[macintologist]

How would you say our attitude about the environment has come in the past 60 years or so? Do you think people care more about the environment now than they did back in the 1940s? Also, how about things like smog taxes, and other laws that make it attractive to use renewable energy. None of those laws existed back in the day. Doesn't that mean that progress is being made on improving the environment and how we treat it?

Also, I don't think factories pollute the water as much as it used to. Yet another sign of progress.

[d4nth3m4n]

Originally Posted by macintologist

Also, I don't think american factories pollute the water as much as it used to. Yet another sign of progress.

fixt.

and just because less of the whole number of polluting factories pollute says nothing about how many new factories have sprouted up in this timeframe.

i have no figures, i'm just playing devils advocate.

[Spliffdaddy]

My attitude about the environment has changed drastically.

After hearing all the eco-weenies whine incessantly about what *I* need to do - I decided to do the opposite of what they kept whining about.

So, now, it's gonna take three or four Prius-driving tree-hugging eco-weenies just to cancel out the damage I'm doing.

[ironknee]

like i said, the end time is neigh...why worry about trees of all things...and the animals going extinct...hey or we would have eaten them out of existance...meh

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

My attitude about the environment has changed drastically.

After hearing all the eco-weenies whine incessantly about what *I* need to do - I decided to do the opposite of what they kept whining about.

So, now, it's gonna take three or four Prius-driving tree-hugging eco-weenies just to cancel out the damage I'm doing.

Seconded. I now go out of my way to annoy hippies.

Seems they're always on about climate change bringing "extreme weather". Well hey, I like extreme weather. And 6 litre V12s.

[alligator]

I just heard a George Carlin clip on XM radio today. He commented that the earth has been around for like 4 billion years. Now industrialization has been around for what, 200 years? Do you really think that the damage we do in 200 years is going to obliterate the earth? Instead, the only damage we are doing is to ourselves. The earth will be here tomorrow, and 10,000 years from now. We may not.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by alligator

I just heard a George Carlin clip on XM radio today. He commented that the earth has been around for like 4 billion years. Now industrialization has been around for what, 200 years? Do you really think that the damage we do in 200 years is going to obliterate the earth? Instead, the only damage we are doing is to ourselves. The earth will be here tomorrow, and 10,000 years from now. We may not.

So you're with the environmentalists, right?

greg

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

So you're with the environmentalists, right?

greg

I would say "No". If we screw up the planet so that it becomes increasing inhospitable for humans to survive then that is our mistake. I think the planet will be here long after humans are gone. Whether we disappear in 1000, 10,000, or 10,000,000 years, the planet has another 3,000,000,000 years to go minimum (unless it gets blasted by a comet or asteroid that blows it to smithereens). Obviously, if you believe in the biblical scenario for the end of the world (both human and natural) also this talk about if/when/how the planet, and life on it, disappears is a moot point. But I don't believe in that scenario.

I am with the environmentalists because I don't like how things are now--for starters, I miss snowy winters and milder summers--and because I hope my "eco-weenie" actions have some infinitesimally minor influence on making things better for us now and for those who come after us.

[wdlove]

I think that the environment is important. Teddy Roosevelt was the first environmentalist. We just nee to find the best way our protect our earth.

[Nicko]

We are using up fossil fuels at a rate of 100,000 more than they took to create.

Food for thought.

I think the worst thing... other than cutting down all the rainforests is the amound of coal plants india and china are building. Seriously, in a decade or two that whole area of the world will just be one solid smog cloud.

My solution? Well, hopefully those scientists can perfect fusion, then all our problems will be solved. Other than that, I hope someone improves space travel so I can find a cleaner environment!

[RAILhead]

I'm with Spliff and Doof. In fact, just yesterday I backed my Nissan Titan out of the garage and left the engine running all evening.

[nredman]

Originally Posted by RAILhead

I'm with Spliff and Doof. In fact, just yesterday I backed my Nissan Titan out of the garage and left the engine running all evening.

ass

[Scientist]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

My attitude about the environment has changed drastically.

After hearing all the eco-weenies whine incessantly about what *I* need to do - I decided to do the opposite of what they kept whining about.

So, now, it's gonna take three or four Prius-driving tree-hugging eco-weenies just to cancel out the damage I'm doing.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Seconded. I now go out of my way to annoy hippies.

Seems they're always on about climate change bringing "extreme weather". Well hey, I like extreme weather. And 6 litre V12s.

I hope you are both quoted in a history book someday. School children will come to associate you with the shortsightedness of our culture.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by wdlove

Teddy Roosevelt was the first environmentalist.

Hahaha...where do you get this stuff?!? He really wasn't.

greg

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Scientist

I hope you are both quoted in a history book someday. School children will come to associate you with the shortsightedness of our culture.

The day you go veggie (thus ridding the atmosphere of excess methane and CO2) and work from home (thus removing the daily commute) is the day you can lecture me on the environment.

Until then: Bite me, hippie.

[wolfen]

"people" is kinda broad. There's lotsa different opinions. The basic thing I see is that people want someone else to take responsibility to make necessary changes -- "whatever those are."

As for consequences, they will come and man will adapt as he always has. The myth is that man will adapt and get to keep all his toys. History does not support this idea. Not likely to be many cars or high-def TV's during the next ice age, but we always scrape by. If you guys think your grandkids are going to be sitting in their ice caves (or swamps) playin' x-box V.14, you are crazy.

[Scientist]

Originally Posted by Doofy

The day you go veggie (thus ridding the atmosphere of excess methane and CO2) and work from home (thus removing the daily commute) is the day you can lecture me on the environment.

Until then: Bite me, hippie.

Two out of three of your assumptions are dead wrong. You seem to do that a lot.

[Spliffdaddy]

So turn off that damned power-sucking computer and set a good example for others to follow.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by Spliffdaddy

My attitude about the environment has changed drastically.

After hearing all the eco-weenies whine incessantly about what *I* need to do - I decided to do the opposite of what they kept whining about.

So, now, it's gonna take three or four Prius-driving tree-hugging eco-weenies just to cancel out the damage I'm doing.

You're gonna show 'em, aren't you?

[d4nth3m4n]

Originally Posted by wdlove

I think that the environment is important. Teddy Roosevelt was the first environmentalist. We just nee to find the best way our protect our earth.

ever heard of men named thoreau or borroughs, eh?

[ghporter]

Right now some poor (and I do mean POOR) guy in Panama is trying to cut down an acre or two of rainforest so he can graze two cows and some goats on it. Of course rainforest soil is extremely poor for growing much of anything except orchids, but the guy's got a family and they're hungry so what's he gonna do? Unfortunately for him, the Panamanian government knows that the country's entire livelihood depends on the rainforest NOT being cut down, because without it, there's no dependable rain to fill Lake Gatun, and without the lake the Panama Canal dies. It IS that simple. So the Panamanian government is working hard at educating people out in the boonies, and finding other ways for this poor guy to feed his family.

This is the way to go: find the real profit angle on some portion of the environment and use it as leverage. Now the downside: you have to care at least a little. The Chinese government doesn't give a rat's tail about the environment; they have something over a billion people to feed (and manage, but that's a different story). So in this case who figures out the profit angle? Consumers in the West. Don't buy anything made in China you do not NEED to. (That will cut into Wal-Mart's bottom line, so I see it as a wonderful side effect!)

I do what I can. My autos are ultra-low emission vehicles that I don't just cruise around in. My house has the best insulation I could afford (and my power and gas bills are fairly low to show my money was not wasted). I also use as many florescent lamps as I can because they not only use less power, they produce less heat as well (and last a lot longer, too). I recycle everything I can-in my neighborhood my family has the least trash of almost any other of comparable size because of this. My family's footprint here is small and shallow.

Doofy is right about vegetarianism having the capacity to reduce methane in the atmosphere dramatically. But that won't happen overnight. And it won't even take many people switching over to have an effect. The Western diet is too high in red meat anyway-it just ain't healthy to depend on meat for so much of your diet. Reducing the amount of red meat in a non-vegie diet and a bunch of people doing it will use the market to reduce the amount of pasturage, size of herds and overall volume of cow farts in just a few years. I'm only holding my breath because cow farts are horrible, not because I expect it any time soon.

Oh, and while Thoreau and Borroughs were indeed important environmentalists, Teddy is the one who got the most publicity for such things-and showed how it could be mainstream as well.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Doofy is right about vegetarianism having the capacity to reduce methane in the atmosphere dramatically. But that won't happen overnight. And it won't even take many people switching over to have an effect. The Western diet is too high in red meat anyway-it just ain't healthy to depend on meat for so much of your diet. Reducing the amount of red meat in a non-vegie diet and a bunch of people doing it will use the market to reduce the amount of pasturage, size of herds and overall volume of cow farts in just a few years. I'm only holding my breath because cow farts are horrible, not because I expect it any time soon.

It's not only cow farts - the simple act of a cow breathing pumps out more CO2 in the course of a year than the average Range Rover driver.

[Seb G]

Originally Posted by Doofy

It's not only cow farts - the simple act of a cow breathing pumps out more CO2 in the course of a year than the average Range Rover driver.

Any CO2 the cow breathes out has been taken out of the atmosphere by the grass the cow has been eating. As long as the grass keeps growing at the same rate the cow is breathing, there's no problem.

Range Rover's breath is CO2 that has been bound by trees millions of years ago, and it is released at a much faster rate than new rainforests (= prospective oil wells) are growing.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by Seb G

Any CO2 the cow breathes out has been taken out of the atmosphere by the grass the cow has been eating. As long as the grass keeps growing at the same rate the cow is breathing, there's no problem.

Uh huh. But if you remove the cows...

It's been said that it takes 16 times the amount of land to produce a pound of beef protein over a pound of vegetable protein.

So, you can have your beefburgers (let's say 16 acres, for ease)... ...or... ...you can have:

1 acre food crop.
5 acres trees (carbon soak).
10 acres biodiesel crop (carbon soak). <-- that's about 2,000 litres of fuel per year.

Easy equation really.

Funny how environmentalists keep banging on about what other people should do (i.e. don't drive) yet the minute one suggests a measure they could take (but which isn't compatible with their lifestyle) every excuse under the sun comes out.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by alligator

I just heard a George Carlin clip on XM radio today. He commented that the earth has been around for like 4 billion years. Now industrialization has been around for what, 200 years? Do you really think that the damage we do in 200 years is going to obliterate the earth? Instead, the only damage we are doing is to ourselves. The earth will be here tomorrow, and 10,000 years from now. We may not.

I seem to recall him saying that the Earth would "shake us off like a bunch of fleas."

Duh! That's the whole point!! I don't want to reduce pollution for the planet's sake. It's just a rock. I want to reduce pollution for OUR sake! I'm a humanist and I believe in human interest. I also believe that a little foresight right now will make my children's, and their children's, lives happier.

Tree-huggers are stupid if the put the tree's interests before human interests.

[Fyre4ce]

Originally Posted by dcmacdaddy

I would say "No". If we screw up the planet so that it becomes increasing inhospitable for humans to survive then that is our mistake. I think the planet will be here long after humans are gone. Whether we disappear in 1000, 10,000, or 10,000,000 years, the planet has another 3,000,000,000 years to go minimum (unless it gets blasted by a comet or asteroid that blows it to smithereens). Obviously, if you believe in the biblical scenario for the end of the world (both human and natural) also this talk about if/when/how the planet, and life on it, disappears is a moot point. But I don't believe in that scenario.

I wonder if this is one reason why Christian conservatives tend to be less concerned with protecting the environment - they think that any year now, we'll all be whisked up to Heaven (Christians) or down to Hell (non-Christians) and humanity on Earth will cease to exist. Also, according to the Bible, doesn't God direct man to "subdue the Earth" or something like that? Personally, I think that humanity is in it for the long haul, which is why I advocate a little foresight when it comes to these matters.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Seconded. I now go out of my way to annoy hippies.

Seems they're always on about climate change bringing "extreme weather". Well hey, I like extreme weather. And 6 litre V12s.

We need a new term for the anti-enviro-wackos like you, Spliff, and Railroader. Two extremes of foolishness.

Originally Posted by Fyre4ce

I wonder if this is one reason why Christian conservatives tend to be less concerned with protecting the environment - they think that any year now, we'll all be whisked up to Heaven (Christians) or down to Hell (non-Christians) and humanity on Earth will cease to exist. Also, according to the Bible, doesn't God direct man to "subdue the Earth" or something like that? Personally, I think that humanity is in it for the long haul, which is why I advocate a little foresight when it comes to these matters.

Over in the political forum, they've been arguing that it is against the Bible to plan ahead, because the earth is going to be destroyed in the next decade. It is hard to argue with these people!

I think environmental awareness is increasing enormously, and a lot of things have gotten better. But some damage is cumulative, including global warming but also different pollutants being released into the environment. So "better" isn't good enough, necessarily. Unfortunately, when changes occur slowly, people don't notice them and fail to react.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by tie

We need a new term for the anti-enviro-wackos like you, Spliff, and Railroader. Two extremes of foolishness.

Like I said to someone else, the day you go veggie and work from home is the day you can lecture me on environmental stuff.

Originally Posted by tie

I think environmental awareness is increasing enormously, and a lot of things have gotten better. But some damage is cumulative, including global warming but also different pollutants being released into the environment. So "better" isn't good enough, necessarily. Unfortunately, when changes occur slowly, people don't notice them and fail to react.

I saw a report on the TV yesterday. It said that by the year 3000 the sea level would have risen by 25'. Forgive me for not caring about that - it's not even in my great-great-grandchildrens' future.

[ghporter]

I should also point out that not everyone can work from home. For example, do you want the staff of the local hospital working from home? What about the staff of the local supermarket?

Western society has developed toward a centralized city/suburb model for a long time, and that's part of the problem. In the town I grew up in, I could bicycle to a number of grocery stores in just a few minutes whithout crossing any major highways, and in less than half an hour I could bike to the nearest hospital, again without having to risk the highways.

I live in San Antonio, Texas now, and there are very few places that have "neighborhood" grocery stores anymore. There are a number of hospitals here, but they're clustered in decidedly un-local places. I leave for school at around 6:30 am for my 9:00 am class because otherwise I'd spend three times as long getting there in stop and go traffic caused by suburban sprawl.

Decentralizing to the town level would make it much easier to reduce petrochemical consumption simply by putting more jobs closer to where people live. There is nearly zero manufacturing here, so there's almost no reason for most businesses to keep their offices concentrated in such a way that traffic (frankly) sucks every morning and afternoon because of all the drones going to and from work.

Fortunately this is happening to some extent here. Slowly, of course, but it is happening. There are a large number of businesses in easy bike distance from my house (not counting the pretty stiff hills, of course! ), and there's even a regional hospital campus going in close by.

I'm certainly not going to freak out about a potential for sea levels rising in the next ten years, but I'm just as certainly not going to let politicians forget that it's something to be concerned about.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter

I should also point out that not everyone can work from home. For example, do you want the staff of the local hospital working from home? What about the staff of the local supermarket?

That wasn't the point. The hippies do their bit their way but they also expect me to do my bit their way. I'd rather do it my own way and not be constantly hassled by them for not doing it their way.

Take the old SUV argument, for example. How on earth do the hippies know that the particular SUV they're looking at hasn't been stood in the owner's drive for the last 12 months and only comes out to play once a year? You know, while they're been using their Prius every day and using 100x the fuel...
...answer: They don't. They assume. I hate that.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy

That wasn't the point. The hippies do their bit their way but they also expect me to do my bit their way. I'd rather do it my own way and not be constantly hassled by them for not doing it their way.

Take the old SUV argument, for example. How on earth do the hippies know that the particular SUV they're looking at hasn't been stood in the owner's drive for the last 12 months and only comes out to play once a year? You know, while they're been using their Prius every day and using 100x the fuel...
...answer: They don't. They assume. I hate that.

Excellent points. I lived in Austin, Texas for several years in the 1980s and visit now and again today. It was and IS a haven for real, tie-dyed, hemp-sandaled, macro-organic hippies. But some of them actually figured out this pluralistic, "do your own thing" society. They formed a company that sells real food. They're extremely good at it too; it's called Whole Foods Market. And in spite of the fact that it is not macro-organic and such, they sell GOOD meats, a broad and interesting selection of beers and wines, and so on. Oh, you CAN get absolutely organic, picked by virgins under the full moon foods there, but that's not the point. The point is that these particular hippies managed to become a corporate powerhouse-and they just signed a deal to buy their entire corporate energy needs (not at all insubstantial) from a windpower source. Leading by example is a good thing indeed. Hippies CAN be good citizens and good neighbors, but only if they want to be.

Oh, and anyone driving a Prius is no hippie. He's a poser at most, and a hypocrite as well. A real hippie bicycles to wherever he or she goes...

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter

Leading by example is a good thing indeed. Hippies CAN be good citizens and good neighbors, but only if they want to be.

Oh, and anyone driving a Prius is no hippie. He's a poser at most, and a hypocrite as well. A real hippie bicycles to wherever he or she goes...

When I say "hippies" I don't mean it in the "proper" sense. I mean it in the "Cartman" sense.
You know, jumped up suburban types who've watched too many Michael Moore films and put their Nikes on before going to break the local Starbuck's windows on their "anti-globalisation" protest.

I have deep respect for "proper" hippies who actually go and live by their own beliefs. We don't have many of those here (there's maybe about 20 of them in Wales. That's it).

[tie]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Like I said to someone else, the day you go veggie and work from home is the day you can lecture me on environmental stuff.

I'm not lecturing you about anything. (Nor do I care about your ridiculous television news.) I have right to have policy positions. This is like telling me, I can't have a position on the war unless I either join the army or join al qaeda. There's no need for false black-and-white decisions.

The environment is a problem for our nation like any other, and I really don't understand why you are trying to frame it as a purely personal issue. This is like saying the budget deficit is a purely personal issue, and I can' t have a position on taxes or spending until I donate my full salary to the federal government.