Boogy: "im asking im shocked anyone would be against the government protecting the environment against the catastrophic effects of unbridled capitalism."

:p well maybe you should get out of WASPy Upper West Side Manhattan then lol.

Believe it or not; man-made global warming is a sham. There are many many other theories on why the earth was warming recently that don't include CO2 as their reason. CO2 has increased since 1998 while temperatures have fallen. The debate continues, amongst scientists, about the causes of the earths long term climate changes.

As far as the government regulation goes; cap&trade, carbon credits, off setting, etc are all schemes meant to profit political cronies.

I'm not sure why this point of view is shocking to you. Do you have basic cable? To you read the news? I'm confused about how you could miss this point of view.

while can debate the scope and degree of needed environmental protections, how can you possibly deny that some kind of protection is necessary? you really think that private companies will self-regulate? there are many ways that human activities can make our environment less hospitable to sustaining human life. you really want to trust private companies with our collective health and survival as a community and a species?

Also its extremely condescending for you to ask me if I "read the news".
And no--I don't have cable or television.

Sorry if I went to far with my joking; I was only trying to match the condescending "umm lol" that you fired at me. It was only meant in jest and is not a attack meant with any malice of course.

As for environmental regulations; I'm all for protecting the rights of individuals against corporations (and any other group or individual). However this is the proper function of the court system; not the legislative/executive branch of the federal government.

So---for example, you are in favour of (existing or otherwise) laws that specify limits to which mining companies may contaminate ground water with chemical byproducts or deplete existing animal populations through their operations?

The need for such basic regulations seems to me to be truly beyond question.

Wait I'm confused now that I've re-read your response. You say that environment protection should be the purview of the judiciary. But without legislation, what basis would the courts have for penalizing companies or individuals who cause damage to the environment?

To clarify; the same law that protects you from your neighbor sending poisonous gas through your air vent; is the same law that will protect you from a group doing it. This is what has traditionally been used; it is what is currently being used and it is all that is necessary.

Oh so you are not against environmental regulation ? I'm confused.

Boogy: "But without legislation, what basis would the courts have for penalizing companies or individuals who cause damage to the environment?"

State and Federal constitutions that have existed since the founding of the state/federal government.

code, the constitution doesnt set permissible levels of pollution/environmental impact, such as the above example of mining regulation....u need specific laws for that, not just a constitution.