In Pennsylvania,
environmental arguments often succeed in blocking projects.
Not exact matches
Their
argument ignores the common practice of imposing
environmental risks on one group (usually poorer, less powerful, and
often rural) for the benefit of others who suffer none of the
environmental risks.
Legal experts note that judges» opinions in
environmental cases won't necessarily fall strictly along ideological lines, but that conservative judges are
often more likely to reject
arguments calling for more regulation or trying to fit climate change rules within the existing Clean Air Act.
I hear echoes of «Wilson's Law» above, and also some resonance with articles I've written focusing on how
environmental and animal - welfare groups, while
often working toward shared goals (an end to whaling, for instance) rarely use the same
arguments, with one focused on population statistics and the other on ethics.
Aside from any larger
environmental issues, people who make the personal freedom
argument often speak out of both sides of their mouth.
TH: So
often Republicans seem to be on the wrong side of the
environmental argument... what's the role of leadership to change that versus make it worse?
Still, I bring all this up because we
often hear
arguments against smart
environmental policies that don't stand up to scrutiny.