Zagadka wrote:One, I'm aiming for sustainable development. Sustainability does not mean hands-off; quite the opposite, the active word is development. It is impossible to develop if we cause destruction. My "limits" would be rather liberal, but we have to make sure that the fish remain abundant.
So perhaps this is something we could label and/or procede with as some type of conservationism? I think one of the issues facing the environmental movement in general is that it doesn't embrace conservation quite visibly enough for certain segments of the population and as a result it comes off as academic quackery to certain practical hands-on types. Rather than bombastically claiming that overfishing will destroy the earth, making a more down-to-earth, conservationism claim like:
"Overfishing directly affects PoFo in these ways 1) X, 2) XX...", is much more likely to reach the demographic who will be most affected by the laws.
I'll admit, at face value I'm not as supportive on this particular issue, but I'm more than willing to consider your thoughts and see if there is wiggle room.
As for the other two, I think I'm mostly in support of these items. I really like the idea of rail as a further way of limiting our dependance on oil in general. The other benefits are secondary in my personal opinion. Geothermal only makes sense in light of concern as well. It's even possible, in time, that if we can properly harness our vast geothermal potential, we could run the rail system on it.
"When do you ask yourself,
'Maybe everyone else isn't wrong for using the definitions of words; maybe I'm wrong for making up new definitions of words and then using them as crude slurs' -TiG