Environmentalists are hypocrites

[Baltenstein]

Former girlfriend, enviromentalist, "one with nature" type, didn't eat meat, made far more plane travel trips per year than the average citizen, lectured others about "enviromental awareness".

I may not be entirely unbiased on the topic.

[Tule]

Former girlfriend, enviromentalist, "one with nature" type, didn't eat meat, made far more plane travel trips per year than the average citizen, lectured others about "enviromental awareness".

I may not be entirely unbiased on the topic.

Aviation is responsible for a very small portion of climate change.
Methane emissions from cattle are a very big culprit however.

Climate change would be much less serious if everyone stopped eating meat (Beef in particular) than if everyone stopped flying.

Coal is the biggest culprit though, and the best thing the average qwesterner can do to tackle climate change is to limit electricity consumption as much as possible, getting rid of unnecessary electronics and replacing the vital electronic appliances with newer versions that use less energy.

[Ethel mermania]

The best way to get ExxonMobil to change is to own them.

[Imperializt Russia]

Commercial air travel is relatively (not very) low in carbon emissions per person. I think rail travel is the lowest.

Interestingly, contrails drop local temperatures by about one degree in the day and raise it by one degree at night.
This is based on a study into contrail effects when aircraft in the US were grounded for three days after 9/11, discovering that daytime temperatures went up one one degree and dropped by one at night.

[Baltenstein]

Former girlfriend, enviromentalist, "one with nature" type, didn't eat meat, made far more plane travel trips per year than the average citizen, lectured others about "enviromental awareness".

I may not be entirely unbiased on the topic.

Aviation is responsible for a very small portion of climate change.
Methane emissions from cattle are a very big culprit however.

Climate change would be much less serious if everyone stopped eating meat (Beef in particular) than if everyone stopped flying.

*hiss*

[Immoren]

Climate change would be much less serious if everyone stopped eating meat (Beef in particular) than if everyone stopped flying.

Time to ramp up development of petri meat.

[Tule]

Aviation is responsible for a very small portion of climate change.
Methane emissions from cattle are a very big culprit however.

Climate change would be much less serious if everyone stopped eating meat (Beef in particular) than if everyone stopped flying.

*hiss*

Here's the upside: You don't have to give up wild game, fish, eggs, chicken and arguably pork. Those are much more eco-friendly sources of meat in terms of feed-to-meat conversion efficiency and GHG emissions.

[Imperializt Russia]

*hiss*

Here's the upside: You don't have to give up wild game, fish, eggs, chicken and arguably pork. Those are much more eco-friendly sources of meat in terms of feed-to-meat conversion efficiency and GHG emissions.

Is this not more to do with how heavily farmed beef is than necessarily cows as a creature? if we tried to replace beef with any of those, fish especially, I'm sure we'd have a lot of the same issues. Plus overfishing, which is already a thing.

[Atomic Utopia]

I... I don't see how eating meat is relevant

It's actually extremely relevant. The meat industry is one of the worst polluters.

Major green movements. Many of them started as anti-nuclear groups and can't shake that motion.

This is true - but their criticism is valid in a way. They have radioactive pollution that can't really go anywhere, and the 1.) waste can be used for weapons. There are several alternatives to building fission power plants, such as hydroelectric. Only problem is that it can't be built everywhere. But you're right - nuclear must be seen as a viable alternative to the fossil fuel plants and it is disappointing that many environmental groups can't see that.
Fusion is a different thing entirely, and I hope sometime soon that we'll be able to start switching from fission to fusion. 2.)I just read an article recently that said that Lockheed Martin came out with a huge breakthrough with fusion power and are looking to build a prototype.

Sorry, I really felt the need to correct the bolded statements, so do not view this as an insult or anything rude.

1.) Standard fission power reactors do produce plutonium via beta decay (neutron turns into proton and the atom emits beta particle) when uranium 238 (99.5% of natural uranium) is bombarded with fast neutrons. In fact a significant portion of the energy produced by the reactor is from plutonium. However the plutonium coming from your standard high burnup fission reactor is useless for weapons production, in fact it is only useful for generating energy via a reactor as it contains way too much plutonium 240.

Source

2.) Lockheed martin did not say that they had made a breakthrough, but stated they started a project that will, in twenty years, produce a power generating fusion reactor prototype. If it is anything like nuclear fission it will quickly expand, however due to the continued development of fission energy it will probably cost a little more, and thus will need to develop a little more before mass use is possible.

Source

[Tule]

Here's the upside: You don't have to give up wild game, fish, eggs, chicken and arguably pork. Those are much more eco-friendly sources of meat in terms of feed-to-meat conversion efficiency and GHG emissions.

Is this not more to do with how heavily farmed beef is than necessarily cows as a creature? if we tried to replace beef with any of those, fish especially, I'm sure we'd have a lot of the same issues. Plus overfishing, which is already a thing.

Cows are ruminants. Ruminants generate a lot more methane than other animals, and methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 is.

Producing a pound of chicken takes much less feed and results in much lower GHG emissions than producing a pound of beef.

[Occupied Deutschland]

No, environmentalists aren't hypocritical for functioning in the modern world where oil-based and other similar products are ubiquitous.

They are hypocritical for certain things they oppose or support to 'combat' that, however. Ethanol, being an easy example for something stupid some self-proclaimed 'environmentalists' support. Nuclear energy and things like the Keystone pipeline being examples of things they oppose that would be environmentally beneficial.

[The Serbian Empire]

I don't think they can be both without exclusively riding a bicycle and never riding in fossil-fuel using vehicles.

[Sociobiology]

No, environmentalists aren't hypocritical for functioning in the modern world where oil-based and other similar products are ubiquitous.

They are hypocritical for certain things they oppose or support to 'combat' that, however. Ethanol, being an easy example for something stupid some self-proclaimed 'environmentalists' support. Nuclear energy and things like the Keystone pipeline being examples of things they oppose that would be environmentally beneficial.

if you think the keystone pipeline is good for the environment, you really don't know enough about the environment to tel who is a hypocrite.

[Conserative Morality]

Can a man be charitable to the hungry and advocate for the elimination of poverty without being a hypocrite, so long as he spends money on himself and on baubles that feed no one?

[Sociobiology]

Former girlfriend, enviromentalist, "one with nature" type, didn't eat meat, made far more plane travel trips per year than the average citizen, lectured others about "enviromental awareness".

I may not be entirely unbiased on the topic.

Aviation is responsible for a very small portion of climate change.
Methane emissions from cattle are a very big culprit however.


Climate change would be much less serious if everyone stopped eating meat (Beef in particular) than if everyone stopped flying.

Coal is the biggest culprit though, and the best thing the average qwesterner can do to tackle climate change is to limit electricity consumption as much as possible, getting rid of unnecessary electronics and replacing the vital electronic appliances with newer versions that use less energy.

cattle aren't much a problem (well not in terms of greenhouse gasses anyway) our land practices are, draining wetland is the second largest net producer of greenhouse gasses.

[Ethel mermania]

No, environmentalists aren't hypocritical for functioning in the modern world where oil-based and other similar products are ubiquitous.

They are hypocritical for certain things they oppose or support to 'combat' that, however. Ethanol, being an easy example for something stupid some self-proclaimed 'environmentalists' support. Nuclear energy and things like the Keystone pipeline being examples of things they oppose that would be environmentally beneficial.

if you think the keystone pipeline is good for the environment, you really don't know enough about the environment to tel who is a hypocrite.

Making gas cheaper than coal is a positive

[Infected Mushroom]

I see this argument come up countless times. A story about a prominent environmentalist, and people come out condemning them as being hypocritical because they use oil either for fuel or use plastics. I think it's silly to expect environmentalists to be naked forest dwellers in the wilderness, because it is possible to try to change a system within it. While we shouldn't overlook egregious polluters who say they are pro-environment, it still doesn't invalidate what they say.

What do you think NS? Can you be an environmentalist but still use fossil-fuel based products?

Is it hypocritical?

Absolutely.

If you are an environmentalist, you better not economically support (through your wallet), organizations that according to your own rhetoric, ''endangers the planet and our future'' through your consumerist/investing activities.

This is why I have a hard time taking a lot of environmentalists seriously.

An environmentalist driving a fossil-based car or buying firewood is the equivalent of a DEA officer using drugs at home.

[Fanosolia]

I see this argument come up countless times. A story about a prominent environmentalist, and people come out condemning them as being hypocritical because they use oil either for fuel or use plastics. I think it's silly to expect environmentalists to be naked forest dwellers in the wilderness, because it is possible to try to change a system within it. While we shouldn't overlook egregious polluters who say they are pro-environment, it still doesn't invalidate what they say.

What do you think NS? Can you be an environmentalist but still use fossil-fuel based products?

not that hypocritical. it takes time for people to lower their carbon footprint (if they care enough.) I think only if you're not making an effort to make it smaller (like not trying to get the best mpg car that you can afford), it is hypocritical. I also don't view those against nuclear power hypocrites because of some negatives to nuclear power. I'm personally neutral to nuclear power, anything that gets us away from oil and coal is good enough for me at this time though I prefer making the other alternatives more efficient.

And then we can have electric cars with plug in stations instead of gas which will be powered by offshore wind power. MUHAHAHAAHAHAH!

[Metropolis 1927]

Simply being a hypocrite does not make environmental views incorrect. Certainly there is a balance to be had...

[Fanosolia]

Is this not more to do with how heavily farmed beef is than necessarily cows as a creature? if we tried to replace beef with any of those, fish especially, I'm sure we'd have a lot of the same issues. Plus overfishing, which is already a thing.

Cows are ruminants. Ruminants generate a lot more methane than other animals, and methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 is.

Producing a pound of chicken takes much less feed and results in much lower GHG emissions than producing a pound of beef.

YEY now I'm not as guilty about the chicken I eat. Now, to combat factory farming which also has an effect on the enviroment!

[Anollasia]

I consider myself environmentalist to some degree and I have to use fossil fuels but I certainly don't like them. If electric cars, were cheaper, I'd certainly buy one.

[Enfaru]

I see this argument come up countless times. A story about a prominent environmentalist, and people come out condemning them as being hypocritical because they use oil either for fuel or use plastics. I think it's silly to expect environmentalists to be naked forest dwellers in the wilderness, because it is possible to try to change a system within it. While we shouldn't overlook egregious polluters who say they are pro-environment, it still doesn't invalidate what they say.

What do you think NS? Can you be an environmentalist but still use fossil-fuel based products?

Yes. However, being an environmentalist and owning a coal mine/plant and/or an oil rig is hypocritical.

Using oil/coal isn't necessarily environmentally bad. The problem is the process. The Carbon Capture tech for instance, could make burning coal/oil as environmentally friendly as Wind power (all things taken into consideration). Being environmentally friendly means looking at the world around you and how your actions are impacting on the environment and biodiversity. An oil rig is not inherently environmentally unfriendly...until something goes very wrong (Deepwater Horizon). However lets say for instance (and I don't believe for a moment any company does this), you create an oil firm and half the profits go into restoring forests, jungles and wetlands.

It's commonly thought that installing wind turbines out to sea was environmentally unfriendly as it would disturb marine life. Turns out, the seals use em as hunting grounds. The point still stands, "Environmentalist" does not mean tree hugging hippy although many would think that would be just dandy. Personally, if I could dam up every single river and litter the coastlines with tidal generators I would, but the 'environmentalists' won't let me. Even though they are the cleanest and most reliable... (unless someone blows up the moon) forms of energy. Nothing competes with hydro electric except nuclear and they can also be extremely useful for regulating rivers down stream. Unfortunately, some fish might be harmed in the process and some salmon might not be able to go to original breeding grounds (sucks for them, plenty more fish in the sea). Of course, this is where oil rigs can be extremely useful. Designate a 20km radius around all oil rigs as protected marine conservation zones or protected fisheries etcetera and suddenly Oil rigs are environmentally sustainable and a haven to wildlife.

The only argument against coal is that it releases carbon into the atmosphere, supposedly this is the cause of the earth warming up. The energy is reliable (there is a hell of a lot of it left), cheap and easy to convert into electricity. Burning some types of coal produces less emissions than others as well. It's not as if the mining process ends up being permanent either. Sure, the landscape is transformed...but it always is transforming no matter what the so called conservationists (ahem preservationists) would have us believe. Lots of former mining areas are now home to an abundant source of wildlife, some have even been turned into new woodlands and parks. Short term thinking gets us knowwhere. When we take from the land, we must give something back plus one.

Business Environmentalists are not necessarily hypocrits, unless they say "Coal is bad" and then do nothing about it. However, if they say "Coal is bad" and then install filters, use cleaner coal, plant lots of trees and invest in renewable energy. Does that make them hypocrits? No, it makes them realists. Lots of so called 'Environmentalists' believe that human development is somehow a sin (I'm not religious, but this is the best way to put it), but without human development, we wouldn't have these renewable energies. I suspect if it wasn't for nuclear, we would all be living in smog filled cities still.

So yes. You can be an environmentalist but still use fossil-fuel because fossil-fuels are not inherently dangerous to the planet or the environment but our waste management is harmful to the environment.

[Fanosolia]

It's commonly thought that installing wind turbines out to sea was environmentally unfriendly as it would disturb marine life. Turns out, the seals use em as hunting grounds.

Damn it! that was what I was exactly afraid of after hearing about them messing with bees! You just can't win with wind power.

Lots of former mining areas are now home to an abundant source of wildlife, some have even been turned into new woodlands and parks. Short term thinking gets us knowwhere. When we take from the land, we must give something back plus one.

Could I have a source to those becoming wildlife areas? and was that on behave of the company's help, or natural process?

Business Environmentalists are not necessarily hypocrits, unless they say "Coal is bad" and then do nothing about it. However, if they say "Coal is bad" and then install filters, use cleaner coal, plant lots of trees and invest in renewable energy. Does that make them hypocrits? No, it makes them realists. Lots of so called 'Environmentalists' believe that human development is somehow a sin (I'm not religious, but this is the best way to put it), but without human development, we wouldn't have these renewable energies. I suspect if it wasn't for nuclear, we would all be living in smog filled cities still.

whatever environmentalist is saying that needs a reality check, that's all I'm saying. if the businesses are making an effort to be cleaner and is investing in other energies, and tree planting, I see no problem. Maybe a little skeptical of them, but baby steps need to be taken.

[The Serbian Empire]

It's commonly thought that installing wind turbines out to sea was environmentally unfriendly as it would disturb marine life. Turns out, the seals use em as hunting grounds.

Damn it! that was what I was exactly afraid of after hearing about them messing with bees! You just can't win with wind power.

Lots of former mining areas are now home to an abundant source of wildlife, some have even been turned into new woodlands and parks. Short term thinking gets us knowwhere. When we take from the land, we must give something back plus one.

Could I have a source to those becoming wildlife areas? and was that on behave of the company's help, or natural process?

I may not be Enfaru, but I know of some places that are like what he described. Let's visit the UP and I'll show you mine shafts surrounded by forest where if you wait long enough you might come across a wolf or black bear.

[Fanosolia]

Damn it! that was what I was exactly afraid of after hearing about them messing with bees! You just can't win with wind power.



Could I have a source to those becoming wildlife areas? and was that on behave of the company's help, or natural process?

I may not be Enfaru, but I know of some places that are like what he described. Let's visit the UP and I'll show you mine shafts surrounded by forest where if you wait long enough you might come across a wolf or black bear.

I don't know if I wait to what that long XD. well that's the thing about forest and underground resources like that, so long as you take some modest responsibility (replanting trees, fix up the area surrounding the mine) i'm fine with it. We sorta need them though I worry what might happen when ores, coal, and others run out.