What Is the Most Important Challenge Facing the US?

Of course, up in the wealthy north, it was often penniless youngsters and students who were active in environmental actions ... for sure. But on a macro-scale, Fox's assertion still seems an obvious enough one to me. Where do most American environmentalists hail from? Places like leafy Washington State and Vermont and pleasant Californian towns - or the grimy wastelands of the Rust Belt?

Okay Suzy. I'll put you down as one who advocates everybody being poor. Of course if my theory is correct, that means goodbye environment period.
You go ahead and do that, but you'd be wrong. It's not me who advocates people being poor. It's the reality of the way it's set up. I thought you claimed to no longer be an idealist?
I have a more optimistic vision of potential I guess. I would rather work to help people lift themselves out of poverty than think lowering the bar for everybody else will solve the problems that exist.
Yeah, so would I, but we can only get so far as mere citizens.
This is one issue I put very high on my priorty list for this election by the way. I won't vote for any party that thinks that being succssful and prosperous causes poverty.

The Republicans under Bush seem to think if more opportunity is offered to the extremely wealthy (e.g. huge tax cuts), they will invest more, create more jobs, etc. That theory seemed to work well in the early part of this century when real re-investment was made by wealthy entrepreneurs who truly had America's best interests at heart. That same trickle-down theory does not seem to be working well anymore, however, as money does not get re-invested based upon what can benefit America; rather it's what benefit's me and me alone.

It is true that production can cause polution. It is also true that poverty frequently contributes to lack of sanitation and lack of immediate environmental concern and this also causes pollution.

But what Craven overlooks is that the rich clean up their immediate surroundings and refuse to have it polluted--they have the luxury of strenuously objecting when it is.

Give the poor the power that comes with success and prosperity, and they will join the ranks of those who demand a clean and beautiful environment.

When there are no places left in which pollution is tolerated, we will find ways to avoid polluting at all as is evidenced in those areas in which factories have been required to install emission scrubbers, all toxic materials must be properly disposed of, anyone who dumps in a river receives a severe fine, etc.

Broaden your sights Craven, and you will see the wisdom of what I am saying.

Sorry Craven. For somebody who puts so much stock in substantiating claims, just using simple logic my argument is better than yours and I can even make mine without being insulting.

In Borger, Texas is a huge carbon black plant .....

Your opinion seems to be that everybody either has to be poor or live with the inevitable pollution due to production.

I have too much faith in the human spirit and ability to believe that increased prosperity has to equate with pollution and damage to the environment.

Prosperity in the form of goods, services and public service is a central objective, since prosperity improves the basis for fulfilling welfare and environmental policy goals in the longer term.
http://www.fm.dk/1024/visPublikationesForside.asp?artikelID=4503&mode=hele

Quality of life improves with less poverty and better air quality
(Not exactly an intentional correlation but evidence of improved environmental conditions are implied less poverty)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/northsouth/article/0%2C2763%2C741183%2C00.html

High-income countries, where environmental regulations are usually more stringent in comparison to middle or low-income countries. . .
http://econ.worldbank.org/view.php?topic=11&type=5&id=37045

""Environmentalism"" itself is an artifact of civilization. The abundance generated by our technologically advanced civilization allows people to contemplate more than just survival. Creatures living in a natural state of subsistence cannot afford the luxury of refraining from unbridled exploitation of the environment. For example, without abundance, wilderness is a barrier for humans to overcome or avoid. With abundance, wilderness can be perceived as worthy of being preserved.
http://www.independent.org/tii/news/960300Semmens.html

For years environmentalists ignored or discounted the strong correlation between economic prosperity and environmental concern. But when prosperity is at risk, people willingly trade environmental quality for economic gain. This occurs even in wealthy nations. In our political campaigns environmental themes are crowded out by economic issues. As Michael R. Deland, former chairman of the President's Council on Environmental Quality, observed: "in a recession there is an increased sensitivity to the job side of the equation."
http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=181&printable=Y

Okay Craven, here are a few links produced with a very quick and cursory search.

Mark yourself down for accusing me of using anecdotal evidence without noting that I alluded to that as an example of many.

And also mark yourself down for accusing me of demanding that you prove a negative which I did not do.

Now, you can believe that prosperity improves environment or you can continue to believe that it doesn't.

But before we completely highjack Phoenix's thread here, I will say that I am as convinced as before that I am right.....

Quote:

Indeed, both are available options. Another available option is that prosperity can improve enviromental conditions in its immediate vicinity while at the same time worsening the conditions on the whole through the increase in production demand. Demand whose production can be satisfied elsewhere, as nimh noted.