<Now, you know and I know that nuclear power is a, if not THE, rational solution to many of the problems the US is having, including water. And I know, at least, that radioactive waste can be transported and stored safely. I know the spotted owl is NOT a species and should not be protected.

This statement alone puts you at least a parsec beyond 90 percent of the environmental leadership in terms of reasonableness. That's why I like this board--I get to argue with people who have brains.

I know much of the fringes of environmentalism is nonsense - and at the core it needs to be more of a factor than we are currently used to.

See my previous paragraph. Only mistake is that you refer to the "fringes." The biggest mistake being made right now by many "middle-of-the-road" liberals is assuming that the radical policital philosophies are being held by some oddballs out on the perimeter of influence. The anti-humanity faction is in control of the large environmental movers and shakers, just like the Socialists are in control of the leadership of the Democratic party, something else liberals tend to wear blinders about.

In my opinion Man is not, at his present level of activity, doing the environment or other species any good, and more should be done to mitigate our damage. Maximizing profit and dividends should not be the only consideration of reasonable peoples, and in some societies it is.



We are NOT the only cause of climate changes, and we DO contribute. The Conservative view seems to be simplistic - some one thing is the cause and it isn't anything Man does. Therefore Man need not do anything.



Again, a quite reasonable viewpoint. I harp on this because the environmental movement is using global warming and environment change as a political tool to advance a collectivist agenda, and really could care less what is actually happening to the climate.