Republicans are now planning to kill the endangered species act

[justfollowingtheelections]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6KNINRvhrk

The Republicans have lost it completely.  When did these people become so anti-environment?  It was Nixon that founded the EPA!

[The_Doctor]

Nixon founded the EPA but the Democrats in Congress are the people who actually originated the EPA. Not that I like it; I'd like to return to Teddy Roosevelt's pro-environmentalist leanings and Gov. Reagan's environmental record in CA.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Nixon founded the EPA but the Democrats in Congress are the people who actually originated the EPA. Not that I like it; I'd like to return to Teddy Roosevelt's pro-environmentalist leanings and Gov. Reagan's environmental record in CA.

My point is that they weren't always this extreme.  What happened all of a sudden?  We're probably the only country in the world where one of the two major parties is so anti-environment and anti-science.

[ag]

Nixon founded the EPA but the Democrats in Congress are the people who actually originated the EPA. Not that I like it; I'd like to return to Teddy Roosevelt's pro-environmentalist leanings and Gov. Reagan's environmental record in CA.

My point is that they weren't always this extreme.  What happened all of a sudden?  We're probably the only country in the world where one of the two major parties is so anti-environment and anti-science.

It may have been a puzzle before, but by now it is all very obvious. The Grand New Trumpist Republican Party is just the US analog of the French National Front or another similar European ultra-right organisation, just a tad more radical. That is it.

[The_Doctor]

Nixon founded the EPA but the Democrats in Congress are the people who actually originated the EPA. Not that I like it; I'd like to return to Teddy Roosevelt's pro-environmentalist leanings and Gov. Reagan's environmental record in CA.

My point is that they weren't always this extreme.  What happened all of a sudden?  We're probably the only country in the world where one of the two major parties is so anti-environment and anti-science.

The GOP has been notably anti-environmentalist since the 1980s. The shift happened in 1976-1980, when the Reagan right took over the party, fueled by the Sagebrush Revolution. That's probably the big antecedent for the GOP's modern behavior.

Also, yeah, what ag said. I +1 his comment.

[RINO Tom]

1) This would be a terrible move, and I would love to see CONSERVatives adopt CONSERVation as won of their principles.  Protecting the environment should never, ever have been adopted as a strictly "liberal" position.

2) The GOP has historically pretty much done what business wanted it to do, so long as it didn't directly conflict with its moralist base, LOL.  Its environmental policy has not exactly followed a principled pattern.

3) Every five years, the threshold for when Republicans were "sane" gets bumped up five more years into the future, LOL.  In 80 years, Democrats will be talking about how Reagan was a liberal for his time because the Democratic Party of his day had two Senators from Alabama or some bullshlt like that, and they'll say Reagan would be a Democrat today.  You can make your case about the current GOP - an institution that I have as much issue with as most any Republican - without feeling the need to praise Republicans from history that still represented the basic conservative principles that you would take huge issue with.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I blame sweet home v babbitt. The ESA says its unlawful to take a protected species. Take is defined in the ESA as hunting/killing/trapping. The Court decided that despite the context "take" also meant cutting down trees or developing land where protected species could hypothetically live even if the development does not harm a single protected animal. That is a significant reinterpretation and has been used as a tactic by greens to shut down development. With citizen enforcement suits, mandatory response times by the feds, NEPA, and the EATJA the ESA is being abused. Whether its the Texas dune sand lizard, the gopher frog or the delhi sands fly, the ESA is becoming nothing more than a limitation on development as opposed to a protector of animals actually at risk of going extinct.

[ag]

1) This would be a terrible move, and I would love to see CONSERVatives adopt CONSERVation as won of their principles.  Protecting the environment should never, ever have been adopted as a strictly "liberal" position.

2) The GOP has historically pretty much done what business wanted it to do, so long as it didn't directly conflict with its moralist base, LOL.  Its environmental policy has not exactly followed a principled pattern.

3) Every five years, the threshold for when Republicans were "sane" gets bumped up five more years into the future, LOL.  In 80 years, Democrats will be talking about how Reagan was a liberal for his time because the Democratic Party of his day had two Senators from Alabama or some bullshlt like that, and they'll say Reagan would be a Democrat today.  You can make your case about the current GOP - an institution that I have as much issue with as most any Republican - without feeling the need to praise Republicans from history that still represented the basic conservative principles that you would take huge issue with.

Listen, I am a conservative: a conservative liberal, of course, but no damn Commie for sure. You do not have to keep loyalty to the party that has left you: there is no place for a conservative in the GNP.

[KingSweden]

I blame sweet home v babbitt. The ESA says its unlawful to take a protected species. Take is defined in the ESA as hunting/killing/trapping. The Court decided that despite the context "take" also meant cutting down trees or developing land where protected species could hypothetically live even if the development does not harm a single protected animal. That is a significant reinterpretation and has been used as a tactic by greens to shut down development. With citizen enforcement suits, mandatory response times by the feds, NEPA, and the EATJA the ESA is being abused. Whether its the Texas dune sand lizard, the gopher frog or the delhi sands fly, the ESA is becoming nothing more than a limitation on development as opposed to a protector of animals actually at risk of going extinct.

Wouldn't the solution be legislation clarifying the issues you describe rather than scrapping the law wholesale?

[The_Doctor]

1) This would be a terrible move, and I would love to see CONSERVatives adopt CONSERVation as won of their principles.  Protecting the environment should never, ever have been adopted as a strictly "liberal" position.

2) The GOP has historically pretty much done what business wanted it to do, so long as it didn't directly conflict with its moralist base, LOL.  Its environmental policy has not exactly followed a principled pattern.

3) Every five years, the threshold for when Republicans were "sane" gets bumped up five more years into the future, LOL.  In 80 years, Democrats will be talking about how Reagan was a liberal for his time because the Democratic Party of his day had two Senators from Alabama or some bullshlt like that, and they'll say Reagan would be a Democrat today.  You can make your case about the current GOP - an institution that I have as much issue with as most any Republican - without feeling the need to praise Republicans from history that still represented the basic conservative principles that you would take huge issue with.

This seems a reply to me.

I don't have as much of a problem with the basic conservative principles that exist during Nixon-Reagan, except of course, on the environment. I do think the GOP has been misguided on the environment dating to the 1980s. If you mean the environment, I do, yes, disagree strongly with the conservative premises there.  

I agree with #2. The GOP has always been a pro-business party since the 1860s.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I blame sweet home v babbitt. The ESA says its unlawful to take a protected species. Take is defined in the ESA as hunting/killing/trapping. The Court decided that despite the context "take" also meant cutting down trees or developing land where protected species could hypothetically live even if the development does not harm a single protected animal. That is a significant reinterpretation and has been used as a tactic by greens to shut down development. With citizen enforcement suits, mandatory response times by the feds, NEPA, and the EATJA the ESA is being abused. Whether its the Texas dune sand lizard, the gopher frog or the delhi sands fly, the ESA is becoming nothing more than a limitation on development as opposed to a protector of animals actually at risk of going extinct.

Wouldn't the solution be legislation clarifying the issues you describe rather than scrapping the law wholesale?

Are they discussing a full repeal? I remember a GOP report with reform proposals like 2 years ago but not a full repeal. Your solution is what I'd prefer.

[°Leprechaun]

While I don't like the reality that there are other endangered species, the human race is as much an endangered species as any. You know what I mean... nuclear war... climate change etc.

[RINO Tom]

1) This would be a terrible move, and I would love to see CONSERVatives adopt CONSERVation as won of their principles.  Protecting the environment should never, ever have been adopted as a strictly "liberal" position.

2) The GOP has historically pretty much done what business wanted it to do, so long as it didn't directly conflict with its moralist base, LOL.  Its environmental policy has not exactly followed a principled pattern.

3) Every five years, the threshold for when Republicans were "sane" gets bumped up five more years into the future, LOL.  In 80 years, Democrats will be talking about how Reagan was a liberal for his time because the Democratic Party of his day had two Senators from Alabama or some bullshlt like that, and they'll say Reagan would be a Democrat today.  You can make your case about the current GOP - an institution that I have as much issue with as most any Republican - without feeling the need to praise Republicans from history that still represented the basic conservative principles that you would take huge issue with.

This seems a reply to me.

I don't have as much of a problem with the basic conservative principles that exist during Nixon-Reagan, except of course, on the environment. I do think the GOP has been misguided on the environment dating to the 1980s. If you mean the environment, I do, yes, disagree strongly with the conservative premises there.  

I agree with #2. The GOP has always been a pro-business party since the 1860s.

I guess parts of it might have been directed at you, but I'm guessing we agree on this.  After all, in my first point I made it clear that I think environmental protection should be a tenant of conservatism.

[Dr. Arch]

This is ridiculous. Do they get a thrill from inflicting harm on others?

[RINO Tom]

While I don't like the reality that there are other endangered species, the human race is as much an endangered species as any. You know what I mean... nuclear war... climate change etc.

Which is why we must keep the list alive and add ourselves!

[°Leprechaun]

While I don't like the reality that there are other endangered species, the human race is as much an endangered species as any. You know what I mean... nuclear war... climate change etc.

Which is why we must keep the list alive and add ourselves!

You are correct. I hope that others will realize this before it's too late.

[The_Doctor]

1) This would be a terrible move, and I would love to see CONSERVatives adopt CONSERVation as won of their principles.  Protecting the environment should never, ever have been adopted as a strictly "liberal" position.

2) The GOP has historically pretty much done what business wanted it to do, so long as it didn't directly conflict with its moralist base, LOL.  Its environmental policy has not exactly followed a principled pattern.

3) Every five years, the threshold for when Republicans were "sane" gets bumped up five more years into the future, LOL.  In 80 years, Democrats will be talking about how Reagan was a liberal for his time because the Democratic Party of his day had two Senators from Alabama or some bullshlt like that, and they'll say Reagan would be a Democrat today.  You can make your case about the current GOP - an institution that I have as much issue with as most any Republican - without feeling the need to praise Republicans from history that still represented the basic conservative principles that you would take huge issue with.

This seems a reply to me.

I don't have as much of a problem with the basic conservative principles that exist during Nixon-Reagan, except of course, on the environment. I do think the GOP has been misguided on the environment dating to the 1980s. If you mean the environment, I do, yes, disagree strongly with the conservative premises there.  

I agree with #2. The GOP has always been a pro-business party since the 1860s.

I guess parts of it might have been directed at you, but I'm guessing we agree on this.  After all, in my first point I made it clear that I think environmental protection should be a tenant of conservatism.

Ah, OK. My ideal Republican Party would institute a revenue neutral carbon tax that would send back revenues to the middle class and businesses that come under emissions guidelines (set by a scientific panel rather than Congress) in the form of a tax rebate. Much like the Washington GOP's carbon tax proposal that was voted on in 2016 (didn't pass, though).

I certainly don't want to save every environmentally endangered species or think that we should grind development to a halt in the process. But I think there's definitely market friendly policies that exist.

[Devout Centrist]

1) This would be a terrible move, and I would love to see CONSERVatives adopt CONSERVation as won of their principles.  Protecting the environment should never, ever have been adopted as a strictly "liberal" position.

2) The GOP has historically pretty much done what business wanted it to do, so long as it didn't directly conflict with its moralist base, LOL.  Its environmental policy has not exactly followed a principled pattern.

3) Every five years, the threshold for when Republicans were "sane" gets bumped up five more years into the future, LOL.  In 80 years, Democrats will be talking about how Reagan was a liberal for his time because the Democratic Party of his day had two Senators from Alabama or some bullshlt like that, and they'll say Reagan would be a Democrat today.  You can make your case about the current GOP - an institution that I have as much issue with as most any Republican - without feeling the need to praise Republicans from history that still represented the basic conservative principles that you would take huge issue with.

That last one will be true if Trump assumes 'emergency powers'.

[KingSweden]

I blame sweet home v babbitt. The ESA says its unlawful to take a protected species. Take is defined in the ESA as hunting/killing/trapping. The Court decided that despite the context "take" also meant cutting down trees or developing land where protected species could hypothetically live even if the development does not harm a single protected animal. That is a significant reinterpretation and has been used as a tactic by greens to shut down development. With citizen enforcement suits, mandatory response times by the feds, NEPA, and the EATJA the ESA is being abused. Whether its the Texas dune sand lizard, the gopher frog or the delhi sands fly, the ESA is becoming nothing more than a limitation on development as opposed to a protector of animals actually at risk of going extinct.

Wouldn't the solution be legislation clarifying the issues you describe rather than scrapping the law wholesale?

Are they discussing a full repeal? I remember a GOP report with reform proposals like 2 years ago but not a full repeal. Your solution is what I'd prefer.

We're on the same page. NIMBYs abusing the system to stop development, especially dense city development that helps prevent greenfield construction, drives me nuts

[RINO Tom]

1) This would be a terrible move, and I would love to see CONSERVatives adopt CONSERVation as won of their principles.  Protecting the environment should never, ever have been adopted as a strictly "liberal" position.

2) The GOP has historically pretty much done what business wanted it to do, so long as it didn't directly conflict with its moralist base, LOL.  Its environmental policy has not exactly followed a principled pattern.

3) Every five years, the threshold for when Republicans were "sane" gets bumped up five more years into the future, LOL.  In 80 years, Democrats will be talking about how Reagan was a liberal for his time because the Democratic Party of his day had two Senators from Alabama or some bullshlt like that, and they'll say Reagan would be a Democrat today.  You can make your case about the current GOP - an institution that I have as much issue with as most any Republican - without feeling the need to praise Republicans from history that still represented the basic conservative principles that you would take huge issue with.

This seems a reply to me.

I don't have as much of a problem with the basic conservative principles that exist during Nixon-Reagan, except of course, on the environment. I do think the GOP has been misguided on the environment dating to the 1980s. If you mean the environment, I do, yes, disagree strongly with the conservative premises there.  

I agree with #2. The GOP has always been a pro-business party since the 1860s.

I guess parts of it might have been directed at you, but I'm guessing we agree on this.  After all, in my first point I made it clear that I think environmental protection should be a tenant of conservatism.

Ah, OK. My ideal Republican Party would institute a revenue neutral carbon tax that would send back revenues to the middle class and businesses that come under emissions guidelines (set by a scientific panel rather than Congress) in the form of a tax rebate. Much like the Washington GOP's carbon tax proposal that was voted on in 2016 (didn't pass, though).

I certainly don't want to save every environmentally endangered species or think that we should grind development to a halt in the process. But I think there's definitely market friendly policies that exist.

I would be a big fan of this ... there are so many pro-business incentives that you could offer that would target environmental waste and avoid the stigma that environmental protection is this heavy-handed thing that is laid down by the government, with no private investment (but rather simply *following t he rules*).

[The_Doctor]

1) This would be a terrible move, and I would love to see CONSERVatives adopt CONSERVation as won of their principles.  Protecting the environment should never, ever have been adopted as a strictly "liberal" position.

2) The GOP has historically pretty much done what business wanted it to do, so long as it didn't directly conflict with its moralist base, LOL.  Its environmental policy has not exactly followed a principled pattern.

3) Every five years, the threshold for when Republicans were "sane" gets bumped up five more years into the future, LOL.  In 80 years, Democrats will be talking about how Reagan was a liberal for his time because the Democratic Party of his day had two Senators from Alabama or some bullshlt like that, and they'll say Reagan would be a Democrat today.  You can make your case about the current GOP - an institution that I have as much issue with as most any Republican - without feeling the need to praise Republicans from history that still represented the basic conservative principles that you would take huge issue with.

This seems a reply to me.

I don't have as much of a problem with the basic conservative principles that exist during Nixon-Reagan, except of course, on the environment. I do think the GOP has been misguided on the environment dating to the 1980s. If you mean the environment, I do, yes, disagree strongly with the conservative premises there.  

I agree with #2. The GOP has always been a pro-business party since the 1860s.

I guess parts of it might have been directed at you, but I'm guessing we agree on this.  After all, in my first point I made it clear that I think environmental protection should be a tenant of conservatism.

Ah, OK. My ideal Republican Party would institute a revenue neutral carbon tax that would send back revenues to the middle class and businesses that come under emissions guidelines (set by a scientific panel rather than Congress) in the form of a tax rebate. Much like the Washington GOP's carbon tax proposal that was voted on in 2016 (didn't pass, though).

I certainly don't want to save every environmentally endangered species or think that we should grind development to a halt in the process. But I think there's definitely market friendly policies that exist.

I would be a big fan of this ... there are so many pro-business incentives that you could offer that would target environmental waste and avoid the stigma that environmental protection is this heavy-handed thing that is laid down by the government, with no private investment (but rather simply *following t he rules*).

Last post here. I agree. I'm not a fan of using government regulations to create environmentally friendly outcomes. It's also asinine. Mandating x or y is just grounds to create a bucket list of strange regulations that force everyone to fit a one size fits all. Encouraging environmentally good market outcomes that don't add to the state's financial coffers in the process is probably the best way to solve climate change and to protect the planet.

I believe there was one study that making salmon farmers in the New England region stakeholders in the farming of salmon made them more environmentally conscious and allowed them to keep it a profitable and yet environmentally conscious enterprise. I don't remember how they did this, but it's the example of the kind of environmental policies I wish Republicans would pursue instead of simply allowing the Democrats to just claim the issue to ram government down our throats in mandates.

[Anna Komnene]

I don't know about the House, but I think there would be enough opposition in the Senate to stop this.  Susan Collins, maybe Lamar Alexander, and a couple others, etc.  The thing is that there are some republicans that are decent on the environment, (see Kelly Ayotte/Mark Kirk), but they tend to lose to democrats.

[Xing]

Yet more terrible news. Have Republicans in Congress no restraint or decency? It's like an all you can eat buffet, except instead of eating, it's watching in horror as everything you stand for is destroyed.

[publicunofficial]

Again this is what Republicans always mean when they say "we need sensible regulations"

[Bismarck]

1) This would be a terrible move, and I would love to see CONSERVatives adopt CONSERVation as won of their principles.  Protecting the environment should never, ever have been adopted as a strictly "liberal" position.

2) The GOP has historically pretty much done what business wanted it to do, so long as it didn't directly conflict with its moralist base, LOL.  Its environmental policy has not exactly followed a principled pattern.

3) Every five years, the threshold for when Republicans were "sane" gets bumped up five more years into the future, LOL.  In 80 years, Democrats will be talking about how Reagan was a liberal for his time because the Democratic Party of his day had two Senators from Alabama or some bullshlt like that, and they'll say Reagan would be a Democrat today.  You can make your case about the current GOP - an institution that I have as much issue with as most any Republican - without feeling the need to praise Republicans from history that still represented the basic conservative principles that you would take huge issue with.

Agreed.