The Humanitarian Party has the same fundamental thought process on environmental issues as it does on Humanitarian issues. First, think about the impact on the environment and then move forward based on the results of that thought process.
There are a lot of areas to think about when it comes to environmental issues. We must analyze each area in order to provide a solution that is both sustainable and safe for humans along with the environment.
With any environmental issue, humanitarians believe there should be a strong contingency plan along with the final proposal for a solution. We must not only know how to do something, but we also must know how to react in case the system fails.
Climate Change:
Climate change is a natural event that happens on Earth with or without Humans being here. Although climate change is a natural event Humans do play an important part and have dramatically affected climate change by burning fossil fuels and by not controlling greenhouse gasses (carbon dioxide, methane, etc) more.
Conservation:
The Humanitarian Party believe it is a human responsibility to respect and work toward a way to avoid the extinction of any organism due to a process of direct human involvement.
Energy:
The Humanitarian Party will work on getting away from gasoline burning engines and put more resources into renewable energy such as solar, hydrogen, and the wind.
New renewable energy storage systems (batteries) are also needed in order to utilize solar energy at night.
If the government would relax their strict regulations and give more incentives to entrepreneurs to commercialize renewable energy most importantly renewable energy storage systems than we could increase the possibility of making renewable energy that is safe for the environment a reality.
Nanotechnology
The Humanitarian Party thinks nanotechnology is a promising area for development in new materials and devices, but feel it should be excluded from food. As with any new technology, nanotechnology needs to be analyzed in order to determine the impact on the environment and on human biology before using them in a manufacturing process.
Waste:
The Humanitarian Party thinks the waste and possibility of failure involved in energy projects are just as important as the process itself. There must be a strong solution for handling the waste from a particular process with a strong contingency plan that has been tested and proven to be effective in the case of a system failure.
As you can see on my site, I am strongly opposed to Federal Lands transfer – a pressing issue in my state. I would like to see a stronger statement here regarding human rights to clean food, air and water. I like most of what you’ve written here – I’m a stronger voice LOL
Hey Chris – Look over this site & ask yourself: Why does the person or persons responsible for content not change the header to the current year ? Who are we writing to ? Who makes the decisions ? How can people be organized into the next level of productivity ? Is there any plan to have a national convention ?…Is there any deception or malevolence ? CREADIBILITY is the name of the game !
*So Chris, if you’re all that, look me & my pals up in Denver Colorado.
The year under the logo in the header is the year this web site and organization was founded. I created it to help push this ideology. It’s a start to something that needs to be built on.
I have yet to put together a full plan of action and appreciate your interest as well as others. All ideas are welcome and there will be a starter package available to help people get involved.
I just visited your site to see if their was a Humanitarian Party and was surprised to see their is a God that wants to get rid of all this fighting between family members, friends, workers, Democrats, Republicans and Independents. I’m proposing to build a self sufficient energy, entertainment and educational project in the Miami area as you will see on my web site of which is the last part of my email address, please get back to me to discuss this further, Sid Weinstein, CEO/Founder.
The 2012 is misleading, though. I was under the impression I was reading something that had been posted back in 2012 and was no longer in motion. Perhaps if it said “est. 2012” it would help?