Comment on AlienLullaby's profile
The Koch Brothers’ political spending is well-known:
www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summa…
www.cjr.org/united_states_proj…
www.washingtonpost.com/politic…
Their deep investment in the fossil-fuel industry:
www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summa…
www.polluterwatch.com/koch-ind…
…and lobbying against standards meant to protect environmental quality:
www.thedailybeast.com/articles…
For instance, one of their beneficiaries is the American Energy Alliance, which sounds like it promotes US domestic energy production, but actually attacks domestic wind energy while advocating the Keystone XL Pipeline (a Canadian oil corporation’s expansion efforts):
americanenergyalliance.org
The ironic thing is the AEA criticizes Obama on their site for blocking the pipeline while other organizations have criticized Obama for allowing the XL Pipeline to start construction:
www.nrdc.org/energy/keystone-p…
Heartland Institute is not a scientific entity, but manned by businessmen and politicians who have also questioned the health detriments of second-hand tobacco smoke:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hear…
heartland.org/issues/environme…
Frankly, I’m suspicious of anyone who “promotes pro-environment policies” but also “ earned… the enmity of many … public health and environmental groups”.
As I understand it, most environmentalist groups would probably be called liberal because they advocate direct government intervention. Many methods of industry that have developed up until the present produce harmful by-products, and the processes can be changed, but it costs money. Good ideas don’t always pay monetarily, and not all companies look at any other bottom line. Appealing to government over private initiatives is, in such cases, more efficient and effective. Whatever label it is is besides the point. I'm skeptical of parties I support as well as parties I don't; it's only healthy not to be selective about the kinds of things one questions. Socratically questioning myself can surprise and frustrate me regarding what little I know, but I think it's a healthy practice.
www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summa…
www.cjr.org/united_states_proj…
www.washingtonpost.com/politic…
Their deep investment in the fossil-fuel industry:
www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summa…
www.polluterwatch.com/koch-ind…
…and lobbying against standards meant to protect environmental quality:
www.thedailybeast.com/articles…
For instance, one of their beneficiaries is the American Energy Alliance, which sounds like it promotes US domestic energy production, but actually attacks domestic wind energy while advocating the Keystone XL Pipeline (a Canadian oil corporation’s expansion efforts):
americanenergyalliance.org
The ironic thing is the AEA criticizes Obama on their site for blocking the pipeline while other organizations have criticized Obama for allowing the XL Pipeline to start construction:
www.nrdc.org/energy/keystone-p…
Heartland Institute is not a scientific entity, but manned by businessmen and politicians who have also questioned the health detriments of second-hand tobacco smoke:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hear…
heartland.org/issues/environme…
Frankly, I’m suspicious of anyone who “promotes pro-environment policies” but also “ earned… the enmity of many … public health and environmental groups”.
As I understand it, most environmentalist groups would probably be called liberal because they advocate direct government intervention. Many methods of industry that have developed up until the present produce harmful by-products, and the processes can be changed, but it costs money. Good ideas don’t always pay monetarily, and not all companies look at any other bottom line. Appealing to government over private initiatives is, in such cases, more efficient and effective. Whatever label it is is besides the point. I'm skeptical of parties I support as well as parties I don't; it's only healthy not to be selective about the kinds of things one questions. Socratically questioning myself can surprise and frustrate me regarding what little I know, but I think it's a healthy practice.