>>21
I care more for poor people than I do for the environment. Thus, if a given law that benefits the environment but raises the cost of living, negatively affecting standard of living of working class and poor people, I will oppose it to provide a higher standard of living for said people whom I favor over having a greener world. I *do* care for the poor, and I, unlike the elitist-environmentalists, care for the poor before I care for the environment.
Stop repeating yourself, fuckbrain. It is lack of economic restructuring that causes an excess of poor people which is has a correlation to a determental environment. Duh: Without the planet you're worrying means jack shit because eventually we'll all be fucked. Your "caring" lacks logic and therefore you fail.
I don't know whether the economic restructurization would help or not, but this is besides the point. Environmentalism *does* hurt low-average income people, and doesn't affect upper class elitists at all.
If you don't know, then you are ignorant and that's why you chose to brush economic restructuring aside. You (the ignorant) say "it's not the point". Therefore, to anyone with actual knowledge (see: everyone who disagrees with you) it is the WHOLE point. The reason we have such a large influx of low-average income people is because of lack of restructuration.
Also: Your proof that environmentalism effects lower classes stands unproven empirically. You can't just say something and have it magically be true. Regardless; lower income folks (like myself) are going to become victims of the petrodollar sooner or later, your point of view serve to stave off the inevitable.
Its not that I don't care about the planet. I do. However, I put low-income people before I put my concerns about the environment.
Putting "poor people" above the environement when poor (all people) still populate a planet that's being ruined by shitty choices (economic, evironmental) is stupid and totally illogical. So: U FAIL.