[wallace_f]

>Everybody believes what they push for is for the best. You believe what you're pushing for is for the best too! That's what people do.

I don't understand. I've known people to say things such as, "we're not good people," or, "honestly, why would I care about that?" I knew someone who did an oil change in his truck on the top floor of a parking garage, and let the oil drain down the storm drain - I said, "are you aware how bad that is for the environment?" and he said "yea but why would I care about that? I don't care, it doesn't help me." But he knew it was wrong.

It seems like there are people who know the difference between right and wrong, and don't care. There are also people who don't know the difference between right and wrong, and do care. I wish all people knew the difference between right and wrong, and did care, but that's not my observation.

[ocdtrekkie]

The problem is, I think you're fundamentally willing to accept that the conservative point of view is "wrong" and the liberal point of view is "right", and therefore, you believe the Koch brothers don't know what is right or don't care. There are both appealing and disgusting points in both the conservative and liberal rhetorics, and we get nowhere if we assume that is the case.

People's right and wrong (and level of care) is going to differ for various reasons. The amount of money you have is going to affect your amount of care too: People at the Koch brothers' income level have nothing left to do but care about things they think are not as they should be, and try to influence them. There's a point where you're so rich, you sway that money-laden power around to do what you think needs to be done. You and I may not agree with the Koch brothers on what needs to be done, but it doesn't mean they're inherently "wrong". And on the opposite end, someone who can't afford a shop to do their oil change may not be bothered about the tiny effect they might have on the environment in that one instance.

And again, even if they are evil incarnate. If Mike Rowe can get them to spend money on something good, then why shouldn't he? So look at the cause Mike is championing here, and decide how you feel about it. If you think he's doing a good thing, why does it matter where he got the money for it?

[addicted]

The American conservative viewpoint on the environment is factually wrong.

This is not an opinion. To the extent society had constructed objective ways to determine facts, the existence of human driven global warming is as much of a fact as you can get.

Unfortunately, in American politics, conservatives often fall afoul of reality. And its not a coincidence. The conservative side is the one actively discrediting science and expertise, and promoting religion and gut feel as real sources of knowledge.

There is an actual asymmetry which exists between the American conservative and liberal movements, in terms of accepting reality, which has been deliberately generated over the past few decades.

Its really hard to ignore this, and unfortunately makes a lot of the both sides do it statements horribly wrong.

This isnt to say liberals are immune to ignoring reality and facts. But they are far less likely to do so because they arent driven by a movement deeicated to discrediting the best (albeit imperfect) sources and methods of determinkng knowledge that humans have derived yet.

[orangecat]

The American conservative viewpoint on the environment is factually wrong.

"The environment" is a large topic. The liberal viewpoints on nuclear power and GMOs are also factually wrong, and are arguably resulting in even more harm.

[jolux]

Nuclear power used to make sense before solar was as cheap as it is now and considering that it's still getting cheaper it doesn't make a lot of sense. See: http://crookedtimber.org/2016/07/20/nuclear-math-doesnt-add-...