Environmentalism? What to do?

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Isaac Brock, Feb 3, 2004.

  1. Isaac Brock
    Offline

    Isaac Brock Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,104
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +44
    Let's change topics for awhile as fun and homosexuality and race is.

    Something that's quite dear to me is the state of our environment. Our level of consumption is unsustainable even with progress in technologies. There is enough evidence to show the world's sustainability is going to hell in a handbasket quickly? What do you think should be done? Or should we do nothing? Does our version of capitalism take/or can take into consideration the environment. I have lots of opinions, but I'd figure I'd leave you guys the floor!
     
  2. Big D
    Online

    Big D Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1970, environmentalists heartily embraced stabilization of America s population as a core objective of their movement, without which they believed no amount of legislation or spending could stop and reverse the harm being done to the natural world.

    But on the eve of Earth Day 2001, no national environmental group works for an end to U.S. population growth. This despite the fact that the 2000 census showed that the 1990s saw the largest population growth in American history, larger even than the peak of the postwar Baby Boom.

    What happened?

    The environmental movement of the 1960s and 1970s had a comprehensive approach to move toward sustainable environmental protection and restoration in this country. But virually no national environmental group today works for an end to U.S. population growth. Yet the effects of constant growth are among the most contentious issues in local communities: sprawl, congestion, over-crowded schools, habitat loss, destruction of open spaces.
    One of the most important was the change in the source of population growth, from births by native-born American women to immigration and births by immigrant women. In the 1990s, immigrant-related growth was equivalent to 70 percent of U.S. population increase. This development caused environmental groups to lapse into silence on U.S. population policy for a variety of reasons, including the fear that advocating immigration cuts would alienate progressive allies; the transformation of population and environment into global, as opposed to national, issues; and concerns that funding might be jeopardized, since many foundation boards include left-leaning globalists and right-leaning representatives of multinational corporations, each with strong biases in favor of high immigration.

    While most Americans realize that our rapid, immigration-driven population growth is affecting their quality of life, most leaders of environmental organizations and elected officials in Washington seem afraid to deal with the issue. To continue ignoring the large population component of our increasing environmental problems will certainly doom our grandchildren to a very bleak future. Only if we control our growing population will we have the time and resources to deal with the other problems facing us today.

    Sierra Club Press Secretary Joanie Clayburgh blaming the negative consequences of relentless growth on a "lack of planning," told ProjectUSA that the solutions to the power crisis now occurring in California were efficiency, cleaner plants and renewable energy sources. But she would not even discuss population growth.

    To test a person for insanity, the story goes, put them in a room in which a water faucet is open and the sink is overflowing. Hand the person a mop and tell them to clean up the flood. If the person begins to mop without first turning off the faucet, observers should deduce the person is probably insane.
     
  3. jon_forward
    Offline

    jon_forward Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,436
    Thanks Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    nashville.tn
    Ratings:
    +5
    Isaac, the need for renewable resources is probably our only way....wind and solar energy are widely available but used little...geo-thermal is another choice with little use...why??? if I had wind/solar power..who would I send the monthly check to??? myself!!!! There are schools in the north that get checks FROM the power co...for the energy they produce and sell to them....aint this a switch....I do believe that we have the needed techno NOW .....look at the annual solar car race....how far and how fast do they go....the use of geo-thermal energy to power up elec-generation instead of nuclear...who'd of thought??? stuffs sitting there free as the breeze under the ground..
     
  4. wonderwench
    Online

    wonderwench Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Technological advancements are our only hope for protecting the environment. The worst abuses is in less advanced nation that overfarm (destroying top soil), dump raw sewage into rivers and have no exhaust controls on energy production.

    In addition, more advanced nations in which women are economic participants have higher rates of education and lower birth rates.

    Conclusion: technological and economic development are good for the environment.
     
  5. Palestinian Jew
    Offline

    Palestinian Jew Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2003
    Messages:
    903
    Thanks Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Fayetteville
    Ratings:
    +18
    The hydrogen economy is something that needs to happen soon. It would be expensive to set up at first, but the payoff would be more than worth it. Besides, oil is going to peak in 10-30 years and the world will have to move on to something new, and natural gas is supposed to peak within now-20 years.
     
  6. MtnBiker
    Offline

    MtnBiker Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    4,327
    Thanks Received:
    230
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Ratings:
    +230
    If that is true the Arab world is really screwed.
     
  7. Isaac Brock
    Offline

    Isaac Brock Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,104
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +44
    The main problem with technological and economic development is that is tend to regard nature as a commodity that is to be extracted and exploited. The free market has no price from air or clean water (at least yet). Technology has always been driven by profits in a capitalistic society. Therefore it is logical that technology will not be fully invested into helping the environment until it is given an economic incentive to create positive.

    That's why I believe that production and environmental taxes should be much more severe while reducing taxes on profits. Use the same rules, but change the game.
     
  8. Isaac Brock
    Offline

    Isaac Brock Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,104
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +44
    The problem is, how can you create hydrogen? It must be produced by splitting water, currently, which means external energy must be invested. If the US currently runs on coal, gas and nuclear than the source of pollution is shifted.

    Hydrogen does have potential though if the sources are renewable such as wind, solar, hyrdo and geothermal. A remarkable case study is that of iceland which is converting its economy as we speak fully to hydrogen, powered and produced by geothermal.

    If we are to use hydrogen, we must be smart. I think it will only be viable until we reduce our power production using non-renewable resources. Small tokens of environmentalism never help anyone.
     
  9. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    People have been saying that for the last forty years. Hasn't happened yet. I don't think it will happen anytime soon.

    Nuclear power is a good thing waiting to happen. It is non-polluting, and we now have somewhere to store the long-term waste, not to mention that nuclear waste recycling is becoming possible.
     
  10. Isaac Brock
    Offline

    Isaac Brock Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2003
    Messages:
    1,104
    Thanks Received:
    43
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +44
    I'm not entirely adverse to nucear power, but it does pose security and health risks in this new age. I certainly think smaller scale nuclear plans are perhaps the way to go, ie. Candu reactors, which do not have the critical mass to meltdown like other plants.
     

Share This Page