Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

[The Senator]

Thats a fantastic film but I just dont have hope of people changing. They want their stuff and they want it cheap. We're addicted and every aspect of our lives contributes to the problem. Hell, I'm contributing right now by using this computer.

I have very little hope that people will change as well.

However, there are a lot of people who are starting to change their habits. So perhaps in the near future, consumption trends will begin to decrease. Perhaps people will stop purchasing a new cell phone every year, perhaps people will stop using automobiles altogether, perhaps they will fly less, eat locally owned food, stop buying clothes simply to wear name-brand items... I feel as though it can happen. I hope it can, for future generations' sake.

 

[Hobgoblin]

I know this is corny and a little off topic but I picked up Fantastic Four 560 today and the storyline deals with global climate change. People from the future come back to the present because the air is breathable. They understand that a few billion more people on the planet will cause a crisis, but they say "Hey, they didnt care enough about us to take care of the planet, so why should we care about them?"

I actually kind of thought it would serve us right if that happened. We are only thinking of "right now." We havent seen the results of our actions so we arent concerned. We wont be concerned until the train is two feet in front of us.

 

[Marx]

I know this is corny and a little off topic but I picked up Fantastic Four 560 today and the storyline deals with global climate change. People from the future come back to the present because the air is breathable. They understand that a few billion more people on the planet will cause a crisis, but they say "Hey, they didnt care enough about us to take care of the planet, so why should we care about them?"

I actually kind of thought it would serve us right if that happened. We are only thinking of "right now." We havent seen the results of our actions so we arent concerned. We wont be concerned until the train is two feet in front of us.

Unfortunately, that seems to be human nature.

 

[The Senator]

I know this is corny and a little off topic but I picked up Fantastic Four 560 today and the storyline deals with global climate change. People from the future come back to the present because the air is breathable. They understand that a few billion more people on the planet will cause a crisis, but they say "Hey, they didnt care enough about us to take care of the planet, so why should we care about them?"

I actually kind of thought it would serve us right if that happened. We are only thinking of "right now." We havent seen the results of our actions so we arent concerned. We wont be concerned until the train is two feet in front of us.

Agreed. We keep thinking about the present, and what's beneficial for the economy. But the problem is, we never think about the future. Consumption is working for us now, but where will we be in fifty years, when oil reaches peak production, we have degraded many of our rain forests, we have mined minerals and elements which were once in abundance but no longer will be?

People declare those of us who actually care about the environment to be "anti-capitalistic" or "tree-hugging hippes." But that isn't the reality of the situation. When I look at the small crises we are facing now, and put it into a future perspective, I am dead afraid of what will happen. I predict an economic crisis so large by the year 2050 that our entire country will fall apart.

Even if we only isolate the issue to one aspect of our environment-- oil-- I predict this scenario will unfold. If the Middle East reaches peak oil production by 2040, and we have yet to utilize alternative energies as our primary source of fuel, our entire infrastructure will collapse. You think gas prices are bad now? How bad will they be when there isn't enough oil left for everyone to consume? How bad will they be when the international community decides to step in and halt oil production in the Middle East?

What then? Will we be able to survive such a devastating blow?

I don't think so.

That doesn't even get into climate change, which is a real problem (especially now that India and China's middle classes are expanding and they too are consuming at insurmountable rates).

We need to reverse course soon.

 

[Hobgoblin]

Agreed. We keep thinking about the present, and what's beneficial for the economy. But the problem is, we never think about the future. Consumption is working for us now, but where will we be in fifty years, when oil reaches peak production, we have degraded many of our rain forests, we have mined minerals and elements which were once in abundance but no longer will be?

People declare those of us who actually care about the environment to be "anti-capitalistic" or "tree-hugging hippes." But that isn't the reality of the situation. When I look at the small crises we are facing now, and put it into a future perspective, I am dead afraid of what will happen. I predict an economic crisis so large by the year 2050 that our entire country will fall apart.

Even if we only isolate the issue to one aspect of our environment-- oil-- I predict this scenario will unfold. If the Middle East reaches peak oil production by 2040, and we have yet to utilize alternative energies as our primary source of fuel, our entire infrastructure will collapse. You think gas prices are bad now? How bad will they be when there isn't enough oil left for everyone to consume? How bad will they be when the international community decides to step in and halt oil production in the Middle East?

What then? Will we be able to survive such a devastating blow?

I don't think so.

That doesn't even get into climate change, which is a real problem (especially now that India and China's middle classes are expanding and they too are consuming at insurmountable rates).

We need to reverse course soon.

Not only that, it sets us up for a World War. With oil at the center of so many economies, people will absolutely fight to get what little of the stuff remains. We've fought major wars over much less than that. Ironically, much of the oil would be used in the war itself.

 

[Hobgoblin]

This thread needs to be bumped.

I was thinking about the potential for nuclear power, but I remembered that fissionable material is actually pretty rare. So is nuclear power that reasonable a choice?

 

[bunk]

This is worth the time to watch.


FRONTLINE: HEAT

A global investigation into one of the greatest crises that mankind has ever faced -- Can we roll back global warming?

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/heat/

 

[UA-Archangel]

Use this thread to discuss environmental issues, ranging from global warming to water pollution.

What do you feel is the number one threat facing the environment? Is it global warming? Dependency on oil? Urbanization?

How can we reduce our impact on the environment? Should we explore market-based solutions, or should we put the environment first and forgo any market-based incentives to rapidly pursue environmental change? Or are there other ways for us to help reduce human-induced environmental change, such as limiting family size, "going green," or purchasing locally produced goods?

Also, for anyone who is interested, you can calculate your ecological footprint at the link provided. Your ecological footprint is the number of planets necessary to support the entire population if they had the same habits as you.

Have at it.

Environmentalists are the number one threat to the environment.

 

[The Senator]

Environmentalists are the number one threat to the environment.

 

[UA-Archangel]

I'm far more serious on that point than you might think.

For many environmentalists, life is perfect if the earth was absence of man or if man must exist, then he must have an existence that is about as primitive as one can get.

Primitive and impoverished societies are very damaging to the environment.

 

[bunk]

I'm far more serious on that point than you might think.

For many environmentalists, life is perfect if the earth was absence of man or if man must exist, then he must have an existence that is about as primitive as one can get.

Primitive and impoverished societies are very damaging to the environment.

Would it be asking too much for some sort of data to back up the "many environmentalists" statement? Like how many... 1 out of 5.... 1 out of 1000?

 

[UA-Archangel]

Would it be asking too much for some sort of data to back up the "many environmentalists" statement? Like how many... 1 out of 5.... 1 out of 1000?

http://mises.org/story/2119

 

[The Senator]

I'm far more serious on that point than you might think.

For many environmentalists, life is perfect if the earth was absence of man or if man must exist, then he must have an existence that is about as primitive as one can get.

Primitive and impoverished societies are very damaging to the environment.

Again, this proves you know nothing about environmental issues. Most environmentalists do not want us to go back to "primitive" times, only a small faction of them do and most of them even admit that we will never get there.

The bulk of environmentalists want our globalized economy to cut back on harmful production practices which deteriorate our environment, such as planned obsolescence of manufactured goods and services. Most environmentalists want corporations to stop injecting food with growth hormones and synthetic proteins, or at least label such food so consumers can decide whether to eat genetically modified organisms. Most of us want there to be a global effort to confront issues such as global warming, the depletion of natural resources, and scarcity of goods.

The environmentalist movement is not rooted in the idea that we should go back to the Neolithic Revolution. To say so is more of the same fear mongering corporate and political elites have used to stall environmental progress.

 

[The Senator]

Murray Rothbard =/= the poster child of the environmentalist movement.

 

[UA-Archangel]

Again, this proves you know nothing about environmental issues. Most environmentalists do not want us to go back to "primitive" times, only a small faction of them do and most of them even admit that we will never get there.

The bulk of environmentalists want our globalized economy to cut back on harmful production practices which deteriorate our environment, such as planned obsolescence of manufactured goods and services. Most environmentalists want corporations to stop injecting food with growth hormones and synthetic proteins, or at least label such food so consumers can decide whether to eat genetically modified organisms. Most of us want there to be a global effort to confront issues such as global warming, the depletion of natural resources, and scarcity of goods.

The environmentalist movement is not rooted in the idea that we should go back to the Neolithic Revolution. To say so is more of the same fear mongering corporate and political elites have used to stall environmental progress.

Sorry, that's not the sense I get when I hear a many environmentalist.

Nice try though.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n38_v13/ai_19969858

 

[bunk]

http://mises.org/story/2119

No.

 

[The Senator]

Sorry, that's not the sense I get when I hear a many environmentalist.

Nice try though.

Awesome, except I am actually involved with environmentalists on a regular basis and what I just told you is true. I've also been in a few classes based on environmental issues and I can tell you that I've never met a person who sincerely advocates what you wrote.

Continue with the fear mongering, though. It's proving my point...

 

[The Senator]

Also, the fact that you consider Greenpeace relevant to the environmentalist movement is hysterical on its own. They have no weight in the legislative process.

 

[UA-Archangel]

Awesome, except I am actually involved with environmentalists on a regular basis and what I just told you is true. I've also been in a few classes based on environmental issues and I can tell you that I've never met a person who sincerely advocates what you wrote.

Continue with the fear mongering, though. It's proving my point...

Birds of a feather.

Often those who agree with your point of view don't sound extreme. It's always the other side that are the extremists.

 

[The Senator]

Birds of a feather.

Often those who agree with your point of view don't sound extreme. It's always the other side that are the extremists.

Except none of us advocate sending us back to the Neolithic Age, so what you just wrote is obviously wrong when you put in context with what the argument was originally about

 

[Carcharodon]

Sorry, that's not the sense I get when I hear a many environmentalist.

Nice try though.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_n38_v13/ai_19969858

You're hearing a vocal minority.

The irony of your whole "point" is that the majority of environmentalists are calling for technological advancement, not regression. They're the ones trying to push clean energy, a goal which is not possible without vast technological and scientific improvements. This means the creation of more jobs, and ultimately a potential boost to the economy.

Essentially, you have it ass-backwards.

 

[jaguarr]

So, when you guys club a baby seal do you like to keep the head in a styrofoam cooler to retain it's freshness? Also, do you know where I could score some aerosol deodorant?

jag

 

[Paradoxium]

So like I was reading this article, and it said we are heading towards a 20-30 year global cooling period based on the sunspot cycles. Should we "cold tax" people who use refrigerators or sell ice creams for damaging the environment

 

[rdh007]

do you know where I could score some aerosol deodorant?

jag

As I wrote in a thread earlier, that's gotta be what McCain uses, so e-mail him. I'm sure he'd love one of those.

 

[jaguarr]

As I wrote in a thread earlier, that's gotta be what McCain uses, so e-mail him. I'm sure he'd love one of those.

jag