Environment vs People

I'm sure you're smart enough to realize that pointing to a frost advisory in May is hardly credible evidence against theories of Global warming.

As far as storm damage, I don't know.


My problem lies not in the Science of Global warming, but in the process that occurs after scientific studies discover a problem. Rational decision making is seldom applied to Environmental matters.

Once the science is hardened, we must ask: "What will it cost us if nothing is altered?" "What will it cost us to alter this outcome now and in the future?" "Is there anything else we can do that is more important?" "Is there any way to harness technological advances or the market to affect change?" Etc.

 

I think that in the end, people are more important. However, if we ignore the enivornment, all people will suffer. So, I would say that I am an environmentalist as long as the end benfit goes to the people. However, there must be compromise. Rich environmentalists that can afford to say that the environment is more important while living in a nice modern home with technology that would have never came about can say whatever they want. There are other cases when both needs of the groups can be met. I saw a shown on PBS about sealion fishermen in asia some where that had due to modern fishing techniques they had depleted the fisheries so much that they were no longer getting the amount of sealions they needed to surive. Well they set up a system whereby certain areas were prohibited so the sealions could reproduce, and areas where they could fish, and the net result has been more sealions. Sure some fish illegaly in the protected areas, but if we all just could find solutions like these, rather than try to shut down plants because they pollute, or pollute simply because you can save a buck, this issue would go away.

In political science I learned this: Nobody is anti-environment. However, nearly everyone disagrees how environmental policy should be implimented and how extensive it should be.

And for those of you who think the world is developed enough, I am sure you would be saying that if you lived in a mud shack and no internet. /sarcasm

If you are reading this, you are enjoying the benifit of years of pollution. The only persons I could possibly imagine following true to the hard line environmentalism they advocate would be unable to communicate said ideas.

The more developed you get, the less you will polute, unless you advocate going back to the stone age so we don't hurt mother earth, and instead hurt ourselfs. The Kyoto treaty was a load of crap, and basically said the US would not pollute so everyone else could. Hmm, I wonder why we didn't sign it.

 

The United States pollutes more than anyone else.

And yes, I know that everything we have come to know and love are all polluting the environment. That's why I'm advocating things like alternative fuel cars and such.

 

The earth's been here 4.6 billion years... we havent. It'll still be here long after we're gone... so... pack your bags, folks.

Seriously... I think it's noble to want to keep things in as good a condition when we depart as when we came.

However, overzealousness of any kind... extremism of any kind.. may not be a good thing.

I think that many environmentalists are really humanists... because the issue isn't so much the desire to save this planet for its own prosperity... it's not going anywhere, it will get along just fine without us. When you consider the line between humanism and environmentalism in determining what actions you take as an individual, try to think about what you're doing and why...

Is it because you really care about the natural balance of things (of which we are a part, even in our destructiveness... that is our nature)?

-or-

Is it because you deep down abhor the idea of human extinction facilitated as a result of environmental degradation?

In most cases, it is the latter. Were it not for the desire to live a longer life in a nicer, cleaner neighborhood... most of us would not be on the environmental bandwagon.

Also, I strongly encourage those of you who want to support the environment to get your information from scientists... not just rock stars and so-called "environmental concerns" which are all too often undereducated, underinformed, fanatical one-sided marketing bandwagons.

Our zeal to "protect the environment" (from what? Itself? We are part of it, mind you.) can have disastrous consequences if we don't know what we're doing...

Case in point... numerous species which have been transplanted to control other populations, and then themselves grow out of ontrol.

Another case in point... Did you know aluminum recycling creates more airborne pollution than the land pollution it eliminates? In addition to the exhaust emissions from recycling trucks contributing to atmospheric pollution, one of the primary byproducts of recycling plants is TCDD (Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin). Not only is it a carcinogen, but it is the most potent chemical compound in the world... 150,000 times more potent than cyanide.

The U.S. represents 4 percent of the world population, produces 3 percent of the world's petroleum reserves... and consumes 26 percent of the same. We also produce more than a quarter of the world's greenhouse emissions.

We excel in per capita food consumption more than any nation in the world, and statistically our worst epidemic is obesity... 27 percent of the adult population in America is obese (not just overweight). About 19-27 percent of American ten year olds are obese.

If anyone contributes to the world's waste... We're the biggest culprits by far. If anyone should be signing treaties and driving electric cars... we should be the first.

 

from Coolguy4522

If you are reading this, you are enjoying the benifit of years of pollution. The only persons I could possibly imagine following true to the hard line environmentalism they advocate would be unable to communicate said ideas.

The point of environmentalism is not to abandon what industrialization brought us and go back in time, but to go forth and develop even newer techniques, but this time with the will to preserve the environment. The point is not to abandon our cars and go back to horses, but to both improve our cars and adopt new habits (like not taking his car to go and buy a newspaper 2 blocks away) in order to preserve the environment, and find ways to deal with our wastes.

Most environementalists are not ready to abandon modern facilities, nor do they ask anyone to, but they are certainly ready to pay a little more for "cleaner" facilities, and to change some of their habits.

The more developed you get, the less you will polute, unless you advocate going back to the stone age so we don't hurt mother earth, and instead hurt ourselfs.

It may be true, but only if you develop with environmental concerns in mind. The industrial revolution of the XIXth and XXth century showed the opposite: nations developing with the sole purpose of economic power, whatever the cost for environment. So far, the more they developed, the more they poluted. This is why the US and the other developed countries now represent most of the world's pollution.

The Kyoto treaty was a load of crap, and basically said the US would not pollute so everyone else could. Hmm, I wonder why we didn't sign it.

How so? This treaty planned a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions proportionnal to each party's emissions in 1990. Only countries "undergoing the process of transition to a merket economy", and countries with already low emissions were allowed a lower reduction (or no reduction, but little to no increase). In fact, even with the greatest emission, the US were allowed a lower reduction than the European community and most other uropean countries.

You can see the figures here: here

[edit for typo]

 

Darth_Snowdog: Interesting stuff. The info about aluminum recycling in particular shocked me.

 

Pretty scary what happens when we try to fix problems we created in the first place.

That in itself is the answer: Don't create problems in the first place.

In our race to become bigger and "more advanced", we rarely stop to think about the long-term consequences of our instant gratification... not just corporations, but us as individuals. Remember... it's people who work for companies, people who run them, and people who buy from them.

If recycling is creating more problems than it solves, then what's the solution? CONSUME LESS... Manufacturers will inevitably respond and PRODUCE LESS.

In America, that seems to be our biggest problem... our ultra-materialistic, industrial-agricultural lifestyle.

If you want to spend your life accumulating junk, consuming crap, and creating garbage... be prepared to accept the consequences for which there may be, at least for the human race, no solution.

Every other animal on this planet adapts to its surroundings, rather than adapting the surroundings to itself... We're so attached to our present existence that there will come a day when nature throws us a move we cannot wiggle out of... checkmate!

 

If recycling is creating more problems than it solves, then what's the solution? CONSUME LESS... Manufacturers will inevitably respond and PRODUCE LESS.

That's all good, but it isn't feasible. I can't even see myself, let alone anyone else, doing that, to a significant extent at least. If by "consuming less" you mean stop buying SUV's when you don't even need them, yes, that's a good idea. But face it, some things are essential. Besides, we already have too much junk anyway

What we need to do is improve industrialization. I.E. improve aluminum recycling.

 

Two things...

1. Yes, we can certainly learn to consume less. Being the most gluttonous nation in the world, there's lots of room to improve. Is it realistic? No... but then if someone told you 100 years ago that you could all but eliminate smallpox and tuberculosis, would you have believed that to be realistic?

2. For that matter...why not biodegradable aluminum? Impossible? Nothing's impossible.

3. All the attempt to renew resources really does is prolong our selfish existence anyway... instead of allowing us to evolve biologically. It has absolutely nothing to do with "saving" a planet that's gotten along just fine without us for 4.6 billion years...and will continue to get along just fine despite our brief existence. It has everything to do with the "me, me, me" mentality.

 

Look, I am all for polluting less and cleaning up the earth. I think most people are. Nobody wants to live in a dump. However, do I think we should adopt some sort of "shock therapy" treatment? No. A slow gradual transition is best. However, I think that most third world countries or NIC for the PC, will polute more than the US or any other developed countries. We are much much more clean after the industrial revolution than we were during it. We are not covered in soot anymore. The US has many environmental controls that it didn't have during the turn of the century. In fact, we have so many regulations that all our dirty industries have moved to the third world countries that care more about industrialization than the environment.

 

1. Yes, we can certainly learn to consume less. Being the most gluttonous nation in the world, there's lots of room to improve. Is it realistic? No... but then if someone told you 100 years ago that you could all but eliminate smallpox and tuberculosis, would you have believed that to be realistic?

2. For that matter...why not biodegradable aluminum? Impossible? Nothing's impossible.

I for one believe that anything's possible, but some things are just probably unrealistic. Humans are naturally drawn to possession, it's our nature. That's why I believe that your call for people to acquire less will be largely ignored, but I never said it was impossible.

Look, I am all for polluting less and cleaning up the earth. I think most people are. Nobody wants to live in a dump. However, do I think we should adopt some sort of "shock therapy" treatment? No. A slow gradual transition is best. However, I think that most third world countries or NIC for the PC, will polute more than the US or any other developed countries. We are much much more clean after the industrial revolution than we were during it. We are not covered in soot anymore. The US has many environmental controls that it didn't have during the turn of the century. In fact, we have so many regulations that all our dirty industries have moved to the third world countries that care more about industrialization than the environment.

Efforts at protecting the environment are going pretty slow - too slow in fact. Didn't Congress pass a resolution that only 2% of all vehicles sold by each car company must use alternative fuel? 2% - that's nothing. And even then the resolution was largely protested and repealed, I think.

 

Well, rest assured I'm all for evolution... even if it means those of us who won't adapt, reduce consumption, etc. will someday be gone.

Oh well, more space for me!

But seriously... I have just as much difficulty getting away from my desires as the next guy... but I am thinking about it every day. That is the first step.

Some people don't even bother to think about the long-term consequences of their actions. In the end, they all find themselves asking god or whoever for forgiveness, because they realize that all the possessions in the world cannot cure their unhappiness.

Cessation of desire is an utterly idealistic aim... but it is the forces of nature, and not altruism, that teach all species this aim... and they learn the hard way. Either they adapt, shrink in numbers, or die.

We will probably experience a massive decrease in global population due to exhaustion of resources... both because we aren't capable of developing and implementing alternative, inexhaustible resources and also because our technology curve for space travel is so limited that we're more likely to experience global catastrophe before we find another planet to colonize.

Of course, I'm perfectly ok with whatever course nature takes with us. After all, we weren't the first here, and we won't be the last. So what?

 

from Coolguy4522

The US has many environmental controls that it didn't have during the turn of the century. In fact, we have so many regulations that all our dirty industries have moved to the third world countries that care more about industrialization than the environment.

Except that those many regulations are, like in any other developed country:
_ very limited
_ often not respected
_ and some are being abandonned for purely political and economic reasons (see the decisions of Bush's administration concerning the clean air act or its decision to roll back legal action against coal-fired power plants and refineries who violated and still violate the law, or the responsability of some european governements in the spreading of the "mad cow" desease for example).

All scientific studies show that the environment is degrading VERY quickly, but we don't seem to react because this oil company gave a million dollars to that politician's campaign or because it would be too unpopular to restrict the use of individual cars or increase their cost before the election, or because it wouldn't please the shareholders to reduce our benefits by 5% or whatever politician or economic reason.

If you want more details, have a lquick look at this site: air pollution

 

Well, look at nature... no organism adapts out of altruism... they adapt only when they're forced to do so.

We're no different.

 

"Didn't Congress pass a resolution that only 2% of all vehicles sold by each car company must use alternative fuel? 2% - that's nothing. And even then the resolution was largely protested and repealed, I think."


Congressional decrees can't make people buy cars in a market economy. People won't buy cars using alternative fuels until it makes utilitarian sense for them to do so. The price needs to come down and performance improve, and they need to be phased in naturally. That's the only way the reform will stick.

 

I'm not sure I understood what you said, Darth_SnowDog. Are you saying that we are being too altruistic and that if we overprotect other organisms, they will never adapt?

 

No... Olivier.

I'm saying that no organism proactively adapts because of some "moral concern" for the planet or themselves. They only adapt when forced to... whether culturally or genetically.

Why are we to be perceived any different? None of our industrial adaptations come about because we "really care" about the place. Such sweeping changes come about only when some event or another makes it paramount to survival.

I really dislike the greenpeacenik notion that other animals, tribal cultures, etc. limit themselves as though it were some sort of deference to mother nature, conscious and proactively seeking to pre-empt ecological devastation... it is nothing of the sort. Dolphins don't "care" about the environment any more than we do. They just have more things keeping them in check, making them work within their niche.

However, humans in the agricultural world do have a particularly megalomaniacal streak... That is, even when times are good, space is abundant and resources are plenty, some cultures deliberately go out their way to force other environments, other cultures, other people, other animals, to accept their way of life.

I don't know if we are the first to exhibit this particularly self-destructive facet of behavior... but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that some other organisms are just as careless as we are... perhaps lacking only the opposable thumbs that would facilitate their ability to create tools that could help them dominate and destroy.

Then again, even though they could, question is... why would they want to?

Why do we go out of our way trying to tell everyone how to live? Strangely, even environmentalists of the bandwagon variety exhibit this particularly loathesome behavior.

 

How would you suggest we do anything at all without "forcing" people to do things? I personally think that socity must control people some way.

 

Your initial assertions in the topic question illustrate the polarization of environmental issues. These issues need not be dichotomized in such an extreme manner. Political extremes don't dictate policy; compromise, a basic principle of democracy, will solve environmental debates.

Should we pay loggers not to log????
Haven't we learned anything from our practices of farm subsidization? The American farmer has been destroyed by such welfare ideology. NO, we should not take that course of action. Free-market capitalism will dictate who will log and who will find another form of employment.

 

How would you suggest we do anything at all without "forcing" people to do things? I personally think that socity must control people some way.

Who's going to make them? You? Sounds an awful lot like a dictatorship to me...

The idea of democratic society is that society controls itself... by a consent of the people, and not by unilateral decree.

Should we abolish that ideal?

CheeseyWan: The problem with most environmentalists is that they're not environmentalists... they're humanists.

I have no problem with them being humanists... but at least call a spade a spade. Disguising your selfishness as "concern" for the rest of the planet is no less divisive a methodology than that employed by corporations and politicians which "public interest" groups such as PETA and Greenpeace target.

 

Actually, I was thinking more of what Padme said before that... I really need to see that movie again, I have only seen it twice. People don't always agree, but I was thinking more that the majority must impose it's will on the minority. There will always be someone that disagrees, no matter what you do. Does that mean we should do nothing at all? I don't think so. How could you possibly impliment any policy without 'forcing' somebody to do something? In any government, somebody is going to force somebody to do something or not do something. For instance, the government has said you cannot murder. Are we unrightfully imposing upon murders?

 

Coolguy: When trying to do what's in the best interest of the people, I think it's important to make policies that protect people's rights without necessarily infringing on others...

The right to murder is contradictory to the idea of democracy because in exercising that right, an individual is taking away someone else's right to live.

If a small minority disagrees with that, they're always entitled to go somewhere else and form their own country. After all, that's precisely why America was founded... because the minority in England couldn't agree with their ideals.

 

My basic point is that in many cases we DO have a need to tell people how to live their lives, of course we should be very limited in what we tell people to do.

 

Coolguy: Care to give an example?

 

Darth_Snowdog:Well, look at nature... no organism adapts out of altruism... they adapt only when they're forced to do so.

We're no different.

On the other hand, no organism has made such devastating changes to the environment...so we are different.

Red-Seven:Congressional decrees can't make people buy cars in a market economy. People won't buy cars using alternative fuels until it makes utilitarian sense for them to do so. The price needs to come down and performance improve, and they need to be phased in naturally. That's the only way the reform will stick.

That is true, but the government regulation doesn't hurt, only helps. It serves as a wake-up call that the auto industry has to start thinking about alternative fuels and find ways to make them practical. The repealing of the bill only shows that the government has acquiesced to the demands of the auto industry and that money and profit is more important than the well-being of our planet.

Darth_Snowdog:Such sweeping changes come about only when some event or another makes it paramount to survival.

By the time the environment is so ruined that our very lives are at stake, it will be too late to change anything.

Coolguy: How would you suggest we do anything at all without "forcing" people to do things? I personally think that socity must control people some way.

I think that the decisions that the government makes must reflect the wishes of the people. And doesn't the majority wish for environmental protection? I suppose the only reason why all these regulations have had trouble passing is because 1) The representatives think about themselves rather than the people they're representing 2) The representatives are being bribed by the represenatives for big oil and logging industries.

Of course, industry managers should command a large share of political influence, which is why:

Political extremes don't dictate policy; compromise, a basic principle of democracy, will solve environmental debates. - CheesyWanKenobi

Exactly. We used technology to ruin the environment; now it's time that we use technology to clean it up. We're already seeing a compromise to the question of automobiles: hybrid technology. It's not perfect, but it has many distinct advantages over both gasoline-powered and pure electric autos. Hopefully this kind of technology that is both efficient and environment-friendly can be developed for other polluting industries as well. This is the part where the government steps in and starts motivating industrial scientists towards that end.

Well, that's my two cents.