Marching For Climate Change

real-climate-change

by Michelle Millet

On Saturday, Feb. 7, thousands of people are expected to take part in the March for Real Climate Leadership: Our Water, Our Health, Our California. The march, organized by a broad coalition of environmental groups across California, demands that Gov. Jerry Brown take real action against fracking.

Californians Against Fracking, one of the event organizers, states, “If Jerry Brown wants to be a real climate leader, he must stop enabling the biggest climate polluter by yanking his support of oil refinery expansion, blocking dangerous bomb trains, and putting a ban on fracking and other forms of dangerous and toxic fossil fuel extraction.”

Advocates claim that Californians are threatened by fracking in numerous ways, including exposure to toxins for those living near drilling sites, potentially explosive trains carrying crude oil through populated areas, air and groundwater pollution, and increases in overall methane emissions.

Hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, involves injecting water and chemicals deep underground to break up rock and release oil and gas. It is an extremely water-intensive practice, using hundreds of thousands to millions of gallons of water to frack a single well. It utilizes a mixture of chemicals, many of which are toxic or are known to cause human health problems.

The practice also produces large amounts of wastewater that must then be disposed of. The wastewater contains harmful components such as high salt content, naturally occurring radioactive material and heavy metals such as arsenic.

Recently in Kern County, wastewater from at least nine fracking wells containing high levels of arsenic, thallium and nitrates was injected into high-quality water aquifers, making the water unsuitable for drinking or irrigation.

The March for Real Climate Leadership’s website (www.marchforclimateleadership.org) states, “The California climate movement is showing up in force on Governor Jerry Brown’s doorstep, to let him know he is not a climate leader if he continues to allow fracking to expand in California. Amidst the worst drought in California history, expanding fracking and shipping in tar sands and oil from the Bakken shale, is not climate leadership, it’s more of the same.”

February’s planned march follows a similar one that took place in New York last fall, where an estimated 311,000 people participated, including former Vice President Al Gore; United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who presided over the U.N. climate summit; and Mayor Bill de Blasio, who recently announced that he was committing the city to an 80 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050.

Yolano Climate Action, a local organization whose purpose is to bring together groups and individuals concerned by the climate crisis, is organizing ways for Yolo County residents to participate in the march, which will begin at 11:30 a.m. in Oakland at Frank Ogawa/Oscar Grant Plaza.

“As a climate activist, I need to surround myself periodically with hundreds of other like-minded individuals who care enough about our obligation to the future of this imperiled planet and the life on it to devote their time to slowing climate change,” says Cool Davis board member Lynne Nittler.

“I attend marches like the Feb. 7 anti-fracking march not just to communicate to our governor that many of us want him to ban fracking, but also to remind myself that a movement is steadily building, swelling in numbers and growing wiser in strategy even as the urgency of action increases.”

On Saturday, Jan. 31, a stencil/poster making party will take place from 10:15 to 11:30 a.m. in the Blanchard Room of the Stephens Branch Library, 315 E. 14th St. in Davis. All are welcome and encouraged to bring any of the following: a white board, poster board or cardboard, colored felt markers and their verbal cleverness and artistic talents.

Some white boards, X-acto knives, scissors, rulers, felt markers, chalk and stencils will be provided. (Stencils Against Fracking has teamed up with the March for Real Climate Leadership and has designed a limited-edition stencil for use to encourage communities to come to the march.)

The group is also helping to coordinate bus and train transportation to the event.

* Buses: Three buses leaving from Sacramento will pick up passengers in Davis at 8:30 a.m. at the park-and-ride lot near Ikeda’s fruit stand at Mace Boulevard and Interstate 80. They will arrive in Oakland with enough time for people to get food and use the restroom and will return to Davis approximately 7:30 p.m.

Bus tickets are $15, with a few available for $3 for those who need them. You can get more information and buy your ticket at www.eventjoy.com/e/bus-to-oakland-climate-march-sac–davis-825128.

* Train: Multiple Amtrak trains leave Davis and arrive at Jack London Square. The Amtrak station is about a one-mile walk from Frank Ogawa/Oscar Grant Plaza, where the rally begins and is about a 15-minute walk from Laney College, where the rally will end. Round-trip fare is $54 general or $50 for senior citizens.

Many Davisites are planning to take the train that departs Davis at 9:30 and arrives at Jack London Square at 11:06 a.m. For a full list of train schedules, visit the Cool Davis website at www.cooldavis.org.

For more information about the event, or to learn ways you can get involved, contact info@cooldavis.org.

About The Author

Michelle Millet is a 25-year resident of Davis. She currently serves as the Chair of the Natural Resource Commission.

Related posts

55 Comments

  1. Anon

    I understand and sympathize with the fears about fracking contaminating our water supply.  But I also recognize that fracking has resulted in the increase in oil supply from the U.S. and is responsible for the decline in the price of gas at the pumps.  It also means Middle East countries get less money for their oil, and therefore less money available to support terrorism.  In short, fracking is making the U.S. oil independent.  Having said all that, I want better gov’t regulation of fracking, but thus far I have not seen that happen.  And as we know from the gulf oil spill, the gov’t is notoriously bad at regulating anything.  No easy answers here.  This nation needs to keep pushing energy independence, exploring all avenues of energy possibilities, solar, wind, hydrogen, nuclear, etc.  Even Rep. Garamendi supports fracking if regulated properly.  It is the “regulated properly” that is the tough part.

    1. Davis Progressive

      ” But I also recognize that fracking has resulted in the increase in oil supply from the U.S. and is responsible for the decline in the price of gas at the pumps.”

      oil prices went from $108 per barrel in june to $44 this month, that is not caused by fracking.

        1. Davis Progressive

          fracking did not increase over that time period by enough to cause the oil market to fall by half.  this was artificially manipulated on the supply end.

        2. Barack Palin

          No,but fracking was part of it, not the whole story.  Prices were slowing coming off of the $108 figure as America became the number 1 oil producer in the world.  The decline was sped up by Saudi Arabia recently flooding the market, but speculation has it that they’re either trying to drive fracking  out of business or they’re trying to hurt Iran’s economy.  But fracking played a major role in the prices coming down.

        3. South of Davis

          DP wrote:

          > fracking did not increase over that time period

          > by enough to cause the oil market to fall by half.

          The increase in homes in Elk Grove over many years was one of the big reasons that the value of many homes to drooped in value by half one year in 2007 (and pretty much every home value dropped in value by half in town over 2007-2008).  The increase in supply of homes was not the “only” reason for the drop in Elk Grove home prices a few years back just like the increase of US oil production with fracking is not the “only” reason the price of oil has dropped, but to say that an almost 50% increase in US oil production(adding about a million barrels of oil to the market every year) had NO impact 0n the price of oil is like saying a 50% increase in the minimum wage will have NO impact on minimum wage jobs.

    2. tribeUSA

      Re: Anon–  “It is the “regulated properly” that is the tough part.”

      Yes, scientific and social bases for sound regulation are still being researched for fracking. There is plenty of room for critique and debate in that arena; even by disinterested 3rd party experts, due to many technical and social uncertainties. I personally would tend to err on the side of caution, perhaps over-regulating to some degree (until we find our more, when we can hopefully ease back on some regulations), to ensure that we are not degrading the land and water that we pass on to future generations of people and other critters.

  2. LadyNewkBahm

    ______________________________________________________________________
    AAA: Monthly gas prices plunge; Marysville lowest in Northern CA
    Mark Glover Sacamnto Bee.

    “The dramatic slide in retail gas prices has been driven by a similar plummet in global crude oil prices since the end of the summer of 2014,” Cynthia Harris, AAA Northern California spokeswoman, said in a statement. “This decline in the price of oil has been a product of weak demand combined with abundant supply.”

    __________________________________________________________________________________
    January 7, 2015  5AM
    Economist: Dark Side of declining oil prices is economic pain for some countries.
    “Four things are now affecting the picture. Demand is low because of weak economic activity, increased efficiency, and a growing switch away from oil to other fuels. Second, turmoil in Iraq and Libya—two big oil producers with nearly 4m barrels a day combined—has not affected their output. The market is more sanguine about geopolitical risk. Thirdly, America has become the world’s largest oil producer. Though it does not export crude oil, it now imports much less, creating a lot of spare supply.”
    __________________________________________________________________________________

     

    Oil Prices Continue Decline, Pressured by Saudi Action to Defend Market Share

    By STANLEY REEDOCT. 2, 2014

    New York Times

    While the United States remains a modest oil exporter, its surging output pushes other oil, particularly from West Africa, out of the American market, helping to lower prices. Net oil imports to the United States have fallen since 2007 by 8.7 million barrels a day, “roughly equivalent to total Saudi and Nigerian exports,” according to a recent Citigroup report.

    _______________________________________________________________________________________

     
     
     

    1. Davis Progressive

      that’s a fairly balanced account.  when you’re looking at dramatic drops though, the explanation is less likely market and more likely changes in the supply, probably intentional.

      1. Frankly

        Well you need to consider that the US is not part of OPEC, and relies on the market value of the commodity to price it… so with the US pushing more supply into the overall market, it has a more dramatic impact on the rest of the market that is largely price-controlled.   Basically, price control does not work unless it is coupled with supply control, and OPEC has lost the supply-control handle.

    2. hpierce

      Raises some interesting questions… since fossil fuels are finite (at least in a multi-million year context) shouldn’t we, as a nation, forgo an immediate benefit financially, and just pay more to consume other countries’ finite resources?  When those are gone, we still have OURS.

      1. tribeUSA

        hpierce–yes, I would support opening up new oil deposits to exploitation now (fracking, Alaska northern slope, CA coast), with stringent environmental regulatary oversight; but allowing production at only very low levels–in this way, we will have an emergency reserve for the USA, in case the middle east blows up or worldwide oil spikes high for other reasons; then we can quickly ramp up production of these US wells/oilfields. I would anticipate rejection of this proposal due to environmental concerns; however the problem is that if a true national energy emergency did hit; then these previously untouched oilfields would need to be developed and put into production at breakneck speed; environmental compliance would then not likely have much priority (since such compliance would slow down the process).

  3. hpierce

    From the headline, glad people are enthusiastic and supporting climate change.  It is a natural process, happening all the time.  Has been for eons.  Whether human activity is changing its pace/direction is open for discussion.  Perhaps, if human activity is causing “warming”, we might be mitigating a natural tendency towards an “ice age”, at this point.  Recent evidence over the last 10 + years might support the theory.  Or it may be of concern.  Or, might be random, and/or caused by other natural processes.

    At least the marchers will be active, perhaps mitigating tendencies towards obesity, and/or otherwise making themselves more fit.  However, it should be noted that increased activity can lead to higher metabolic rates, increased respiration, and increased output of CO2.  I do think that people should be considering how we interact with our environment.  We are part of it.

    1. Barack Palin

      Not to mention all of the carbon that will be spewed into the environment getting all of the marchers to Oakland.  Seems that they’re actions is working against exactly what they despise.

  4. Frankly

    Fracking has been done for the last 60 years.

    This is something the no-fracking environmental wackos either do not know, or they chose to ignore.

    The difference is the chemicals used, and the technology and methods for horizontal drilling.  And the increase in drilling that has resulted from:

    1. Higher oil and gas costs

    2. Lower cost for drilling as the result of technological improvements

    3. Better geological tools and techniques to discover new fields and to help lower the risk of dry wells.

    So one thing the wackos need to keep in mind… decrease exploration through regulatory rules and it will eventually help increase the price so that there is more fracking because it is more lucrative.

    1. Michelle Millet

      This is something the no-fracking environmental wackos either do not know, or they chose to ignore.

      So one thing the wackos need to keep in mind

      While I appreciate the information you are sharing, I wish you could do it without referring to people as wackos. Using these types of inflammatory descriptors  distracts from any legitimate argument you are attempting to make.

      As soon as people start using inflammatory language I stop listening, regardless of what side of an argument they are on. If your argument is strong enough you shouldn’t need to rely on insulting people to make it.

      1. Frankly

        Ok.  Thank you Michelle for doing what my mother used to do… keep me in line.

        But if those people stop yelling to demand bans, and start listening and learning I would have an much easier time not seeing them as wackos.  Note that I have some of them in my family and I tell them they are environmental wackos and they seem to take it as a complement.

      2. South of Davis

        Michelle wrote:

        > As soon as people start using inflammatory language I stop listening, 

        Sadly many others “don’t” stop listening and actually tune in to hear Rush Limbaugh call people on the left “wackos” or tune in to hear Randi Rhodes call everyone to the right of Bill Clinton a “racist”.

        > Round-trip fare is $54 general or $50 for senior citizens

        At $378 for seven people to take the train to Oakland and back (more than I paid for my first car) vs. ~$15 for gas for seven people to make the round trip drive in a typical minivan it’s no wonder we live in a “car-centric” culture.

        Not long ago I thought it would be fun to take the train and BART to SF with the kids .  It was almost $60 each for the train “and” BART ~$240 for a family of to use public transportation (taking more than twice as long as a car) to get from Davis to SF.

  5. Miwok

    I always enjoy people climbing on buses, which they have driven to board, to ride to a spot they normally would not go to, to carry a sign and advocate for “saving” something. Like the 178 private jets that flew to a “Climate Change summit”.

    Do I get a T-shirt with that?

    Then I have to pay $15 a head to go, is this a march all the way back to my car?

    I love the idea of using oil burning buses to go to an anti-fracking rally.

  6. Tia Will

    I have no plans to attend this march. However I do have a comment about the ridiculousness of making a comparison about wastefulness, or “acting against one’s principles” by attending a single rally of this type. Do those of you who jumped on this fun bandwagon of derisiveness have no ability to appreciate the differences in resources spent on a single event ( maybe once a year, or once in a lifetime) in support of a cause from what resources one chooses to use for personal convenience every day  ?

    Really ?  No difference at all ?  I am now anticipating the sound of crickets.

    1. Barack Palin

      resources one chooses to use for personal convenience every day 

      Do you mean the resources people use for the convenience to turn on the lights in the morning, cook their kids some oatmeal on the stove, turn up the heat a little because their house is cold, drive to work to support their families, …….?

      Or is it a convenience to be able to travel all the way to Oakland to march for a cause that if ever enacted would lead to a much higher cost to people just trying to live their everyday lives through higher energy costs?

    2. Frankly

      There are three five major considerations for fracking:

      1. Increasing the supply of oil and natural gas makes fuel less expensive which helps lower income people economically and helps business which then helps all people economically.

      2. Helps with national security as we eliminate our dependance on foreign oil and we prevent the funding of global malice by Iran, Russia and many of the Mideastern countries.

      3. The drilling process can impact the quality of life of some people close to the rigs and where there is traffic to service the rigs.

      4. The REAL environmental impact of the chemicals used, and if there is any increase in seismic risk as a result of fracking.

      5. It contributes to man-made global warming.

      The first step is to flush out all the people protesting and demanding bans based on #5 and send them back to their caves.  Because they don’t add anything of value to the debate and are frankly ignorant and out of control. They are extremists and we do not negotiate with extremists.

      What is left worthy of protest is #3 and #4.  But those are simple science and regulatory issues that we should demand be pursued.  Protests are a stupid way to advocate for more of this.  And so we can easily identify the protesters as either stupid or extremist.

      And lastly, those protesting and demanding bans of fracking need to be labeled as not caring for low income people, and not caring about jobs , and not caring about national security.  Basically they are selfish people pushing their own stupid or extreme agenda at the expense of many others.

      Anybody protesting for fracking bans needs to be identified with these points.  Those working to implement reasonable regulation for fracking should be welcomed to the debate.

    3. South of Davis

      Tia wrote:

      > Do those of you who jumped on this fun bandwagon of derisiveness

      > have no ability to appreciate the differences in resources spent on

      > a single event

      I have no problem if people all over the state take diesel powered trains, buses and trucks or gas powered motorcycles, cars tucks and SUVs to a rally protesting the use and production of diesel and gas in America, but just like the people that fly solo in private jets to Global Warming events or drive to events to protest cars I find it a bit ironic…

  7. LadyNewkBahm

    no crickets here. wasting resources on a single event that may not have any net yield other than so much hot air. And yet one byproduct of all this anti-oil rhetoric has been ethanol, which turns out to be worse and more polluting than oil is. While the rest of us are expected to do without, AlGore and company get to ride around in their private jets going to climate change summits telling the rest of us to conserve.

    1. Davis Progressive

      what does al gore have to do with a bunch of activists, most of whom probably don’t drive their own cars?  also i see they are talking about a bus down to oakland, or perhaps a train, seems a low carbon impact for a single event.

  8. LadyNewkBahm

    Do you know many of those people own and drive their own cars? Do you know how many cars are going to be used to shuttle people down to that event? How many are flying to the event? Trains don’t burn resources?

    1. Davis Progressive

      i don’t know how many own and drive their own cars.  i know i often commute by train and use an electric vehicle when i do drive.  the thing about the train is it transports a large number of people at once and therefore is more efficient than a single occupancy vehicle.  more importantly, it runs whether i ride it or not, so my decision to ride it rather than drive adds nothing to the emissions while eliminating my own contribution in the form of a car.

    1. Davis Progressive

      you’re missing the point of the “mass” in mass transportation.

      uc berkeley analysis: “For example, they find that Caltrain (a system similar to Amtrak, averaging 155 passengers per train) produces less than half as many greenhouse-gas emissions or particulate matter per passenger mile compared with driving a sedan (average passengers: 1.58).”

      1. South of Davis

        DP wrote:

        > a system similar to Amtrak, averaging 155 passengers per train) produces

        > less than half as many greenhouse-gas emissions or particulate matter per

        > passenger mile compared with driving a sedan (average passengers: 1.58

        So using DPs numbers 4 people in a car will produce less greenhouse-gas emissions per passenger mile than a train and a full size SUV (that environmentalists tell me are “bad” for the environment) that seats 8 people will produce half as many greenhouse-gas emissions or particulate matter per passenger mile compared with driving a sedan with 4 people.  I wonder if I mention this to people at the event this weekend if they will all get SUVs and start car pooling (like we do)…

        1. Davis Progressive

          not my numbers… yes, carpooling reduces ghg as well… but that’s only part of the equation.  because the train runs regardless of whether you drive, you avoid adding to the ghg by taking the train or the bus.

    2. Davis Progressive

      “A train produces more emissions per trip than any car, bus, or truck; it makes up for that fact environmentally because it carries a lot more people.”

      “The numbers are even more striking for buses, which can experience extreme variability in ridership between peak and nonpeak hours. At peak hours—with 40 riders onboard—the Berkeley researchers find that buses often look like the greenest option, producing fewer greenhouse-gas emissions than even the average train per passenger mile.”

      and finally,

      “as long as those buses and trains are kept running, it’s better—environmentally speaking—to take public transportation, since the marginal impact of your trip will be very low.”

      —in other words, you take your car off the road and the bus/ train is already running.

       

  9. LadyNewkBahm

    “A train produces more emissions per trip than any car, bus, or truck; it makes up for that fact environmentally because it carries a lot more people.”

    So does an SUV. just one problem though: logistics. In other words, when trains and buses are impractical.

      1. South of Davis

        DP wrote:

        > therefore the burden is on you, not me, to find out that answer.

        It is the “burden: of the person who first wrote: “most of whom probably don’t drive their own cars” to find out if “most” don’t drive their own cars.

        When I posted that “most” people in prison are male yesterday I would have been happy to share links that support my claim with anyone who asked…

  10. LadyNewkBahm

    one problem – it is your side that wants to govern  our lives according to your panic-induced views on climate. So just how many degrees celsius is the earths temp going to go down if your side gets its way?

    1. Barack Palin

      Any cutbacks they ever claim to accomplish won’t change the Earth’s temp one iota.  But here’s the thing, if they get cutbacks and the temp still goes up they’ll claim it would’ve been worse and if the temp comes down a little they’ll claim success even though what little change was made had no effect on the world’s environment.  The only thing we know for sure is if they get their way we’ll all be paying a heck of a lot more for energy.

      1. Davis Progressive

        at this point i think they’re just hoping to slow the rate of increase.  the only real question at this point is whether the effects will be bad, very bad, or apocalyptic.

  11. TrueBlueDevil

    Fracking and clean Natural Gas usage has helped us to drop our CO2 emissions by 20 percent. Do the Warmists really want us to go back to using more horribly filthy coal, or just go back to living in caves?

    Will someone in these groups explain how we are in a prolonged period of global warming “hiatus”, where temperatures are flat?

    Does George Soros have any funding in these groups pushing these liberal agendas?

  12. Tia Will

    groups pushing these liberal agendas?”

    I do not see environmental concerns as a liberal vs conservative “agenda”. On old threads about this subject one poster who is consistently more “conservative”than I often said correctly that it isn’t necessary to see this in terms of global warming to know that pouring pollutants into the air we breathe is bad for us. Look at the pictures of the sky over LA 25 years ago when the sky was regularly yellow rather than blue and one can see the effects of automobile emissions. To argue that we should not be attempting to limit these emissions is simply foolish. True, reasonable arguments can be made about how to best effect this limitation, but to argue one’s “right” to burn as much fuel as one wants in as irresponsible ways as one wants is simply indefensible.

    1. TrueBlueDevil

      You’re mixing topics and logic, not sure if this was planned, or not.

      I agree that we should not unnecessarily spew pollution into the air, but we have to looks at all of the costs of all of the different energy options, not just pick what we think sounds good. Believing such doesn’t lead to a belief in Global Warming (or Global Cooling).

      You also mentioned how the air has improved dramatically in LA! Isn’t that great news? Much of this happened before Global Cooling, and I believe a large portion of the improvement was banning leaded gas, and adding a catalytic converter to all cars. Common sense solutions, practical, and provable.

      I’ve heard or read few people who think we should not try to limit these pollutants. What we do hear and read are numerous sources who cast great doubts on the theory of Global Warming, while others pay attention enough to know that the temps have flat lined, polar bears are’t dying, 100,000 people in low laying villages didn’t have to relocate due to supposedly rising sea levels, and many other doomsday predictions have failed.

      Solar power isn’t very efficient, and wind power kills thousands of birds, eagles, and endangered species. Life and decisions are about trade offs. Tens of millions of Americans are enjoying $2.50 gallon / gasoline, which has been a godsend to middle class citizens.

      You are making wild hypothetical claims that I’ve seen few Americans make.

      In contrast, the leading liberal – Barack Obama – was quoted as saying that “fuel prices will necessarily skyrocket” as he pushes Global Warming fantasy solutions. The liberal stances seem to be classic Saul Alinky game plan. Yes, it is indefensible for the president to say that he is for the middle and lower classes when he wants energy prices to “skyrocket”. Cognitive dissonance? It is also irresponsible for the President to stop oil drilling here, stop pipelines here, while he extends multi-billion-dollar funding to south american countries. Cognitive dissonance?

  13. South of Davis

    Tia wrote:

    > I do not see environmental concerns as a liberal vs conservative “agenda”.

    Most (but not all) liberals and most (but not all) conservatives want a clean environment and clean air.  The difference what they want to do to make the environment and air cleaner.

    Conservatives that spend many weekends hunting, fishing and mountain bike riding in rural Northern California are upset when they see (and are shot at) by the many illegal aliens running illegal pot camps (that dump trash, human waste and fertilizers in to rivers) and mobile meth labs (that dump toxic stuff everywhere) in the National Forests so they want to cut down on Mexican drug lords sending illegal aliens to CA to pollute our forests.

    Liberals spend many weekends at protest marches, art gallery events and yoga studios so they are not upset (or in most cases even aware) about the illegal aliens destroying the environment not far from Davis and they don’t want to do anything about them since “Maria” cleans their 3,000 sf home overlooking Stonegate lake for $8.hour cash while her son “Hector” details their Prius for $6/hour (so it looks good to drive to the next protest to “save the environment” by banning plastic produce bags)…

    P.S. When you write: “but to argue one’s “right” to burn as much fuel as one wants in as irresponsible ways as one wants is simply indefensible.” Who gets to decide how much fuel people have the “right” to burn?  Is it fair if I tell someone that since I’m riding my bike to work all week that they have to do the same (even if they work two counties away)?

    1. Topcat

      …“Maria” cleans their 3,000 sf home overlooking Stonegate lake for $8.hour cash while her son “Hector” details their Prius for $6/hour…

      Can I get Maria and Hector’s contact information?  I have some work that needs to be done around the house.  Thanks.

    2. TrueBlueDevil

      I do find that many liberals are emotion based, and many conservatives tend to be more fact based. Liberas also don’t want to tell anyone “no”.

      I had a young 19 year old college student tell me if she was the President she would clean up the environment, and some other status quo items. I asked her what exactly she would do for the environment … and all I got was stammering. She’s 19, so that’s indoctrination and maturity.

      We have millions of trees dying of beetle infestation. Liberals want to leave them as this is “natural”. So we then must cut down more live, healthy trees, for wood to build these things called homes and apartments.

      Some conservatives see this as a golden opportunity. Harvest a big chunk of these trees, which would generate money for replanting, drive down lumber prices, employ poor loggers, employ people in high unemployment areas, and slow down the beetle infestation. Leave some of the trees for owls, wood peckers, etc., but we don’t need tens or hundreds of dead trees for a much smaller number of creatures.

  14. Frankly

    I do find that many liberals are emotion based

    Don Shor will love the following, I am sure…

    I am generalizing, (there are plenty of exceptions) but as a long-term student of “what makes my liberal friends that have lived pretty much the same life as me have so many different views than me?”, I would say that I think liberals as individuals tend to have stronger emotional impulses, and conservatives have weaker emotional impulses.

    I view the cognitive process as one like a citrus fruit where the rind is emotions and the center is the cognitive stuff.  Assuming average mental and psychological health, we ALL have to travel through the emotional processes to get to the logic of a subject, and then we have to again filter our rational determinations to assess how they make us feel.

    I see many of my liberal friends as being represented by a pomelo… one where the rind is much more voluminous than is the fruit even thought the “fruit” of logic can be larger than is that representing the conservative.   And for some liberals, I see them get stuck in the rind… unable to get to the logic of an argument, or then unable to accept it, because of the negative way it makes them feel.

    Look at the plastic bag ban issue.   We absolutely know that paper bags have a larger negative environmental impact.  We know we are not close to water where sea life will be impacted.  We know that plastic grocery bags are a small percentage of the trash we see in the environment and that the rest of it is not being banned.  We know that the ban causes a big inconvenience.  Liberals just don’t want to discuss those logical facts because the plastic bag ban is something they have become emotionally vested in… it is more important that they feel good than it is to support a rational decision.  It is a “rind” view and not a “fruit” view.

    And with respect to poverty, inequity and social justice… liberals will fight for the “here and now” at the expense of the future… primarily because of their emotional impulses.  “See, that family is hurting right now so we have to do something to save them!”  and “It is not fair that this person has to struggle so much when other people have it so good!”   This pursuit of equality is the primary filter of a liberal and it is emotionally driven.  But liberals tend to pursue more individual education and become experts at creating a facade of pseudo rational thought to deflect from this challenge that their positions are primarily emotional impulses.   If you are able to challenge that pseudo rational thought, you will find yourself labeled as mean, uncaring, etc.. or the conversation will be cut off.  Again, this is because you are making the liberal feel bad and that is the primary thing they absolutely don’t want.

    And related to this, liberals really get angry at these generalizations.  More of them register independent and bristle at generalizations and demand that everyone just be considered an individual with individual ideas.  However, our world is determined by politics and politics have become more divided and the division is liberals and conservatives.  There has been a filtering and it needs to be understood if we are ever to come together.

    Conservatives tend to use multiple filters more often in the cognitive space.  And sometimes conservatives make the mistake of not including enough emotional filtering.   In other cases a conservative might include emotional considerations, but then fail to incorporate enough in response to connect with that larger human emotional pursuit.

    Bill Clinton felt your pain.  George Bush did not.  Well, I think both did about the same, but one was an expert at conveying it, and the other sucked at it.

    And this gets me to my final conclusion of why the GOP struggles and the Democrats have taken over.  Liberals own the Democrat party and they have grown highly skilled at delivering arguments with pseudo logic to support their primarily emotional pursuits… which they are already skilled at communicating.  Conservatives do not own the GOP… it is a fragmented party for now… but conservatives have grown less capable of weaving emotional considerations into their rational arguments.  And the GOP has been successfully branded by the Democrats and the left-tilted main media as being controlled by conservatives.

    Somewhere in the middle exists the leadership model that will resonate with the majority.  It is not Barack Obama by a long-shot.

    One more point… I have liberal friends that are actually conservatives but stuck not willing to accept the truth due to associative relationship and personal identification.  It is really quite entertaining to talk to them and hear them claim they are liberal while spouting off conservative arguments.  I don’t know any people claiming they are conservative while spouting off liberal arguments.  However, I do know a lot of people that are strongly fiscally-conservative or at least fiscally-moderate, but strongly socially-liberal.   It is also entertaining for me to see those two worldviews struggle to coexist because they can be largely at odds.

    1. Don Shor

      Yes, I’m always fond of citrus analogies. So I always wonder, in your highly dichotomous world view, where moderates fit in. I guess they’re the kumquats: sweet peel, sour flesh.

      1. Frankly

        Real moderates?  Or people that claim to be moderates but swing far left of far right?

        Real moderates are boring fruit.  They tend to make more sense and see both sides.  Who wants to debate a boring fruit?

  15. TrueBlueDevil

    Frankly wrote: “And this gets me to my final conclusion of why the GOP struggles and the Democrats have taken over.”

    While you generally make good or excellent points, I think you’re off here.

    The GOP just won enormous political victories, including winning both houses of Congress. I’m told they also control 30 out of 50 governorship positions. Some people are waking up.

    The Democrats have a controlling interest in the main stream media, and it’s been tough to get an equal footing.

Leave a Reply

X Close

Newsletter Sign-Up

X Close

Monthly Subscriber Sign-Up

Enter the maximum amount you want to pay each month
$ USD
Sign up for