Some ideas might help the environment only just a little bit, but hurt our economy a lot.

American bankruptcy would be bad for the environment. When people can't affording plumbing their urine and feces end up in drinking water. When people are desperate, they don't care about the environment as much.

The most polluted places are in the poorest places, and so poverty is bad for the environment. It takes money to invest in green energy. Every country is beginning to recognize the value of a clean environment for tourism, quality of life, health of their population, and efficiency. While it is true more money results in more consumption, we are getting better at producing products and energy in an environmentally sustainable way.

Poor native Americans used to set fire to the prairie, running bison off cliffs, so they could eat a small portion of the meat. This is a good example of the bad affects of poverty on the environment.

Poor people cook their meat with fire. That is much worse for the environment than natural gas, or electricity.

Poor people burn garbage to keep warm releasing toxic chemicals into the environment.

Nothing that happens to the environment matters, except to the extent that mankind is able to take ourselves and as much biodiversity off this planet with us, because the sun will burn out, and destroy all life on this planet.

If we don't care about how much our environmental programs cost, we will go bankrupt. Perhaps we should spend a billion dollars a year preventing global warming, but the United States should not spend 100 trillion dollars a year. We don't have that much money. Even if we did, it isn't worth it.

There are hundreds of very costly things we could piss our way around, that are not worth it.

We should first focus our money on environmental solutions that don't cost very much. There are many things that we can do to help the environment that don't cost very much. We should harvest some of the dead wood in the west, instead of letting in burn.

It wouldn't cost much to bring elephants back to North America, and would be good for biodiversity.

Outlawing buildings less than 2 stories could help the environment by reducing sprawl and wouldn't cost much.

Mulching is a good use of resources

Introducing pink flamingos to the Salt Lake would increase biodiversity and wouldn't cost much

We should bring ostriches back to North America.

It wouldn't cost anything to require homes to put most of their windows facing south, and this simple rule could improve home heating in the winter, and reduce heating in the summer, and could be often be done without wasting land.

It cost less per mile to use electricity or natural gas.

Green energy is a pretty good investment for our country, even if it has a 30 year pay-back, because we hope to have a country in 30 years.

It doesn't have to cost more to plant a fruit tree than a decorative tree, but growing local fruits and vegetables is good for the environment.

We can design cities so they are smarter without using more money. It doesn't cost much more to retain run-off water.

It wouldn't cost much to replace a good portion of lawns with natural vegetation, and it could reduce labor, money spent on lawnmowers, time spent mowing the lawn, and would result in less pollution, as 2-cylinder motors are not very efficient.

We should do a cost-benefit analysis for all expensive government programs. We have a moral responsibility not to spend more than we take in. The fact that we don't do cost benefit analysis in government proves that politicians don't really care about making the world a better place, but would rather play stupid games, and be seen as increasing spending, without caring that any goal is actually met. It is a victory of symbolism over substance.

Each large government program should receive a score for how cost efficient it is. We could then sort the programs, and prioritize which ones we should proceed with. There is a very algorithm, wiki based way of running a government. We could use online debate forums that generate arguments in a structured way that allows algorithms to promote better ideas

One EPA ozone regulation has been estimated to cost over 90 billion in new cost, and the loss of 7 million jobs.

There are actual laws that forbid cost assessment with respect to environmental laws. This is anti science, ant-logic, and insanity. Cost should always be considered. Nothing is free. We could spend billions of dollars saving one peanut plant, sounds good if it is a great plant, but even Homer Simpson realizes that money can buy more peanut plants. The clean air and clean water act should be modified so that each stage of the regulatory process involves cost accounting, to see if we can help the environment in better ways.

A strong America can prevent wars. Wars are bad for the environment. If American businesses are unsuccessful, american power will diminish, and the world will be less stable, and more likely to go to war.

We should care more about the environment when our economy is healthy. Because the sun will burn out destroying all life on earth, we should ensure that the long term survival of our species is more important than the long term survival of plants or other animals, as we are the only life form that can take other life forms off the planet. We should seek for environmental balance, but not before we have vanquished those who would deny human rights. We can't spend 100% of our money on the environment, and 100% of our money on other priorities. We have to choose.

There is no reason to assume that if temperatures changed they would be worse. It is a religious belief to assume that temperature change caused by man would be bad, just because man caused them. If ocean levels rise, poor people can move their homes just as well as rich people right? Their homes are much smaller. Often they don't even have homes. Only the stupidest moronic movies show ocean levels changing fast. No reputable scientist is talking about more than 1 or 2 inches in hundreds of years. Gravity at that rate is a greater threat to homes than ocean levels rising. Why would you assume that temperature change would cause massive droughts? Flip a coin. You got 50% chance, right? Why not assume that mankind is helping by preventing the next ice-age? You say that some place is going to be too hot. What about Canada? What about Siberia? Are they going to get too hot also? Poor people are unable to gradually move North 1 or 2 feet a year? For each drop in the GDP more poor people die: there is less money for charity, government programs, etc. You could spend billions of dollars moving turtles across the road, resulting in less money for the poor. Every dollar government spends on solar panels is a portion of a dollar that they can not spend on poor people. Poor people, except in New Orleans, do not generally live behind inferior levies, while rich people have gold plated levies. You are just saying some of the stupidest stuff. People who live in Chicago, New York, and Tokyo all face the same natural disasters as each other, to a large degree. It sounds like you have a psychological need to write compassionate sounding things, instead of actually following logic to advocate the most obvious policy. Obviously we want to raise the standard of living of all people The only thing we disagree about is methods, perhaps, and motivation. But the whole question is environment or business? Obviously we need a balanced approach that is pretty meaningless unless we get into specifics. I don't think I understand you points at the end. You think the industrial revolution started capitalism? What are the important aspects of capitalism, to you? To me the important aspects of capitalism is freedom to sell your goods and services. This existed with cave men who were able to trade spears for meat. But I'm not sure what any of this has to do with spending money on the environment or the economy, from your perspective.

Obama may have been right to do it, but Bush wasn't a really bad guy for not having done it. It can't go too far, but if a society wants to place a preference on heterosexuality, by giving less respect to homosexual relationships, it can do it. It might hurt gay people's feelings if they don't get the exact treatment as heterosexuals, but that is sort of the point. Gays can still live how the want, but they can't force the majority to like it, or accept them, and little laws that don't grant full equality are not fundamental humal liberty issues, we have to draw the line somewhere, and no one would want to legalize bestiality or polygamy, and so we all draw the lines slightly different locations, and it is not worth throwing a hissy fit over... Sure you might be right, but its not that big of a deal. You can't force other people's respect and approval, you already have Massachusetts. Just relax.

Giving benefits to gay partners will make being gay a more acceptable alternative. It is acceptable to to be nice to people who are really gay, while also trying to prevent it from becoming just another option for people to experiment with. Is it acceptable to try to promote a mother and a father as the preference, and is withholding all the same benefits of marriage a valid way to try to show societies preference for families with mothers and fathers? Obviously gay people have a right to live how they want. You can't be mean to them. You can't discriminate against them in any way as far as career, housing, etc... but if the majority wants to show a preference... So people the belief is that more people will be hurt by experimenting with their sexuality, than if they would have just assumed they were straight. Sure, if you KNOW you are gay, go for it, but let the rest of us sort of ignore it.