Environmentalism? What to do?

[Isaac Brock]

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!

 

[Big D]

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.

 

[jon_forward]

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..

 

[wonderwench]

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.

 

[Palestinian Jew]

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.

 

[MtnBiker]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
oil is going to peak in 10-30 years and the world will have to move on to something new.....

If that is true the Arab world is really screwed.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by wonderwench
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.

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.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
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.

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.

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by Palestinian Jew
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.

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.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
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.

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.

 

[Big D]

I think we need to produce more people on the planet, that way we will have more minds working together to think of more ways to save the environment.

 

[Zhukov]

The accesion of the human race to global dominance could be considered the greatest of any Extinction Level Events to ever befall this planet; greater even than the Yucatan impact that wiped out the dinosaurs and in turn paved the way for humanity. A greater number of species is being eradicated due to our presence than in any other period of geological history. The rate at which additional species are succumbing to extinction is accelerating. The biosphere, the health of which we depend upon for our continued existence, is increasingly destabilized by a decrease in biodiversity, or the different number of species. The biosphere can be described as a house of cards, which, if a sufficient number of cards are removed, will completely collapse. A collapse of the biosphere could result in the relative immediate deaths of roughly 99% of humanity and the eradication of most other life on this planet. Life and the earth has a way of rebounding from disasters of this nature, as it has done a few times before, but it is unlikely that we as a species would survive such a catastrophe. Currently little is being done to prevent further damage let alone repair the damage already done.

Solutions include, as others have stated, non-polluting energy sources such as fusion and solar power (fusion one step removed), as well as human expansion and immigration into space in search of more resources. I'd personally like to see more fission reactors at the moment. It makes more sense to create waste capable of being placed into barrels as opposed to simply spewing the waste into the air. Burning dead plant carbon is paleolithic. We are also unlikely to see a global trend towards population decrease and if we are quickly approaching our planet's carrying capacity it makes sense to start looking for more resources elsewhere as soon as possible.

Fusion power is coming but I doubt we'll see large-scale interplanetary emmigration for quite some time yet.

 

[Moi]

The environment is one of my pet causes. There is so much waste just because we can. It's so overwhelming when we think of the global aspect of our environment but we tend to forget the things we can do to make the world a better place.

1. turn off the water when you brush your teeth or do the dishes
2. use natural cleaning products
3. keep temperatures closer to real outdoor temps, i.e, 65 in the winter, 75 inthe summer.
4. use thermal curtains/insulation to buffer the effects of outside temps.
5. WALK
6. teach your kids to play outside and not so much TV, radio, computer, etc.
7. Solar power...at least for exterior lights
8. Motion sensors on outside lights or other spaces where you can (obviously not in your living room!)
9. public transportation!

These are just a few things off the top of my head...anyone have any helpful suggestions?

 

[wonderwench]

My parents raised a large family on a moderate income. Their philosophy has always been:

Use it up
Wear it out
Make do
Do without

I think if people adhered to principles of thoughtful, moderate consumption, we would all be better off. Living in the Bay Area during the height of the dot.com bubble, I found the excessive, conspicuous comsumption to be highly distasteful. My husband and I decided to buy a house in Oakland instead of the Valley - mainly because we couldn't stand the overdone materialism down south.

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by wonderwench
My parents raised a large family on a moderate income. Their philosophy has always been:

Use it up
Wear it out
Make do
Do without

I think if people adhered to principles of thoughtful, moderate consumption, we would all be better off. Living in the Bay Area during the height of the dot.com bubble, I found the excessive, conspicuous comsumption to be highly distasteful. My husband and I decided to buy a house in Oakland instead of the Valley - mainly because we couldn't stand the overdone materialism down south.

Well, when you vacation out east, stop by New York where peole: drive SUV's on highways, get a new cell phone every year (w/o recyling the old), use a paper cup every day instead of getting a commuter cup or mug, water their acres of land so as to have the greenest grass during a drought. What assininity. Competition over who's grass is greener...literally!

 

[wonderwench]

One can find those kinds of people everywhere.

I've used a Nissan car cup for years. I drive a 5 year old car that is fully paid for - my husband's we've had for 10. I remember one of his SV colleagues buying himself and his wife each a new car every year - and him teasing us for being out of style.

This same couple sold their perfectly nice house that they had been in for only a couple of years and bought an incredibly expensive home with his stock options. Now they are maxed out on debt as the value of his unsold options has plummeted.

It is a very bad idea to create an expensive life style that depends on speculative income.

 

[jon_forward]

GOOD GOD!!!! water the grass????? WTF.... I dont want to mow that stuff....screw what the next door folks think....i like wildflowers....and the birds that come with them...I get great enjoyment sitting under a shade tree drinking Iced-tea watching the neighbor nearly have a coronery doing his yard....dumbasses....

as for cars...I usually dont get them till they have around 150K on the odometer....cheap and usually trustworthy...when it cost more than a couple a hundred to repair..get another one!!!!

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by jon_forward
GOOD GOD!!!! water the grass????? WTF.... I dont want to mow that stuff....screw what the next door folks think....i like wildflowers....and the birds that come with them...I get great enjoyment sitting under a shade tree drinking Iced-tea watching the neighbor nearly have a coronery doing his yard....dumbasses....

as for cars...I usually dont get them till they have around 150K on the odometer....cheap and usually trustworthy...when it cost more than a couple a hundred to repair..get another one!!!!

I've always wondered what's the big deal with grass. I mean we have grass at our place to, but why can't people plant native plants? So much less maintenance and frankly, so much more attractive!

 

[wonderwench]

Most of our yard (which isn't big to begin with) is planted with drought resistant, native flowering plants. We have a wee bit of lawn that takes a few scant minutes to mow.

 

[jon_forward]

my brothers home here in nashville sets on just over an acre and the lay of the land isnt flat...it will be several years before the mower is retired....