Over and over, we hear politicians say they can't spend our tax dollars on environmental protection when the economy is so fragile.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Politicians usually get the blame for dragging their feet on environmental issues. And fair enough. Most of them do just that. But the blame isn't theirs alone. For politicians afraid of losing votes, a bristling media waiting to transform good green ideas into monsters is a colossal disincentive.
I'm a latecomer to the environmental issue, which for years seemed to me like an excuse for more government regulation. But I can see that in rich societies, voters are paying less attention to economic issues and more to issues of the spirit, including the environment.
Economic growth and environmental protection are not at odds. They're opposite sides of the same coin if you're looking at longer-term prosperity.
Why has it seemed that the only way to protect the environment is with heavy-handed government regulation?
It seems like every week we are considering bills that would make it harder to limit the amount of carbon we are dumping into our atmosphere, and prevent implementation of clean technologies. The voters who sent us here deserve better.
I think today we recognize that economic activity needs to search for ways to protect the environment.
When the EPA says that property owners, farmers, and livestock producers must stomach higher costs, longer delays, and bigger headaches, it's up to Congress to put up a roadblock.
Environmentalism has failed.
We learned that economic growth and environmental protection can and should go hand in hand.
We don't have to sacrifice a strong economy for a healthy environment.