I don't know how to be gentle regarding the Environment, but I do know that soft-headed gentle people are ruining the Environment by suggesting "regulation" as a way to protect it.
Because "Regulation" is all too often an ineffective reaction to the effect
(not the cause
) of a problem. And soon it spawns a government agency the continued existence of which is antithetical to the elimination the problem.
In the 1970's, when Sierra Club policy was scientifically-based rather than politically-based, the club clearly identified the number one cause for environmental degradation in the U.S.:
"In 1969, the Sierra Club published Paul R. Ehrlich's book, The Population Bomb, in which he said that population growth was responsible for environmental decline and advocated coercive measures to reduce it. Some observers have argued that the book had a "racial dimension" in the tradition of the Eugenics movement, and that it "reiterated many of Osborn's jeremiads."
In 1978, John Tanton, former Chairman of the National Sierra Club Population Committee and former President of Zero Population Growth, founded the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
During the 1980s, some Sierra Club members, including Paul Ehrlich's wife Anne, wanted to take the Club into the contentious field of immigration to the United States. The Club's position was that overpopulation was a significant factor in the degradation of the environment. Accordingly, the Club supported stabilizing and reducing U.S. and world population."
Unfortunately, the club has taken down their old population policy statement:
Sierra Club. "Sierra Club Policy: Population." http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/621.html
Today, one political party advocates uncontrolled population streaming through the Southern border because they constitute undocumented Democrats.
Another political party silently (because they are afraid of the T.E.A. Party) allows uncontrolled population streaming through the Southern border because they are a source of hard working near slave labor because 49% of Americans are takers who would rather be paid for contributing nothing to their own existence instead of making enough money to pay for their own existence.
One party says the undocumented are taking jobs which Americans don't want to do. While the Chamber of Commerce in other party recognizes that American business does not want to hire the available pool of documented lazy takers only to get tied up in anti-business labor law protections when they later try to fire their "lazy a$$e$" for being unproductive.
Even the productive makers want their Social Security benefits which means they are participating in an unsustainable Ponzi scheme which is dependent upon population growth to have even a hope of becoming sustainable:
"So in 1960 youíve got four workers supporting each person on Social Security. Currently that ratio is down to 3 to 1. If current demographic trends continue by 2032 there will only be two workers for each Social Security recipient.
That ratio isnít sustainable. Somethingís gotta give." What makes it worse is what isnít shown are Social Security Disability, Medicare/Medicaid, and unfunded public retirement benefits. Those are uncapped entitlement programs with much higher combined liabilities than Social Security.
So, all you soft-headed gentle people, if you care about the Environment, you will have to start with yourself, by taking care of yourself, and not asking your fellow Americans to take care of you. And you will have to start advocating:
"Borders, Language and Culture."
1. Because a fence at the Border will control population (as well as measels, and tuberculosis, etc.).
2. Because a common Language unites our Culture, while a "diversity" of languages divides us (think of the root for the word "diversity" for Christ's sake!).
3. Because traditional Americans share a common Culture which respects the Environment, which most other cultures simply don't. Move to Mexico City if you don't share my Cultural protection for the Environment for Christ's sake. But don't move Mexican culture here if you want to protect the Environment.
On a personal note, ever since I became a Christ-loving Buddist I have come to accept the fact that soft-headed liberals will destroy the Environment in this country by over-regulation and failing to address the real cause of harm to the Environment. (Although as a follower of Ayn Rand, I still have this undercurrent of desire to try to save my Country...)
Finally, Social Security, Social Security Disability, SNAP (Welfare programs), Obamacare and other charities are not "Christ-like." Christ only fed the masses once
, which was loaves and fishes for 5,000.* Christ showed that he had the power
to feed the poor. And by doing it only once, he showed that he chose not
to feed the poor more than once. Jesus was not a rolling buffet. And Christ's way is not to feed the World's poor.
So, to protect the Environment, maybe we should get back to science, start taking individual responsibility for our own existences, stop paying for the existence of others, and really protect the Environment by stabilizing or reducing American population growth starting with building a fence on our Southern Border?
: Scriptural error alert! I learned at my 6 am Friday Christian men's group this morning that Jesus fed the masses twice, once a crowd of 5,000 (Mark 6:30-44) and then a crowd of 4,000 (Mark 8:1-8). Obviously, I am still stumbling towards Christ.
Feeding people is merely a popular tactic which organizations often use to attract new members.