduce production costs. It readily dissipates into the air, which means it should be applied underground. Sunlight rapidly dissipates nitrogen as well. So, it is not suitable for surface applications. For some years farmers have been adopting vertical tillage methods, as opposed to horizontal tillage. This allows nutrients to saturate deeper into the ground, rather than to run off with surface water. An additions benefit is there is less runoff, and more water goes into the water table, with the ground filtering out and absorbing the nutrients. I myself in my small operation have been able to reduce nutrient applications by 400% or more by utilizing vertical tillage. But, in large operations, no-till methods are the popular choice. The problem being, tillage increases production cost tremendously, and reduces productivity. So, if no-till was eliminated, food prices would increase dramatically. Which would result in those who can marginally afford to buy food would find life difficult. History dictates that the success of societies does not lie in wealth, or power, but in the ability of the society to feed the people.

So, tough decisions are in order. Do we produce food, or fuel with the crop land available? How do we reduce urban sprawl to preserve crop lands? It seems everyone wants a house in the 'burbs, everyone wants to shop at the big box stores, and park on paved over farm land. At some point conservationism will need to be addressed as being beneficial. And typically, farmers are conservationists, it is necessary to preserve their livelihood.

Nice post, thank you for trying to bring facts into the discussion!

Corn generated ethanol was a Big Ag conspiracy to influence congress. They got the mandate to quit using MTBE as a gasoline additive to boost octane levels and burn hotter/cleaner. This chemical has gotten into the ground water in many regions. At the same time, corn producers got subsidized for ethanol production as an alternative.

The effect was an immediate demand for huge quantities of ethanol, an area the equivalent size of California was put under corn cultivation for ethanol. This took up a lot of prime crop lands for non food production and increased the price of all food products with corn.

There are better alternatives for ethanol. Crops such as Switch Grass can be grown of poor crop land. It is a native plant that is perennial, drought resistant, pest resistant, has a heavy ton per acre yield, improves the top soil and provides wild life habitat. The ethanol is generated from cellulose. They have also used algae green houses next to traditional coal fired power plants to generate ethanol. They pump air emissions from the power plant into the green houses, the algae takes the carbon dioxide and emissions, produces ethanol with an waste product of clean oxygen.

Farmers are also developing bio diesel to add to regular diesel at 20 percent from Canola seeds. Canola can be grown during winter in many parts of the country, yield seeds, while the rest of the plant is plowed under to enrich the top soil.

Powering the Future is a new series on the Science Channel.

Andy , Mike enjoyed both of your posts!

Right wing response: Jesus will be comin' back by then, anyway. God they are stupid people. Palin is their genius.

Ted: I'm hoping that the ecosystem will kill man off before man can kill off the ecosystem.

Yes, and Indigo you need to be the first.

Tracey: Why not you first?

Maybe because I am not wishing for the extinction of man? Sounds like you would be willing to be the start of a mass human suicide for the good of the planet. Kinda like those criminals on the Bob Barker ship who are willing to die for the whales?

Tracey: Actually, I don't advocate anything of the kind. I do think that the human race needs to be breeding above the replacement rate. We're the apex predator species on this planet (in other words, there is no predator that hunts us for food), thus we need to be doing a heck of a lot better job in self-regulation than we have been doing.

correction: :I do NOT think the human race needs to be breeding above the replacement rate.

"Tracey: Actually, I don't advocate anything of the kind."

You stated earlier that "I'm hoping that the ecosystem will kill man off before man can kill off the ecosystem."

"We're the apex predator species on this planet (in other words, there is no predator that hunts us for food), thus we need to be doing a heck of a lot better job in self-regulation than we have been doing."

I agree with that one. Now if we can just get the poor countries to adhear to this we should all be fine.

It's not just poor countries that have too many children. In this country, the IRS still gives out big bonuses for having big families.

There will probably be some catastrophic die-back in the human population in the next century. For one, the oil reserves will be finished, and there won't be a way to transport food anymore. Second, the ecology will be so screwed up by then that it will be difficult to make food grow.

Now, if 95% or so of the human population gets wiped out, it would take several thousand years before we're back at 7 billion people. The ecology would likely recover by then (provided we don't have nuclear war over dwindling resources.)

Very thoughtful post, archangel. I couldn't agree more.

archangel 3:16

I agree with you on the first paragraph. However, your second paragraph is very ignorant. The Church, for centuries, actually didn't want the populace to be educated so that they and the monarchies, who were basically in cahoots with each other, could take advantage of the "little man." Try reading Chaucer for examples of Church corruption and the effort to keep the populace uneducated.

Also, the sanitized view of the Puritans, that they escaped religious persecution in England, is laughable. They were upset that the Church and England wouldn't force their views on everyone, for example, they wanted to outlaw the plays put on by Shakespeare. Ever heard of the word "puritanical"? It's not a good word.

On the subject at hand, I believe there are many reasons the Gulf has been a dumping ground. Since it borders FL, AL, MS, LA, TX and Mexico, people just don't care about it. These are southern, conservative states and a country that is imploding. People think these areas deserve what they get. But I think it's way too high of a price to pay for people to stand there and point and say, "We told you so! You deserved this," just because they vote Republican? These are not children that need to be punished!!! The Gulf is way too important to destroy just to prove a point.

MLS: The Church *still* doesn't like people being educated. Those with access to a proper education might start asking questions and start thinking for themselves. The Church fears that.

Excellent post Archangel.

ArchAngel your perfect views of religion are completely false.For years us "treehuggers" have been fighting to save our planet only to be discreditted by the likes of the religous right and so called conservatives.We have been berated and made to feel as though we were the ones who didn't understand.That the progress of our country meant way more than the environment.Now that we're sitting on the brink of no return everyone wants to act like they care, but it doesn't hide the fact that for many decades now saving the environment and our planet was mocked and ridiculed.

Oh and on top of all that education your so called religions created you must also mention about the millions that have been slaughtered due to holy wars.Let's not forget about the crusades you know the ones where if your village didn't join the church the whole village would be slaughtered.See you must remember the bad stuff also.Religion isn't a bad thing it just isn't all good and perfect either.

Science: I'd take a tree for a neighbor over a Republican any day.

Yes and since the tree is on your educational level....you can talk all day to it and it will agree with you politics everytime.

Tracy: A tree for a next-door neighbor won't stand in front of my house waving a "God Hates Fags" sign.

Neither would a TRUE Christian. I sure hope you aren't ignorant enough to think the Fred Phelps and his cult represent mainstream Christians. Are you?

Tracy: Freddy must represent a decent chunk of Christianity, given that Prop-8 passed (and similar pro-hate legislation in 42 other states).

I've not heard of Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, the Church of Latter Day Saints, Pat Robertson, or the 700 Club giving one thin dime to any kind of ecological cause.

Put it this way: The president of Honda had a very salient quote. He said, "When new environmental laws get passed, the Detroit carmakers hire more lawyers. Honda hires more engineers."

"The Right would rather purchase emisions credits from the govt. rather than take the money and invest in pollution control"

Isn't the BS notion of carbon credits as al gore idea?

"The right would destroy the environment for $$$ if they were allowed to be left to there own devices"

That's an outright lie because conservatives are some of the biggest supporters of conservation of wildlife. Where do you get this BS notion that the left are not some of the biggest polluters in the world? Chaves and Castro and those who support leftist economic ideas are the WORST polluters.

Tracy: I don't agree with you on much, but I'll agree with you on carbon credits. It is the "green" equivalent of the old Catholic practice of buying indulgences. It's a crock. I drive a car that gets 50 MPG, I recycle, and I developed a printing method for work that uses 2/3 less paper (so I conserve probably 500 reams of paper per year). I run my heat at 59 in the winter and the AC at 78 in summer. I run my laptop in ECO mode so that it draws a whopping 11 watts. All that makes more of a difference than Al Gore purchasing carbon offsets from companies he owns stock in.

Actually, it was the Religious Right that used to kill people who dared suggest that the world was a sphere and not a flat plane. I don't find it insulting to be called a tree-hugger. I'd rather have a tree for a next-door neighbor than a Republican any day.

You enjoy the musings of the "tree hugger crowd"?

If it turns out that their thinking does not prevail, I wonder how your great-grandchildren will feel about your viewpoint when there are no trees left to hug.

Sheri: It won't matter, since when there are no more trees to hug, there won't be any air to breathe.

"Mongrel" president? Good grief!

You want to take the genetic test? Long cotton swab rubbed on this inside of the cheek, send it to a science foundation, and find out what your ethnic-genetic mix is. By scientific studies of genes, they have found out that we all came from the original African tribe 280,000 to 350,000 years ago through genetic studies.

Here's something to choke on for all of those alleged non Mongrels. We are all African Americans! Now that we can put that issue aside, we will have to judge each other for who we are. Gee whiz, but isn't that what America is supposed to be all about?

Gee double whiz, isn't some right wing nutcase going to blame the pollution in the Gulf on Obama?

Mountainmike: It's a bit off-topic, but I can't resist. Someof the fundamentalist Christians on the Far Right now think that Obama is a Wiccan (most fundamentalists think the president is a Muslim, despite going to *chruch* every weekend for 20 years and not a *mosque*). It's amazing what kind of crap the paranoid folk on the right will cook up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7di5cjsqapk

It's complete with sinister music and subtitles. Whoo-hoo!

Indigo -

Too true, I'm afraid. And our descendants are bound to go through a lot of misery and suffering long before they reach that point.

I'm hoping there are some great minds at work, if perhaps covertly, on the problems that threaten us and the earth.

Paul you have absolutely no clue.Take your retarded hatred and rediculous talking points and tell them to someone who cares.The Oil spill wasnt't that bad?Do you have any idea where all that Oil is?It's right below the surface and just cause you cant see it there doesn't meen it won't have serios effects.Stop downplaying this catastrophe like all the other Repubs.We get it you guys don't care, but don't downplay a horrible disaster like this.

Wow, science way to make a discussion a personal attack. It is a tragedy, what I said was it was not as bad as the media made the disaster out to be, meaning it was way over hyped. That does not mean this was not a significant disaster.

I was not downplaying the catastrophe, I was referring to the doom and gloom reports the media kept spewing. But again, thanks for not keeping with talking points and trying to start a personal attacking argument. I'm surprised you didn't throw in there somewhere that I was a racist, perhaps your rebuttal will contain that reference.

Science: You have to remember that the Republicans don't mind if people die so long as they can get cheap gas for their Hummers and Escalades.

The average Christian Republican CEO probably believes in the "Prosperity Gospel", which essentially states that being rich is proof that God loves you and that you are living a righteous life. I guess the South American cocaine billionaires are the most holy people on the planet, eh?

It is a left vs right issue. The left wants tough regulation for environmental concerns, however as the article clearly states the Gulf Right states don't. At even the hint of stricter environmental regulation the Right cries, tree huggers, socialists etc. Ironic that the left states have stricter regulations, more population, and less pollution hazzards? I think not. Now, even as the oil still lingers in the gulf, they call out for more drilling?? All our water borders need increased regulation, for pollution, drilling, run offs, and other environmental concerns.

If we want things done m_78, we have to ditch that line of thinking. I don't think anyone, no matter what their registration, wants to live by a polluted beach, or breath smog. It's now or never time to start fresh, and taking sides won't cut it. We're all shareholders here, so now it's time to make and enforce the legislation. If Republicans (or Democrats for that matter) can't or won't get the job done, then they have to answer for it this November. If they're still here, we only have ourselves to blame for not kicking them out.

I agree with Wm. There seems to be no middle ground all of the time on all issues because the two parties want to divide us and the news media likes to provoke partisan bias to sell newspapers, magazines, TV and internet viewership. The environment is one of those issues where people can come together to preserve and protect their common environment.

We desperately need middle ground on this issue if anything is to be done. I can see us all suddenly in long lines at the gas station waiting our turn at the pump for $10 a gallon gasoline because Big Oil has monopolized oil for so long that is has crushed all competition, even the promising alternatives we have right now that we desperately need to develop as fast as possible.

Yes Wm and mike, I too agree, This is not a political issue and both sides of the aisle carry blame here. But, more importantly, it is the business model and lack of oversight that's the problem. Something in this story that seems to have gone unnoticed by all the wing-nuts.

Works for me. The only wildlife that the Christian Republicans appreciate are animals they can blast to smithereens with shotguns.

Yes, BOTH parties, but the slight difference is one party (the democratic) tries to include some semblence of a check on pollution. I'm not saying they can't do more, but sometimes when we are powerless against money interest, we must take what we can get.

THAT is the BIG difference btw the two parties. One has no shame or at the very best a rhetorical ethic and the other has shame, but not enough to damper their campaign funding.

Thank you for your interesting reply; however, I would still prefer someone in office that would listen to some of the intelligent, thoughtful and, apparently, first-hand responses to this article. I wonder why I am reading these posts rather than someone who can and would be interested in making actual difference. Oh, I know... they're reading them but are going to do a in-depth study before having a Congressional hearing and calling witnesses, who will be summarily chewed out, then hold a vote - from which some will abstain while the others vote along party lines, and then make a report calling for further study.

I'm more jaded than you... despite the dems eco-babble, I don't believe either party is helpful. They're both too stupid to ask the locals what needs to be done and to do it. So, I believe you've got to be prepared to help yourself out of any mess... indeed, some messes are way too big to deal with on your own, that's why we need someone who will LISTEN to intelligent locals, then ACT.

Ron, I am highly amused that one of the most intelligent posts in this thread comes from a gulf resident. You seem to make all these left wing-nuts foot shooters. (chuckle)

Ron, you are correct about northern areas and industry that have had an adverse affect on the gulf's ecosystem and economy. I also agree that when we environmentalists speak of "saving the earth" what we really mean is saving ourselves. The earth will eventually regenerate itself but we cannot. Population and modern living are the biggest threats to the environment unless we finally get a clue that we have to learn from nature not rape it.

Where I diverge is on your comments about wind, solar and hydrolic fracturing (corn does suck). Wind and solar are emerging technologies that the fossil fuel industries, along with their bought-off political partners, have blocked support. We do not pay the true cost of polluting technologies so it becomes a false sense of "cheapness" compared to new technologies which will be pricier in the early stages. If the price were truly paid at the pump, as they do in many countries that tax petrol heavily, society would have demanded cleaner and less expensive alternatives. Hence, solar and wind would have been taken more seriously. Whatever people say about Jimmy Carter, he tried to sound the bell that we need to change our course from polluting energy, but very few listened. Reagan removed the solar panels that Carter had installed on the White House, which tells a larger tale of how "what me worry" and status quo resumed to be the policy from then on. Just think what our world would be like today if we had kept up our investment in renewables then.

As for "fracking", you really should read up on the technology and what they do to extract the natural gas quickly and the cheapest way possible. Rural people that have their lands drilled on are finding that their wells and local water systems are contaminated and unusable. There is a documentary called "Gasland" that was recently on HBO that covers this effect and it is shocking to see people lighting the water coming out of their faucet! That is a big price to pay. Natural gas has some positive potential but we need to force the companies to make sure they are doing this much more responsibly and preparing for long-term consequences rather than quickly and cheaply. Fracking is not responsible.

I would take a windmill in my backyard way before I would allow a gas company to frack on my land.

Whatever. There are 7 billion human beings and less that 10,000 whales left. Which species do you think is more endangered?

Sorry Indigo Halo, to the Right the whales are mere collateral damage. Remember, there is no such thing as endangered species, let alone global warming. The only important matter is that black gold we need to keep drilling for.

JHawkins Preach on brother. 99 percent of this nation are brainwashed simple minded sheeple. Those are the ones that vote. Thats the problem

indigo are you a shake snake or just a wipe? whats the halo aluminum foil wraped on that thing you call a head, do you still beat your wife?

stilson: I guess you're not too smart if all you can do is make references to bodily elimination processes.

Hawkins it's because of people like you that our problems have never been adressed.You spread lies as though they are facts.Let's see the source that you are getting your numbers from?

You just don't get it people are becoming the enemy of the Earth and guess what it's the only one.Don't we want our children to grow up in a clean environment?Do we want to kill off species that have been around for millions of years before we were?How pretentious of you to assume that humans have that right.At least after the humans leave this earth it will recover.

Total number of whales are ~3 million, of that there are only 11700 blue whales.
http://www.whales.org.au/faq/index.html#003

Not enough? Probably, but GreenPeace would rather protest America - which does not have a whaling industry rather then take their fight to Russia or China...no cojones.

Comrade: thank you for the correction. I'm not keen on Russia or China -- for many reasons, of which whaling is just one entry in a pretty long list.

toomuchtime:

Not nearly enough people get it.

So there's a dead zone in the Gulf the size of Lake Ontario?

How about the dead zone at the mouth of the Mississippi that's the size of New Jersey?

How about the destruction of our topsoils on a global scale, which thanks to our devastating system of agriculture and damming of rivers have mostly ended up in the oceans?

Note to those who do not know this: You cannot grow crops (or anything else) in the dirt beneath the topsoil. It's DEAD. Period.

Entire civilizations have perished because they decimated their lands in like fashion, beginning with forest clearing.

Bear with me as I follow our modus operandi to its logical conclusion. No crops = no food supply for us from that quarter + the death of animals we feed crops to = no more domestic animals for us to feed on = global famine and death for us.

So what will we feed on in our last-ditch efforts to stave off starvation? Will it be Soylent Green time?

I have one hope, and it is this: Although people are for the most part blissfully ignorant of our true state of emergency, the movers and shakers among us are well aware of it, and finer minds than ours are hard at work trying to figure out what to do about it.

If indeed this is happening, we will never heard about it from our governments, of course. No point in panicking the herd.

The way I have read it, there is a dead zone the size of Massachusetts where the Mississippi River pours out into the Gulf because of fertilizer run off from crops stimulating algae growth. When fresh water algae reach salt water, it dies and decomposes. The decomposition takes basically all the oxygen out of the water. It therefore becomes a dead zone where no sea life can survive. It smells like rotten eggs.

The algae needs to be harvested (skimmed) and used before it hits the Gulf. If for no other reason, just put it on the crop lands where the fertilizer has come from to build top soil. We are talking about millions of tons per year. It could be a profitable business, but it requires a lot of money to start.

And they now have different strains of algae producing ethanol, biodeisel and hydrogen.

Algae isn't necessarily a bad thing, its just that we have never looked at it seriously as a resource.

David: I've been to South Carolina. You can actually get stopped for no reason and harassed by the cops for having a Wiccan bumper sticker on your car. They consider the Unitarian Universalists "occult" in SC. Yeah, ignorance is a virtue in the Red States.

no not in the back of your closet, but the back of your mind. Ask yourself, and only YOU know the answer so please don't post it, because it can't be verified, how do you REALLY feel about blacks in this country?

And the majority (if it is based on skin color) is about race and unfortunately, in the USA, skin color is the determinate..

Indigo, please prove evidence of your statement, else it is just anti-Southern bigotry.

blackinjun, why do you ask a question where you do not want to know the answer? Or have you already answered it for them based on your own opinion? As you say in 24.1, "WTF?"

blackinjun, you are right of course. But it doesn't have to be this way. Remember my man, John Lennon. Imagine.

My grandfather is a Souther Baptist minister and we got into a political debate 2 years ago and he laughed at me when i told him I wanted to start up a solar company and help the planet go green.He told me I would be wasting my time and there was no reason we needed to save the Earth because whatever happened was Gods will.We haven't spoken since that day and as much at it breaks my heart to know that people think like him I just hope that more people will be more understanding and maybe do something to change.

Oh yeah he also taught me to never let my wife work because she belongs at home and to never trust "the blacks" because they will eventually ruin our society and are only half human.No joke these are things he told me.Oh and guess what he lives in Mississippi.

Comrade: One of my friend's children (a Wiccan, 20-year-old) was stopped by the police because the cop thought that the pentacle emblem on the back of his car was "suspicious". His car was then searched illegally. An hour of his time was wasted for no good reason. He didn't get a ticket or a warning or anything. Just a bunch of lip from a bigoted cop.

I had to get a set of keys made for my car while traveling in SC. As a result of the locksmith noticing my Wiccan bumper sticker, he put me on a Bible Tract mailing list and I got a bunch of "Convert or burn in Hell" crap for about a year straight.

@blackinjun

no not in the back of your closet, but the back of your mind. Ask yourself, and only YOU know the answer so please don't post it, because it can't be verified, how do you REALLY feel about blacks in this country?

And the majority (if it is based on skin color) is about race and unfortunately, in the USA, skin color is the determinate..

Well, of course the majority (if it is based on skin color) is about race! That's because the qualification you placed on them is race-related!

Yes, there's racists. There will probably always be at least a couple racists, and they'll go both ways. Until people on both sides of every race line will stop glaring at interracial coupless, voting for people based off of their skin color (and I don't mean Obama; he crushed McCain's inspid campaign. I'm talking about lower-level contests that're frequently decided by John Everyman saying "that person looks better than the other."), and defining each other by their skin color, there will still be racism.

Maybe we should start referring to "blacks" and "whites" as "people." If we stop treating this entire mess as separate groups, some of this debris will wash away.

and im going to shut up now because i just spouted a bunch of generalities and feel angry now

Sciencebeliever, so how's your solar company doing?

IH, if what you said was true about your "friend's kid" the ACLU would have taken that case pro bono to suit the cops. I'm fairly sure I'm not the only one who's BS alarm is going off while reading your posts.

Comrade: Thanks for the tip. I didn't know that was an actionable thing. I will let him know.

Wait...your profile page states that you are in law enforcement. Yet you do not know about the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution concerning illegal search & seizures?

...now THAT is scary...

Comrade: I'm not actually a cop. My job is more like a probation agent except that I supervise people pending trial instead of post-conviction. I've never done an arrest in my life.

I did state that it was an *illegal* search. But since no charges were filed against my friend's son, I thought that was the end of the road.

BM: We needed a civil war decades ago. That way the Blue States can have ecology, science, medicine, freedom, and peace; the Red States can have religion, fear, war, hate, pollution, sickness, poverty, and death. It's how both sides want it. Why not give it to them?

....Indigo, looking at electoral maps of presidential elections over the last few decades show that major metropolis's are 'blue'...

...big cities...nope...no hate, fear, sickness, poverty, pollution, death, crime or war found in those concrete jungles...they are just islands of utopia...

Comrade: Overall, the education systems are better in "blue" states. The infant mortality is lower, the life expectancy is higher, and the ratio of doctors to citizens is a damned sight better. Major metropolitan areas in Red States also have crime problems and poverty.

MSN will start a civil war? Do you only get your information from one source? Does not the thinking person, in this age of instant info, seek as many points of view as possible to form coherent opinions?I think it is undeniable that the Gulf has been more polluted than the rest of the country for a long time. Regardless of "party" we must seek to ensure that our actions do not imperil our existence. We must look into the complex issues that surround us, not take one article and run with it. People, please use your search engines!

BM: We needed a civil war decades ago. That way the Blue States can have ecology, science, medicine, freedom, and peace; the Red States can have religion, fear, war, hate, pollution, sickness, poverty, and death. It's how both sides want it. Why not give it to them?

Compare a map of election results with one of population density by COUNTY, not state.

Red/blue state is a myth created to keep idiots like you under the thrall of one or the other political parties.

Don't be such a tool.

...note again the lack of source material in IH's post...

VoteThirdParty is correct and also where the information is prevalent....and the only way one can see what I stated is by looking at a map of election results with one of population density by COUNTY.

...sorry, gotta go to Home Depot to see if they stock the Indigo Halo tool in the discount bin...

Comrade:

14 of the 15 states for lowest life expectancy are Red States. With the exception of DC, people who live in Blue States outlive people who live in Red States. Why? Because Blue States value science, reason, medicine, caring for the elderly and disabled, etc. We also give a damn about the environment.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/sep2006/db20060913_099763.htm

And you can hardly call Business Week a "liberal" publication.

Disgusting! I had no idea but I'll guarantee you it hasn't changed. Good for the fish... right!

They throw garbage from ALL cruise ships in CA waters, too! I know person who worked on a cruise ship who told me all about it. In addition, I was sailing on a small boat behind a cruise ship and could see both the garbage (and the smell/oil slick) and the cruise ship in the distance... too far away to know which one, but I'll never take a cruise! And, if you're on a cruise, keep your camera/cell phone handy and you're eyes open (they do it mostly late at night, when passengers are asleep)... record it, then report the so-and-sos!! And tell the news!

FixNews will do more toward stirring the pot towards civil war than MSN/MSNBC. It is always interesting to see how the followers of the ultra-right ideology are always on MSNBC/Newsvine posting their comments. I guess they don't think posting on FN will get them anywhere. After all, they are spewing the same venom they here/read from that source.

I am a GDI, I don't consider myself a Democrat, a liberal, or any other term people want to apply. I look at each issue and determine for myself what positive or negative effect that issue has on my life. And yes, I am gay, so many of my thoughts are determined by my lifestyle too (and it is NOT a chosen lifestyle as you religious bigots always like to claim.) Until you are gay yourself, you have no right to tell us who or what we are or why we are or where we should go (to hell, as you always love to say.)

Oops, for some reason, I hit the reply button in the wrong thread. This is in response to #22, not #23.

WTF?

"the oil spill isn't the disaster so many people thought, so the ny times has to manufacture some other crisis/disaster to make up for it."

Corexit^[1] is a product line of solvents primarily used as a dispersant for breaking up oil slicks. It is produced by Nalco Holding Company which is associated with BP and Exxon.^[2] Corexit is the most-used dispersant in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, with COREXIT 9527 having been replaced by COREXIT 9500 after the former was deemed too toxic.^[3] Oil that would normally rise to the surface of the water is broken up by the dispersant into small globules that can then remain suspended in the water, potentially forming underwater plumes of oil.^[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corexit

We are not seeing oil on the surface in large part due to BP spraying millions of gallon of Corexit over the ocean. That looks like crop dusters over the ocean. There is an on going debate over the possible contamination that will compromise the sea food industry in the Gulf region. No, this isn't lib propaganda, it is fact.

Well Mike, Here I thought you were on the right path.

Oil that would normally rise to the surface of the water is broken up by the dispersant into small globules that can then remain suspended in the water, potentially forming underwater plumes of oil.

Do you see anything wrong with this statement? The fact is dispersants are sprayed on the oil slick AFTER it reaches the surface. I went to the corexit web site (months ago) and read the Material Safety Data Sheets. It is not that toxic and it (as stated) disperses the oil. It does not sink the oil below the surface. the Specific Gravity of corexit is 0.91, the specific gravity of seawater is 1.25 ... need I say more?