Environmentalism and the Environment

[Great Nepal]

Environmentalism hasn't been perfect, but it's been an overwhelmingly positive movement thus far.

What do you think about Environmentalism?

Honestly, I don't give a damn about the enviroment. I don't know if thats wrong for a commie to say but there it is.

It's wrong for anybody to say.

No it isn't. Environmentalism is wrong as it hinders development, causes job lost, boosts tax etc.

So? Development and jobs aren't inherently good. Taxes aren't inherently bad.

How can development and employment ever be bad?

Development that spews toxins into the air and kills people is not good.
Employment in this development is also not good.

And how can useless tax ever be good?

Taxes that support environmental causes aren't (typically) useless.

1. Toxic in air isn't going to kill people directlly.
2. Tax supporting environment are useless, we can live without it.

[Sungai Pusat]

Environmentalism hasn't been perfect, but it's been an overwhelmingly positive movement thus far.

What do you think about Environmentalism?

Honestly, I don't give a damn about the enviroment. I don't know if thats wrong for a commie to say but there it is.

It's wrong for anybody to say.

No it isn't. Environmentalism is wrong as it hinders development, causes job lost, boosts tax etc.

So? Development and jobs aren't inherently good. Taxes aren't inherently bad.

How can development and employment ever be bad?

Development that spews toxins into the air and kills people is not good.
Employment in this development is also not good.

And how can useless tax ever be good?

Taxes that support environmental causes aren't (typically) useless.

1. Toxic in air isn't going to kill people directlly.
2. Tax supporting environment are useless, we can live without it.

1. Well, it might.
2. I'll agree with you there, logging companies in USA do better than the government. IN protecting the environment.

[Abdju]

Tax supporting environment are useless, we can live without it.

Sigged...

[Iron Chariots]

1. Toxic in air isn't going to kill people directlly.
2. Tax supporting environment are useless, we can live without it.

Um...

Do you know what toxicity is?

[Carls-land]

I think we need to take more care of the Environment, by investing in more green energy and be stricter in enforcing environmental laws.

[Free Soviets]

Which would really make no difference seeing as human bodily emissions make a very very little impact on the earth.

Every drop makes an ocean.

the net effect of breathing on atmospheric CO2 is zero, unless you eat coal regularly.

[Free Soviets]

Since most environmentalists live in developed countries, I think it'd make a big difference though their not using the myriad of products that contribute to CO2 production.

yeah, except that
a) it would only be a temporary reduction in emissions, that would quickly be overwhelmed by population growth at home and rising carbon usage abroad - we need systematic policy changes rather than one-off dips
b) those policy changes are made even more unlikely with fewer people around pushing for them

[Free Soviets]

Honestly, I don't give a damn about the enviroment. I don't know if thats wrong for a commie to say but there it is.

It's wrong for anybody to say.

How can a feeling be wrong?

normatively

[Cannot think of a name]

Pff...environment...we don't have to worry about that...what's the worst that can happen?

[JarVik]

Pff...environment...we don't have to worry about that...what's the worst that can happen?

[JJ Place]

Environmentalism hasn't been perfect, but it's been an overwhelmingly positive movement thus far.

What do you think about Environmentalism?

Honestly, I don't give a damn about the enviroment. I don't know if thats wrong for a commie to say but there it is.

It's wrong for anybody to say.

No it isn't. Environmentalism is wrong as it hinders development, causes job lost, boosts tax etc.

So? Development and jobs aren't inherently good. Taxes aren't inherently bad.

How can development and employment ever be bad?

Development that spews toxins into the air and kills people is not good.
Employment in this development is also not good.

And how can useless tax ever be good?

Taxes that support environmental causes aren't (typically) useless.

1. Toxic in air isn't going to kill people directlly.
2. Tax supporting environment are useless, we can live without it.

Alright, your both wrong; in a lot of ways are you both wrong. Environmentalism doesn't have to harm development or jobs; it can create both. Similarly, development and employement are not inherently anti-environment and created at the environment's expense; in fact, we need a good environment to ensure a better, stronger, and more resilient economy takes hold. Social Liberalism lowers our crime rates, and Capitalism improves our environment. And that's the facts.

Oh, and all taxes, no matter for what, are all wrong. Perhaps taxation for protecting the environment is a bit better than taxation for buying more bombs to go drop on a neighboring country; but Eco-taxation both isn't necessary, isn't logical, and simply isn't right. In fact, eco-taxation is a bit counter-productive, when you truly research eco-taxation and it's effects, both direct effects and in-direct effects.

[Trollgaard]

I was watching a few videos today about Environmentalism, each created across the board by different organizations and groups, and it got me thinking once again about the issue; What do you think about Environmentalism? The groups, the activists, the organizations, what do you think about Environmentalism and the Environmental Movement? More broadly, what do you think about the environment, and the conservation and protection of said environmental, and all of the factors that play into the environment?

Your thoughts, NS?

I absolutely love the environment. I love plants, animals, and wild unpolluted placed. In fact, I love them so much I loathe cities and have been finding myself growing quite discontent and set against civilization, though I'm still a part of it, sadly. I dislike most environmentalists for being, well, rather lame, and not calling for enough change, and not being willing to do much about it. I think environmentalists and groups are great, though, because they have had a major impact, though not nearly enough. Environmental laws should be increased 1000 times, if not more. Industries, towns, cities, roads, factories, all need to be dismantled. Only then can mankind regain its freedom.

"The idea of wilderness needs no defends, it only needs defenders." Edward Abbey

[Iron Chariots]

I was watching a few videos today about Environmentalism, each created across the board by different organizations and groups, and it got me thinking once again about the issue; What do you think about Environmentalism? The groups, the activists, the organizations, what do you think about Environmentalism and the Environmental Movement? More broadly, what do you think about the environment, and the conservation and protection of said environmental, and all of the factors that play into the environment?

Your thoughts, NS?

I absolutely love the environment. I love plants, animals, and wild unpolluted placed. In fact, I love them so much I loathe cities and have been finding myself growing quite discontent and set against civilization, though I'm still a part of it, sadly. I dislike most environmentalists for being, well, rather lame, and not calling for enough change, and not being willing to do much about it. I think environmentalists and groups are great, though, because they have had a major impact, though not nearly enough. Environmental laws should be increased 1000 times, if not more. Industries, towns, cities, roads, factories, all need to be dismantled. Only then can mankind regain its freedom.

"The idea of wilderness needs no defends, it only needs defenders." Edward Abbey

No thanks I like such things as modern medicine and not being eaten by bears.

[Smartephant]

Organic farming is more harmful for the environment than modern farming

source that isnt a glibertarian think tank's discredited lies?

I wouldn't call Norman Borlaug a discredited liar, certainly not on agricultural matters. While he's currently unavailable for comment due to a bad case of death his views on farming, especially the outdated and grossly inefficient practices now associated with organic food were no secret. Of environmental lobbyists he stated, "some of the environmental lobbyists of the Western nations are the salt of the earth, but many of them are elitists. They've never experienced the physical sensation of hunger. They do their lobbying from comfortable office suites in Washington or Brussels. If they lived just one month amid the misery of the developing world, as I have for fifty years, they'd be crying out for tractors and fertilizer and irrigation canals and be outraged that fashionable elitists back home were trying to deny them these things".[1]

And when asked what he thinks of organic farming and whether it's better for people and the environment he said "Even if you could use all the organic material that you have--the animal manures, the human waste, the plant residues--and get them back on the soil, you couldn't feed more than 4 billion people. In addition, if all agriculture were organic, you would have to increase cropland area dramatically, spreading out into marginal areas and cutting down millions of acres of forests.

At the present time, approximately 80 million tons of nitrogen nutrients are utilized each year. If you tried to produce this nitrogen organically, you would require an additional 5 or 6 billion head of cattle to supply the manure. How much wild land would you have to sacrifice just to produce the forage for these cows? There's a lot of nonsense going on here.

If people want to believe that the organic food has better nutritive value, it's up to them to make that foolish decision. But there's absolutely no research that shows that organic foods provide better nutrition. As far as plants are concerned, they can't tell whether that nitrate ion comes from artificial chemicals or from decomposed organic matter. If some consumers believe that it's better from the point of view of their health to have organic food, God bless them. Let them buy it. Let them pay a bit more. It's a free society. But don't tell the world that we can feed the present population without chemical fertilizer."[2]

But there's more, this time from MSNBC, so you know I'm not just conspiring with my fellow evil scheming Libertarians. "Since the widespread use of synthetic pesticides began, around the time of World War II, food producers have reaped remarkable gains. Apples stay red and juicy for weeks. The average harvested acre of farmland yields 200% more wheat than it did 70 years ago. Over the past two decades chickens have grown 25% bigger in less time and on less food. At the same time, the average cow produces 60% more milk, thanks to innovations in breeding, nutrition, and synthetic hormones." And I doubt there's much environmental benefit to organic food when it has to be shipped 9,000+ miles from NZ.[3]

"Supporters of organic agricultural systems promote their exclusive use for a variety of reasons. These include: a dislike of large agribusiness; fear of health effects from traces of synthetic pesticides, bioengineered material, or irradiated products; concern about the environmental effects of conventional agricultural systems; and finally a belief that organic products are nutritionally superior to conventionally-produced ones.

Political positions aside, most of those concerns have little, if any, solid scientific support."[4]

Finally, there's an assload of food safety concerns with organic food that you just don't get as often (proportionally) with its modern counterpart. "In the United States, 2006 brought two major outbreaks of E. coli, both resulting in deaths and numerous illnesses, ultimately traced to organically grown spinach and lettuce. According to the Center for Global Food Issues, organic foods make up about 1% of all the food sold in the United States, but it accounts for 8% of E. coli cases."[5][6][7]

hybrid and electric cars aren't all that great because of the toxic materials used for their manufacture

no worse than anything else if properly handled

Agreed and I personally wouldn't mind owning an electric car for commuting between home and work but they typically lack range and power. The exception, the Tesla Roadster, costs $101,500 and that's more than a little outside my pay scale. My biggest critique of BEVs has to do with powering them. Charging them from the grid will increase the base load significantly and that means either energy prices will go up as fuels are consumed more rapidly, resulting in starvation and death for poor people in the 3rd world that need that fuel to get their crops to market or their kids to a doctor; blackouts and brownouts locally as energy is diverted to charging stations, resulting in my being pissed off and general disruptions to the economy; or energy rationing which would also piss me off and disrupt the economy. It'd be difficult to pull off now and impossible without coal or nuclear

the greeny movement is mostly opposed to nuclear power

so?

A 1994 study by C. Arden Pope estimated 50,000 to 100,000 Americans died yearly from the effects of outdoor particulate air pollution[8] and, assuming this is correct, coal-burning power plants in the midwest and east likely play a role.[9] Where am I going with this? How is this related to nuclear? Assuming the maximum death toll of Chernobyl by the WHO, 4000-5000, you'd need a Chernobyl-type accident every 2-3 weeks every year to equal the amount of people coal and oil are supposedly killing right now. And there aren't even any G1 reactors running in the US, nor are there any slated for construction or proposed so that type of disaster isn't even possible.

As for the waste, there are two options available: storage and reprocessing. My pic or waste reduction is reprocessing as it reduces the half life of the waste from 4.468 billion years to 24,200 years and more energy can be extracted from it before secure disposal. Breeder reactors could be used to make it more economically viable.

Finally, nuclear offers a clean source of power that wouldn't demand a reduction in quality of life. That's something that solar, wind, wave, etc. can't currently claim to do. I really don't understand the continued opposition to this source of power. Baseless fear, hatred of new technology? Probably both but neither should drive policy.

A cost-benefit analysis would tell you what's worth doing

assuming actual costs are fully accounted for and the benefits are real, of course. the standard process often leaves much to be desired on both counts. enough that economist colleagues of mine devote significant amounts of time to the problem.

The current process is still better than governing with and being governed by your passions.

[Smartephant]

The environment is good.

Environmentalism is bad, as it usually cloaks a socialist or communistic agenda. It is also become more militant and extremist.

Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas.

Few actions are to extreme to save our biosphere. Greenpeace is not at all extreme, they are moderate.

Where we should be as a movement is Earth First! Sea Shepherd and in some cases ELF style actions.

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
PART VII HIGH SEAS
SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article101
Definition of piracy
Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

The SSCS is, according to international maritime law, engaging in piracy, and are therefore hostis humani generis, as have all maritime pirates, since time immemorial.

Earth First, the SSCS, the ELF, the ALF, and others have engaged in terrorist actions against innocent businesses, researchers, and people, destroying property and endangering lives. Praising them is like cheering Joe Stack for flying his plane into an IRS office.

[Chumblywumbly]

Honestly, I don't give a damn about the enviroment.

How is this possible? What conception of 'the environment' do you hold?

How does one fail to care about one's surroundings?

[Chumblywumbly]

As a leftist and social liberal, fuck environmentalism. Pretentious Greenpeace faggots and their self-important 'save the planet' philosophy. PETA pisses me off too.

PETA is anti-human...

I know. That was just kind of an afterthought. Kind of like when you rant about gas prices and finish by saying "damn, I hate black people".

No, you don't know. Peta is not anti-human.

Name one issue on which PETA holds people as more important then houseflies.

Why is a non-anthropocentric position necessarily 'anti-human'?

[Natapoc]

The environment is good.

Environmentalism is bad, as it usually cloaks a socialist or communistic agenda. It is also become more militant and extremist.

Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas.

Few actions are to extreme to save our biosphere. Greenpeace is not at all extreme, they are moderate.

Where we should be as a movement is Earth First! Sea Shepherd and in some cases ELF style actions.

(snip)
Earth First, the SSCS, the ELF, the ALF, and others have engaged in terrorist actions against innocent businesses, researchers, and people, destroying property and endangering lives. Praising them is like cheering Joe Stack for flying his plane into an IRS office.

Do you realize how serious the issues are confronting us? Have you ever heard of the methane time bomb?

How many people has the sea shepherd killed? How about the ELF? How about earth first? I'll give you an answer: 0.

People acting under each banner have vastly different tactics and methods and at least EF! is certainly not engaged in anything that even the most insane definitions of "terrorists" would apply to.

Here is an interesting video: http://vimeo.com/14008612

[Natapoc]

As a leftist and social liberal, fuck environmentalism. Pretentious Greenpeace faggots and their self-important 'save the planet' philosophy. PETA pisses me off too.

PETA is anti-human...

I know. That was just kind of an afterthought. Kind of like when you rant about gas prices and finish by saying "damn, I hate black people".

No, you don't know. Peta is not anti-human.

Name one issue on which PETA holds people as more important then houseflies.

Why is a non-anthropocentric position necessarily 'anti-human'?

I wonder the same. Why is the idea of equal consideration of interests so hard for some people to understand?

[Abdju]

As a leftist and social liberal, fuck environmentalism. Pretentious Greenpeace faggots and their self-important 'save the planet' philosophy. PETA pisses me off too.

PETA is anti-human...

I know. That was just kind of an afterthought. Kind of like when you rant about gas prices and finish by saying "damn, I hate black people".

No, you don't know. Peta is not anti-human.

Name one issue on which PETA holds people as more important then houseflies.

Why is a non-anthropocentric position necessarily 'anti-human'?

I wonder the same. Why is the idea of equal consideration of interests so hard for some people to understand?

I agree with Nat. Giving non-human animals equal weight does not make you "anti-human". Valuing human life below other animal life may be, but that's a different issue entirely.

[Smartephant]

The environment is good.

Environmentalism is bad, as it usually cloaks a socialist or communistic agenda. It is also become more militant and extremist.

Sadly, Greenpeace has evolved into an organization of extremism and politically motivated agendas.

Few actions are to extreme to save our biosphere. Greenpeace is not at all extreme, they are moderate.

Where we should be as a movement is Earth First! Sea Shepherd and in some cases ELF style actions.

UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION ON THE LAW OF THE SEA
PART VII HIGH SEAS
SECTION 1. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Article101
Definition of piracy
Piracy consists of any of the following acts:
(a) any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:
(i) on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;
(ii) against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;
(b) any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft;
(c) any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

Earth First, the SSCS, the ELF, the ALF, and others have engaged in terrorist actions against innocent businesses, researchers, and people, destroying property and endangering lives. Praising them is like cheering Joe Stack for flying his plane into an IRS office.

Do you realize how serious the issues are confronting us? Have you ever heard of the methane time bomb?

I have heard of it. I don't consider the issue a crisis, certainly not as significant as global hunger and poverty. I consider human life a priority.

How many people has the sea shepherd killed? How about the ELF? How about earth first? I'll give you an answer: 0.

"Coronado was jailed in 1995 in connection with an arson attack on research facilities at Michigan State University. The incident, which caused $125,000 worth of damage and destroyed 32 years of research data, was part of the ALF's 'Operation Bite Back'".[1]
Do you think that destruction of medical research won't have any negative effects on the development of medical treatments to potentially fatal illnesses?

People acting under each banner have vastly different tactics and methods and at least EF! is certainly not engaged in anything that even the most insane definitions of "terrorists" would apply to.

Dictionary.com defines "terrorism" as "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes."
Using property destruction, arson, assault, etc. to intimidate and coerce, especially for political purposes sounds an awful lot like terrorism to me. It also sounds an awful lot like the tactics the ALF/ELF and the SSCS frequently use. They're terrorists. Even if they haven't directly or indirectly caused a death yet they're still terrorists because they engage in terrorist actions.

[Natapoc]

[quote="Smartephant";p="3089045"][/quote]


1. Fix your quotes.
2. Reread what I said.
3. Stop confusing different groups. ALF is NOT ELF is NOT EF is NOT SSCS.
4. Stop talking about ALF here. I love the ALF but they have nothing to do with the environment. The ALF exists to rescue individual animals from places of exploitation and abuse. But this thread is about the environment. Not individual animals.

[Barringtonia]

Too often anti-environmentalists fail to realise that they're more, if not much more, subject to propaganda, lies and deceit as ever is put out by environmentalists. The money put into PR firms to distort the truth lies far heavier on one side than the other.

The worst is that they're persuaded to act against their interests, persuaded that pretending 'eviroloons' represent the entire issue is either intelligent or self-serving.

In claiming that people are suckered by 'hippies' about what is actually scientific evidence of damage to the environment in multiple ways, they prove the maxim that those easiest fooled claim everyone is a fool first.

[The Western Reaches]

I've said it before and I'll say it again:

Mother nature is NOT a legless cat. She is the toughest thing on the planet and if we think that we are going to "kill" mother nature then we are off by a long shot. Nature/life will bounce back no matter what we mere humans do to it. We can kill everything we see and we'd still be surrounded by life.

I care that the environment is clean enough to keep me alive, but beyond that we don't need to preserve anything we don't need. Everything has its time.

[Smartephant]

Too often anti-environmentalists fail to realise that they're more, if not much more, subject to propaganda, lies and deceit as ever is put out by environmentalists. The money put into PR firms to distort the truth lies far heavier on one side than the other.

The worst is that they're persuaded to act against their interests, persuaded that pretending 'eviroloons' represent the entire issue is either intelligent or self-serving.

In claiming that people are suckered by 'hippies' about what is actually scientific evidence of damage to the environment in multiple ways, they prove the maxim that those easiest fooled claim everyone is a fool first.

Passion should not override science and it's certainly not license for terrorism.

Evidence suggests the global climate is changing. Evidence suggests that pollution has harmful effects on ecosystems. There is no evidence to suggest that throwing away technological progress and the quality of life that humans enjoy today will reverse this. Sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice doesn't help. Technology is the answer to adapting to the changing world.