Let's THINK about environmentalism.

Post Reply New Topic

I have stated before on this site that I think CO2 emmisions are destroying the planet, however let's think about CO2 for a second. Where do the emmisions come from? I've read stuff in the past that stated that most CO2 emmisions come from factories in China and India rather than vehicles. If this is true then that means switching from an SUV to a bycycle won't really do anything.

Let's think about endangered species. A lot of people would be upset if we lost the giant panda of the Javan Rhino but nobody would be upset if we lost another species of louse.

Let's think about recycling. I seen some stuff that says that recycling is actually BAD for the environment.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzLebC0mjCQ[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wS1dv3iat8&feature=related[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvz-z7CvsYA&feature=related[/youtube]
What if everyone starts to see the evidence that recycling is bad for the environment? People are going to be awfully upset that they spent so much time doing something for nothing when they though they were saving the environment.

We ought to have a discussion of environmentalism that isn't totally b/w.

one has to differentiate the actual action from the perception of action.

for years the wind industry has been dealing with a similar issue, believe it or not but most wind energy today is bought with the intention of using it for "fine tuning" the grid, usually steam turbine systems operate at certain optimal outputs and inputs, (meaning they have to use a specific amount of energy to even break even)
wind power can be switched on and off in very small increments compared to that.

the actual power production, while beneficial for sure is at the moment only the main goal for large scale projects, usually offshore, where the real market onshore is this regulatory use.

Well, he's old enough to know that the Indian commercial wasn't about recycling. It was about littering and pollution. In the 1970s you wouldn't believe the amount of sh*t people would just throw out their car windows. The freeways were like garbage runs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7OHG7tHrNM

And most people with IQs above 12 can get why the Indian was used to make the point. It's not a trick question.

And cars do put up a great deal of CO2, though it's not the only source. As car ownership in India and China grows it will only get worse. That the US is now #2 to China in CO2 production doesn't absolve the US. Cars also put up general air pollution. Smog days are not sent by Jesus.

Penn and Teller are entertainers / libertarian ideologues. They belong to the CATO institute. You will not get the full story on their shows. Just check out their show on global warming to see how unbalanced they are.

they do claim to be biased so at least they are honest about that, also there are plenty of hints and common sense that say they arent personally as extreme as they portray in that show.

i think the show has a quite clear agenda and was written as such, sometimes they hit the nail on the ehad and other times they misformulate, misunderstand, assume and all the other gunk that define humanity.

It seems to me that the most vocal environmental activists are hurting the movement rather than helping, simply because of the reactionary ideas they present. They all talk about how industrialization has polluted the planet, or how agricultural chemicals have poisoned the ecosystem, or that vaccines cause autism. They don't seem to acknowledge that because of those things we now have higher standards of living and are living longer than ever before. What's worse is that they are already protesting various scientific developments that are barely in their infancy. They complain about genetically-modified food because it's unnatural, when in reality this food might actually save a lot of people from starvation, and possibly be able to grow without any of those toxic chemicals and pesticides that have been polluting the environment, and possibly require less space/resources in order to thrive, which means less deforestation. I'm one of the people who thinks that more technology is the answer to saving the environment, not less.