Environmentalism? What to do?

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by 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.

Good on you! We have a completely naturalized prairie pond that takes up the entire backyard. Too bad i can't rid of that monstrosity of a lawn in the front.

 

[wonderwench]

My husband refuses to do yard work. He spent his summers as a teenager mowing the lawns at the KS state capital building in Topeka. That cured him of any desire to have a big lawn!

So, we have low maintenance stuff - and prefer it. It's much prettier, imo.

 

[William Joyce]

I believe it's important to protect the environment. Less fossil-fuel use is probably a good idea, or at least the pursuit of non-fossil-fuel power technology. For less mideast dependence, if nothing else.

You folks are gonna hate me for this, but... have you ever noticed that environmentalism, somewhat like animal rights, is an almost exclusively white concern? Can anyone think of a prominent non-white environmental activist? Jared Taylor has noted that white people are unique in caring so much for the snail-darter and so little for their own people. I wonder, what does it matter if the environment is good if your race isn't there to live in it?

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by William Joyce
I believe it's important to protect the environment. Less fossil-fuel use is probably a good idea, or at least the pursuit of non-fossil-fuel power technology. For less mideast dependence, if nothing else.

You folks are gonna hate me for this, but... have you ever noticed that environmentalism, somewhat like animal rights, is an almost exclusively white concern? Can anyone think of a prominent non-white environmental activist? Jared Taylor has noted that white people are unique in caring so much for the snail-darter and so little for their own people. I wonder, what does it matter if the environment is good if your race isn't there to live in it?

Two words: David Suzuki

One's of the world's most famous environmentalists of all time.

EDIT: And because I just know someone's going to say, but no Black environmentalists... i'd suggest George Washington Carver.

 

[William Joyce]

OK then. An answer. Rare in this world.

 

[nbdysfu]

The whole world couldn't accomodate the entire human population with the way of life that is to be had in the United States, where say, most people own and depend on a car daily. China, which has a population something like a billion people is coming on to the world market and becoming somewhat capitalistic. So far six-million have become affluent enough to buy one fossil fuel powered car or another.

What would it be like with four-billion four wheeled vehicles dumping emissions into the atmosphere? That is the form of pollution that we are most aware of. It is the most visually obvious in the air, and we smell the gas as we buy it every day. U.S. automobile emissions, plus all other transportation services, only account for about a quarter of all energy use in the united states.

In U.S. CO2 emissions, industry dumps roughly 300 million metric tons of co2 into the atmosphere every year. Transportation dumps more than 500 million tons, but habitation dumps almost 800 million tons of co2. In overall energy use habitation( the conditioning, maintenance, and construction of the built environment) accounts for 48% of all energy use.

Rather than altering energy souces, the threat to the environment can be greatly reduced simply by altering the way architects and engineers design. In conditioning, architecture can take advantage of the immediate climate to avoid closed ac systems. Many architects have been doing this since the 70s, but it hasn't caught on yet. Construction and fabrication can and have become greener by designing materials with energy conservation and longevity rather than initial cost in mind. Where that is not possible, other measures can be used to counter the energy use and co2 production, such as photovoltaics and tree plantings. Houses, offices and factories have been built and should be built with positive energy output and negative co2 output, that accomodate the average non-ecofreak.

 

[Big D]

We need to get rid of the U.S boarders so that people from all over the world can come here to help us figure out how to save the enviornment.

 

[jon_forward]

go away you......archie bunker..72

 

[Bern80]

Solving the environmental mystery is a tough one. There is no one good way that I can see to be environmentally friendly. Plus, the jury is still out as to the extent of our environmental problems.

There is little to no proof of global warming. The avg. temp of the earth has risen approx. one degree above avg. over the last few thousand years and it has been around 2-3 degrees above avg. a few centuries ago. So the earth as actually been warmer in the past then it is now. Is this due to the strides we are taking to reduce pollution? I doubt it. these steps can't overcome the extent to which we polute now compared to then. So how much of an effect is all of this pollution really having on the environment.

Sure we could look for alternative fuel sources like hydrogen, but what are you going to do with the millions of workers who depend on the oil industry? Could we be doing more? always. But the environmental whackos take things too far and don't realize the ramifications of suddenly converting to cleaner energy.
Saving the forests is another one I have a problem w/. Trees are probably our most renewable resource yet some people think it's their god given right to see a 200 yr old redwood in their lifetime. They grow back people, just not in our lifetime and that doesn't make cutting them down a bad thing just you didn't get to see one.

I also agree w/ an earlier post in that the US is not the place to start cutting down pollution. We should be focusing on developing nations that have no other alternatives currently to the way they produce and help them develop cleaner methods.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Bern80
Solving the environmental mystery is a tough one. There is no one good way that I can see to be environmentally friendly. Plus, the jury is still out as to the extent of our environmental problems.

There is little to no proof of global warming. The avg. temp of the earth has risen approx. one degree above avg. over the last few thousand years and it has been around 2-3 degrees above avg. a few centuries ago. So the earth as actually been warmer in the past then it is now. Is this due to the strides we are taking to reduce pollution? I doubt it. these steps can't overcome the extent to which we polute now compared to then. So how much of an effect is all of this pollution really having on the environment.

Sure we could look for alternative fuel sources like hydrogen, but what are you going to do with the millions of workers who depend on the oil industry? Could we be doing more? always. But the environmental whackos take things too far and don't realize the ramifications of suddenly converting to cleaner energy.
Saving the forests is another one I have a problem w/. Trees are probably our most renewable resource yet some people think it's their god given right to see a 200 yr old redwood in their lifetime. They grow back people, just not in our lifetime and that doesn't make cutting them down a bad thing just you didn't get to see one.

I also agree w/ an earlier post in that the US is not the place to start cutting down pollution. We should be focusing on developing nations that have no other alternatives currently to the way they produce and help them develop cleaner methods.

I respectfully disagree. There is much proof on global warming, enough that most of the leading scientists and climatologist came forth with a joint resolution confirming that global warming is happening. Of course, the source might not be humans, but the correlation between the beginning of the industrial, CO2 emissions and increase in average annual temperature is real. Even if there was some doubt, would it not be prudent to err on the side of caution when the stakes in the viability of our global civilization.

To be honest, I don't think the fact that employment in the oil industry should be a factor in whether we go ahead with environmental reforms. Jobs in sectors come and grow with changing technology and society. There would be plenty of jobs in a new "green" energy industry. Regardless, human jobs cannot be more important than human survival.

I also do think the US and developping nations should be the place to start environmental reform. We are the leaders and stewards of industry in the world and we are the only ones who can realistically exact change. If we are simply allowed to pollute and grow our fossil fuel dependant economy, while developing nations are forced to stagnate, not only will we be further the environmental crisis as studies have shown that as much as 75% of global pollution in the form of SO2 and CO2 emissions come from developping nations, but we will also widen the gap between rich and poor causing political instability.

Until we take the lead and reform our capitalist systems to include the price of the environment, the rest of the world will never follow.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
I respectfully disagree. There is much proof on global warming, enough that most of the leading scientists and climatologist came forth with a joint resolution confirming that global warming is happening. Of course, the source might not be humans, but the correlation between the beginning of the industrial, CO2 emissions and increase in average annual temperature is real. Even if there was some doubt, would it not be prudent to err on the side of caution when the stakes in the viability of our global civilization.

I'm sorry isaac, but the numbers just aren't there to support this. a one degree rise in temp. over a thousand yrs borders on statistically negligible. Not too mention again that the Earth is not as warm as it was a few hundred yrs ago after the last ice age.

The other alternative is that global warming is simply the wrong term to use. I thought global warming meant an increase in avg temp of the Earth. Measurabley speaking it simply ain't happn'. if this increase in temp is so "real" why is it barely quantifiable?

Is there increase in CO2 emissions? Yes, there has to be. Does it lead to warmer temps? This has yet to be proven.

One could also make the case that the Earth in many place is a lot dirtier than it is now. George Will brought up a good pt in an article a while back. Imagine NY City 100-200 yrs ago, with a horse barn on every corner full of urine soaked hay and manure. Talk about a health hazard not to mention the fumes released into the air.

Should we be cautious? Yes. I just believe most are going overboard and have the wrong idea about how to actually manage the environment for ourselves and wildlife in general.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Bern80
I'm sorry isaac, but the numbers just aren't there to support this. a one degree rise in temp. over a thousand yrs borders on statistically negligible. Not too mention again that the Earth is not as warm as it was a few hundred yrs ago after the last ice age.

The other alternative is that global warming is simply the wrong term to use. I thought global warming meant an increase in avg temp of the Earth. Measurabley speaking it simply ain't happn'. if this increase in temp is so "real" why is it barely quantifiable?

Is there increase in CO2 emissions? Yes, there has to be. Does it lead to warmer temps? This has yet to be proven.

One could also make the case that the Earth in many place is a lot dirtier than it is now. George Will brought up a good pt in an article a while back. Imagine NY City 100-200 yrs ago, with a horse barn on every corner full of urine soaked hay and manure. Talk about a health hazard not to mention the fumes released into the air.

Should we be cautious? Yes. I just believe most are going overboard and have the wrong idea about how to actually manage the environment for ourselves and wildlife in general.

Indeed one degree is statistically significant.

By the nubmbers:
- Since 1860 the Earth's mean temperature has risen 1F or 0.6C
- Most of this rise occured since 1946
- Ten of the 15 years from 1980 to 1995 were the hottest in the 114 year record of land-surface temperature measurements.
- Temperatures in the high arctic have risen over 3C in the last 50 years. 3% of ice pack has melted since 1980.
- Order of temperature variability (not mean) for one degree has been in the order of centuries, millenia rather than decades for the last 10000 years.

Source: IPCC 2001

Health hazards are onething, but they are local. Pollution of the magnitude is global. Nature can deal with local pollution, but instability may occur at the global scale.

 

[wonderwench]

The biggest flaw in much of the policies advocated by "environmentalists" is an assumption that humans are some kind of pox infecting the earth.

In reality, eco-systems which are managed by humans are often much healthier than ones which are neglected. The devastating wildfires in the Western U.S. in recent years were due to lack of controlled burns to eliminate underbrush.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Indeed one degree is statistically significant.

By the nubmbers:
- Since 1860 the Earth's mean temperature has risen 1F or 0.6C
- Most of this rise occured since 1946
- Ten of the 15 years from 1980 to 1995 were the hottest in the 114 year record of land-surface temperature measurements.
- Temperatures in the high arctic have risen over 3C in the last 50 years. 3% of ice pack has melted since 1980.
- Order of temperature variability (not mean) for one degree has been in the order of centuries, millenia rather than decades for the last 10000 years.

Source: IPCC 2001

Health hazards are onething, but they are local. Pollution of the magnitude is global. Nature can deal with local pollution, but instability may occur at the global scale.

Your facts fail to state why this increase is significant. You're not telling me anything I didn't already say in previous posts or know. I'm not a scientist but looking at the numbers and how much industry has grown (and thus so called green house gasses/CO2/pollution), relative to temp. It seems to me that all the pollution we are doing should have a more significant effect on temp than what we are observing. We also can't rule out that most things on this Earth work in cycles. It is very possible that the temp would still rise even if we didn't pollute at all.
What if stopped polluting tomorrow and the temp still rose anyway?

Again I'm not against conservation, but a lot more study needs to be done to see what is causing what with our environment. Similar wheather related events have occured in the past. Most of your stats come from the last 200 or so years, yet the Earth is billions of years old meaning that these whether variations that we are seeing may seem unusual in our lifetime, probably aren't in the history of the Earth.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by wonderwench
The biggest flaw in much of the policies advocated by "environmentalists" is an assumption that humans are some kind of pox infecting the earth.

In reality, eco-systems which are managed by humans are often much healthier than ones which are neglected. The devastating wildfires in the Western U.S. in recent years were due to lack of controlled burns to eliminate underbrush.

Wildfires are actually very common and very useful in nature! While they seem to "destroy" the forests, it is just a means of regeneration by releasing new seeds and hence genetic material. The problem with wildfires is that we go water bomber crazy simply because our communities are so close to most forests. This results in an amazing build up of dry fuel.

From my experience out in the field, the heathiest ecosystems are the ones that we haven't touched. Humans are not inherintly a pox by any means. We just need to relearn our place in the ecosystem.

 

[Big D]

I myself bought 18 acres of heavy timbered land, I logged about half of it, used the logs to build a family house two guest cabins a barn and sold the rest.

I have have ten acres along the pack river here in Idaho and I'm going to log it and build another home. Many of my nieghbors are doing the same thing.

The enviornmental laws in Mexico show how much these people appreciate the enviornment.

I am sure that in the next few years when hispanics become the majority in the U.S they will be so thankful that you gringo's saved so much enviornment for them.

 

[Isaac Brock]

Originally posted by Bern80
Your facts fail to state why this increase is significant. You're not telling me anything I didn't already say in previous posts or know. I'm not a scientist but looking at the numbers and how much industry has grown (and thus so called green house gasses/CO2/pollution), relative to temp. It seems to me that all the pollution we are doing should have a more significant effect on temp than what we are observing. We also can't rule out that most things on this Earth work in cycles. It is very possible that the temp would still rise even if we didn't pollute at all.
What if stopped polluting tomorrow and the temp still rose anyway?

Again I'm not against conservation, but a lot more study needs to be done to see what is causing what with our environment. Similar wheather related events have occured in the past and in increase in temp over 114 yrs in the billion or so year history of earth isn't all that significant.

I'm sorry, I don't see why you think that this is isn't significant? The main thesis is that rarely in a geological period can we expect a change of temperature this quickly. The only other times where it is predicted that the temperature changed in this quickly is after some sort of global event, ie asteroid, volcano etc. What the IPCC is stating is that human industrialization is much like a mass extinction event, ie a rapid change in the stability of homeoretic (as in homeorhesis, not homoerotic ) processes on the earth in which physical conditions occur that break the current homeostatic processes.

If you are interested in the statistical relevance of the one degree change, I suggest you look at the IPCC report to the United Nations. It's probably the best research done on the subject. I've had to look through it for a variety of courses i've been in, it is a heavy read, but thorough. I cannot state anything better than what they have put out: http://www.ipcc.ch

 

[Psychoblues]

Relying on old and disproven methods of depression era mindsets are plain folly. At some point one must realize the economic sustanance of discarding the no longer serviceable and embracing the ideology of efficient forbearance. There is a way to sustain our present ecolgical and environmental environment. We just don't have the will or the attitude to buy it. Don't you agree?

 

[nbdysfu]

Originally posted by Isaac Brock
Until we take the lead and reform our capitalist systems to include the price of the environment, the rest of the world will never follow.

Isaac, I agree with you, there are definitely parallels in the rise of industry and changes in environment, and I think we can and will be the only ones to take a leading role, however I think the above statement operates on two flawed assumptions:

1.Only "our capitalist systems" operate with capitalist tendencies.

2.The rest of the world government and corresponding people respects the environment far more than the US, Japan, UK, Canada, Italy, Russia or Germany does. They would not have done the same or worse had they been in our shoes.

No system with any industry that goes beyond sustenance is absent of the desire to profit. Capitalism is merely an abstraction from reality, like literal democracy or anarchy. No sustained society operates based solely upon either. None operate without socialism either. A socialist or communist government on the world market is nothing more than a corporation without a government or non-dependant citizen to independently regulate it.

originally posted by Isaac
To be honest, I don't think the fact that employment in the oil industry should be a factor in whether we go ahead with environmental reforms. Jobs in sectors come and grow with changing technology and society. There would be plenty of jobs in a new "green" energy industry. Regardless, human jobs cannot be more important than human survival.

I honestly think that this is totally irresponsible. If we are to push "green" society, it must be sustainable or even a boon to our society. If you have a green energy industry, but no infrastructure to support it, no workers paid to provide it, thereby no consumers to afford it, in all likelihood it will go the way that most other noble innovations which assumed the same thing did, like the steerable headlight.

If our "green" industry fails, it's not going to be an easy sell to the other countries who are doing fine with the same tech that they've always had, especially when we are not obligating them in any way to do so. The united states in particular, and canada, are nations which rely heavily on coal and oil for transportation of goods and service to maintain spread out settlements. If you cut off oil and enforce, say hydrogen, as energy source, without providing infrastructure, disaster will ensue. The disaster will be used around the world to say "this is what happens when you try to be green" and the multitudes which hadn't been actively staging protest anyway will tend to agree. Jobs are a component of human survival and therefore must be incorporated into any sustainable vision of tomorrow.

 

[Bern80]

I would like us to move toward less polluting energy sources as much as the next guy, but you have to remember there will be negatice consequences no matter what.

nbsysfu mentions the infrastructure/job loss and more for the U.S., but the toll of this would be even worse on the rest of the world. If developing countries barely have the technology to incorporate polluting energy sources how do you expect them to cope w/ switching over to new energy sources.

You think people in the Mid-East don't like us now? Wait till we stop buying their oil. Their only real source of income