|
|
|
sega
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
 Posted - 05/02/2001 : 14:57:00 [Permalink]
|
I am not at all stating that business should be allowed to do whatever they want. We have clean air laws on the books, and when enforced dilligently they are successful. CO2 emissions are primarily from automobile exhaust in the U.S. We as people in America need to change our driving habits in order to reduce CO2 emissions. You can blame everything on big business if you want, but as long as we consume blindly, they will produce.
As for the rest of the world, Brazil ain't signin no Kyoto treaty, and they are a burnin and cuttin at a furious rate, China could fucking care less about clean air or the environment, and Japan of all people, boy they piss me off. Japan wants to impose their Samurai ethic of no guns worldwide, meanwhile producing Browning firearms at a furious rate. They are all for the Kyoto treaty and the UN and international law until someone tells them they can't fucking slaughter dolphins and whales, or deplete the stocks of bluefin Tuna until there will be no more left.
In that light, please do not try to tell me a chicken little story about how we are changing climate, and expect me to accept it because you realy, really care about the environment. There is evidence for all sorts of evil things humans do to the environment, but you can not draw a line between them and warming. It's crap. What the world really needs is a couple of well placed releases of humanicide spray over lets say, LA, Calcutta,Tokyo, boston, San Fran, beijing moscow, mexico city, Seattle etc etc. But that my friends is not a realistic solution at this time, however human nature or mother nature will surely provide some means of human population control, hopefully after my time is through here. 
P.S
how could I leave without adding New York to the list!!
|
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2001 : 16:58:05 [Permalink]
|
Call me silly if you want, but I prefer my brand of extremism over killing half the world's population. Dunno if it matters, but I drive a tiny car, but live virtually next door to work. I did this to pollute less.
Sure I hate commuting, too ; )
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
sega
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2001 : 18:33:50 [Permalink]
|
What is your brand of extremism? I am just implying that it is the overpopulation of the earth that is the main problem, I do not advocate genocide, but it is what the world needs. BTW doing something no matter how small is the way I like to act, and sacrificing a little luxury is a good way to start. You are doing your part, I am doing mine, but Bestonnet still has not replied to that part of the post.
P.S. My part includes, having no children, living cheaply, recycling, and being happy with my choice of work so I don't pollute the world with negative vibes. Working to reclaim disturbed native ecosystems is mucho fun.
|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/02/2001 : 19:11:56 [Permalink]
|
Hey I do almost all of those!
That is my brand of extremism I guess. I admit that I agree that if people are to blame for global warming that it most likely can't be stopped, but I am all for slowing it down till we can handle the effects better. I'd also like to see a $5 a gallon gas tax to make people think twice about their way of getting to work and if living 30 miles from work is such a good idea.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2001 : 03:08:37 [Permalink]
|
Big Business always says the sky is falling when they are told to clean up, industry estimates are always far higher then the estimates given by the academics who study the proposal.
Then when it comes into effect and studies are made on the costs of putting it into effect and all estimates are well above what they should be.
There are exceptions however, in cleaning up the actual costs are far higher then what is estimated, maybe because of legal battles by corporations to try to stop it.
If a business wont correct its behaviour I want to see it go bankrupt, in fact often implementing such measures can increase a companies profitablity.
There is proof of global warming, which is why I believe it, the fact that I care about the environment means that I have to believe it, as it is the only course of action which fits with the evidence and the goal.
As for the CO2 emissions, about as much comes from power plants as from cars so it doesn't really matter what gets replaced, although replacing the power plants is easier then replacing the same number of petrol or LPG powered cars with public transport or non-politing vehicles.
I want to get the most gain for the least effort, which means taking the easist method.
It doesn't really matter whether we ourselves fall in line, or whether nature pushes us back in line, we are going to have to change, personally I would rather change now when we can at least slow down the problems and give us more time to do research, I'm sure you want to make sure you don't cause problems for future generations.
However all we do on earth no matter how much will only be a temporary fix, to actually be able to keep the environment on earth we would have to start going into space, move all the heavy industry there where it can't pollute the earth.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2001 : 09:37:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
As for the CO2 emissions, about as much comes from power plants as from cars so it doesn't really matter what gets replaced, although replacing the power plants is easier then replacing the same number of petrol or LPG powered cars with public transport or non-politing vehicles.
Tell that to the people in California dealing with blackouts. It's gonna be a hot summer. How many elderly people are going to die from the heat because the enviro-wackos are keeping new power plants from being built?
Remember, the government is by far the biggest polluter. Why such emphasis on Big Business?
If land and waterways were privatized, people could sue companies for polluting rivers and land. (We should be able to sue companies for air pollution also; pig farmers and home owners here in Alabama are going at it right now; you can't imagine the smells they have to endure!) You can't dump waste into a river and not have it float downstream. Then you could sue the company to make them either stop altogether, or clean up their procedures. Problem solved.
And one last thing, 95 - 98% of CO2 is from natural emmissions. Is it really your contention that the relatively small amount that humans are responsible for is somehow 'tipping' the balance? So one major volcanic erruption could make any kind of reductions we could make totally useless. So we shut down some powerplants, reduce CO2 to '1990' levels. Gas and heating oil prices skyrocket. Economy suffers. People go without heat and air conditioning, some elderly actually die from it. Then Mount Fuji erupts, spewing out more CO2 than we've reduced ourselves. Thanks for nothing, environmentalists!
People like you are too busy demonizing and railing against your 'arch enemies' Big Business and anyone to the right of Bill Clinton, and vice versa for people on the 'right' that sensible measures and good science are left by the wayside.
(BTW, @tomic, surely you don't think it's as easy as you make it seem to pick a job and/or home as close together as you want them?!)
[edit for grammar]
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 05/03/2001 14:43:12 |
|
|
|
sega
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 05/03/2001 : 14:31:42 [Permalink]
|
quote:
. Then Mount Fuji erupts, spewing out more CO2 than we've reduced ourselves. Thanks for nothing, environmentalists!
Amen, as I mentioned before, methane release from seafloor deposits of methane hydrate (sort of like dry ice, only methane instead of co2) would have an immense impact on the makeup of the atmosphere and cause much more disruption than an equal amount of co2. Natural fires are suppressed in the western US. Ever think of how much co2 is left locked in plant communities that are not allowed to burn on their natural cycles, not to mention the pollution caused by fires?
|
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2001 : 02:26:40 [Permalink]
|
What comes from natural sources can be absorbed by the atmosphere, but if we add too much then the atmosphere can't absorb it.
Also must I remind you that the CO2 concentration has gone up 25% since the pre-industrial era, most of it comes from us.
Also Methane concentrations are rather low in the atmosphere, sure methane is 6 times better as a greenhouse gas, but there isn't as much of it and it doesn't linger as long.
Also you don't seem to have much of a brain if you can't figure out that the extra CO2 we put in upsets the balance, maybe it isn't all that much, but a little bit extra can throw a finely balanced system right off balance.
Also the government doesn't pollute all that much, most pollution comes from cars, power plants and industrial processes.
The one one is done by individuals while the other two are done by corporations, in fact government is all that has been able to reduce pollution.
As for suing, what if you don't have the money to sue, remember suing a big multi-national isn't easy, considering the big gap in money, one has to be very brave not to give in to them.
It also ignores the fact that pollution kills.
One must also look at the history of government involvment in the environment.
Almost every improvment in the environment was caused by a government, very few were done as industry inititives without the government forcing them, yes thats right, they had to be made to do it.
National parks on the other hand are well maintained and have the least pollution of anyplace in their area.
Fact: in terms of protecting the environment Government works, Industry doesn't.
As well as giving off CO2 Volcanos also give off ash that has the effect of causing global cooling, this means that they don't have much influence on the earth climate.
Also when forced to change industry always says that the sky is falling, that it will destroy the economy, etc.
But when the change is implemented there is not much loss in profits, the economy is still intact, and industry is proven wrong.
Replacing coal plants with nuclear plants wouldn't be all that hard, if only the eco-wackies would allow it.
Coal plants should be operational until they can be replaced with nuclear ones, that way people can still run their air conditioners (which are all we have to prevent the increased temperature caused by global warming from killing us).
Also are you too busy defending pollution to look at science and the facts behind it?
Because it sure looks that way.
Fires cause almost no CO2 release compared to what we cause, so what we do is more of a worry.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2001 : 09:32:09 [Permalink]
|
quote:
What comes from natural sources can be absorbed by the atmosphere, but if we add too much then the atmosphere can't absorb it.
You really think that the atmosphere is in 'perfect balance' such that natural CO2 emmissions are 'just right' in their ability to be absorbed, but us 'unnatural' humans tip the balance? That's oversimplistic nonsense.
quote:
Also you don't seem to have much of a brain if you can't figure out that the extra CO2 we put in upsets the balance, maybe it isn't all that much, but a little bit extra can throw a finely balanced system right off balance.
Again, where's your proof of this 'finely balanced' system? The earth is much less fragile than you seem to think.
quote:
Also the government doesn't pollute all that much, most pollution comes from cars, power plants and industrial processes.
According to a Boston Globe article last year, ''federal agencies have contaminated more than 60,000 sites across the country and the cost of cleaning up the worst sites is officially expected to approach $300 billion, nearly five times the price of similar destruction caused by private companies.''
Care to revise your statement above?
quote:
The one one is done by individuals while the other two are done by corporations, in fact government is all that has been able to reduce pollution.
See above.
quote:
As for suing, what if you don't have the money to sue, remember suing a big multi-national isn't easy, considering the big gap in money, one has to be very brave not to give in to them.
Surely you've been paying attention lately! Trial lawyers are standing in line trying to get at the chance to sue large corporations. The corparations, as you should have noticed, are much more likely to settle out of court than risk being found liable in court. (i.e. that ridiculous Erin Brokovich episode)
quote:
It also ignores the fact that pollution kills.
I don't see how it ignores it.
quote:
One must also look at the history of government involvment in the environment.
Yes, their history of being the worst by far of the polluters.
quote:
Almost every improvment in the environment was caused by a government, very few were done as industry inititives without the government forcing them, yes thats right, they had to be made to do it.
Hmm, I'd think it would be more likely that the hundreds, if not thousands of non-profit environmental groups have more impact on improvement, coupled with media attention and consumer organization.
quote:
National parks on the other hand are well maintained and have the least pollution of anyplace in their area.
Guess you haven't heard about all the air pollution caused by snowmobiles, etc. It's so bad that they are considering outlawing them. When no one owns the land, the public doesn't feel the need to care for it. If someone owned the land, the owners would have a vested interest in keeping it free from damaging pollution.
Any patch of land, if it's remote and not visited by people often, will have low pollution. It has very little to do with the land being public or not. If it's public, people visiting are less likely to care if they pollute. If it's private, the owner will make damn sure no one pollutes, and is much less likely to pollute herself.
[cont.]
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2001 : 09:32:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Fact: in terms of protecting the environment Government works, Industry doesn't.
This is nonsense.
quote:
As well as giving off CO2 Volcanos also give off ash that has the effect of causing global cooling, this means that they don't have much influence on the earth climate.
This is utter nonsense.
quote:
Replacing coal plants with nuclear plants wouldn't be all that hard, if only the eco-wackies would allow it.
I definitely agree with you here!
quote:
Coal plants should be operational until they can be replaced with nuclear ones, that way people can still run their air conditioners
I'll go with this too.
quote:
(which are all we have to prevent the increased temperature caused by global warming from killing us).
Ooooh, you were on a roll! Then you made this ridiculous statement. *sigh*
quote:
Also are you too busy defending pollution to look at science and the facts behind it?
You think I'm defending pollution?!
quote:
Fires cause almost no CO2 release compared to what we cause, so what we do is more of a worry.
So you think the thousands of acres of forest that burned down (arguably because of government MISmanagement) in California recently had little to no impact on the climate (along with your contention that volcanos don't either above), but we humans are destroying the earth. Where's that :rolleyes: emote when you need it?
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 05/04/2001 09:36:23 |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2001 : 12:10:57 [Permalink]
|
About people living close to work:
Sure people have their place of work switched on them, or prices are too expensive or something else makes a person commute long distances. But where i live, many many people choose to commute long distances. Ironically, a lot of these people then have the gall to bitch about traffic congestion and gas prices. Where I live we have some of the highest gas taxes and the worst traffic congestion(Seattle area). To make matters even worse, these same people have voted down light rail time and again. It's funny that people living in the city have been the ones to vote for it. I find it hard to scrape up any sympathy for those that choose to "get away from the city".
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
sega
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2001 : 13:35:11 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
What comes from natural sources can be absorbed by the atmosphere, but if we add too much then the atmosphere can't absorb it.
[quote]
Please use your brilliant scientific methods to defend that statement.
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2001 : 14:34:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
But where i live, many many people choose to commute long distances. Ironically, a lot of these people then have the gall to bitch about traffic congestion and gas prices.
In that light, I agree with you. My wife and I used to live in an apartment that was 3 minutes from both our places of employent. It was wonderful! But when we were ready to buy a house, our choices quickly became limited. The ones we could afford are all on the outskirts of the city (ours ended up in the county). We are now 30 minutes away from work. 
quote:
To make matters even worse, these same people have voted down light rail time and again. It's funny that people living in the city have been the ones to vote for it. I find it hard to scrape up any sympathy for those that choose to "get away from the city".
Ah, I'd love a quick and convenient rail system! I absolutely hate driving. (Actually, if it was only me on the road, my attitude would be different  ) I've actually daydreamed a few times about how such a system could be implemented in my city. People just don't want to give up their cars and independence. The popularity of gas-guzzling SUVs only makes it worse. (My dream car is a cold fusion powered Ford Expedition).
|
|
|
|
sega
Skeptic Friend
USA
73 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2001 : 15:03:25 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The popularity of gas-guzzling SUVs only makes it worse. (My dream car is a cold fusion powered Ford Expedition).
Thats right! Americans love the freedom to go where they want, when they want and are not willing to give that up.
A well designed public transport system that quckly and efficiently gets you where you want to go would be a great thing to have. LA had a good trolly system up until the 50's, and then it was taken out in favor of personal Autos.
We can only hope that americans will see fit to adopt rail systems that span the country and make transport more efficient.
We used to have one of the best rail systems in the world, and now everything is transported in trucks.
Business would benefit because goods could be shipped cheaply, thus maximizing profit.
I guess one could blame it on the conspiracy theories that the auto makers and oil interests have killed all attempts at efficient motors and revitalization of freight lines.
That I think is part of it, but American ideals and attitudes play a larger role.
|
|
|
|
bestonnet_00
Skeptic Friend
Australia
358 Posts |
Posted - 05/05/2001 : 02:13:21 [Permalink]
|
Since the pre-industrial era the CO2 level in the atmosphere has gone up 25%, mostly because of us.
CO2 is known to be a greenhouse gas, we put 25% extra in, and the temperature is rising, pretty good proof that we have done something.
If you wish to dispute it you have to prove that the CO2 that we put into the atmosphere isn't causing global warming.
The earth can adjust to climate change, but it can only do it slowly, if it has to do it quickly then there are extinctions, and we may be one of them.
Saying that the boston globe had an article which said that government is a far worse polluter does not mean that government is, you have to find the source, and the article has to be true (it may not have been), fact is I don't believe you.
Lawyers are trying to sue over pollution, but legal action is an after the event action, which means the damage has already been done, government can act before people go to court, which is probably the biggest advantage of government over courts for environmental protection.
The reason the governments make the new environmental laws is because scientists recommended that they be made, based on evidence, environmental groups only bring it to the publics attention and give government another reason to make the laws, businesses of course find it more profitiable to just dump the waste then to dispose of it safely, which is why most of them must be forced to dispose of it safely.
No one owns the atmosphere do they?
When the government owns the land everyone does, you have to relise this, whereas when businesses own the land they often consider it easier to just dump the waste, if people don't know its being dumped on them they can't sue.
Also how do you know the owner will make sure no one pollutes?
SO2 and SO3 can't be traced back to source by most people and are pretty bad pollutants, your taking an overly simplictic view that liberatainism works, when everytime it is tried it fails.
Also instead of saying that something is nonsence, at least try to show why.
You sure sounded like you were dendeding the rights of polluters.
Compared with the CO2 we put into the atmosphere from cars and power plants, your average forest fire is nothing.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
