Here's some context for those that think we can't impact the environment

[virginiadiver69]

Hippie...do you find that there are a lot of people that don't understand the impacts of litter and pollution? Or are you just trying to make yet another correlating argument for human/Co2 driven climate change by substituting a compelling picture of the globe for a cute polar bear cub on a floating ice raft?

 

[Rossini]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12493555#post12493555 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by HippieSmell
Lol, you need data to show that pollution has negative impacts on the environment?

LOL priceless. :bum:

 

[Rossini]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12662036#post12662036 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jankytomato
"tree hugger shock media" (quoted from link)

I think it's funny that some people think there's a big conspiracy of environmentalism, in fact it's so funny I want to cry.

As if you need proof or scientific studies to show that the Earth has been horribly maimed. It's not up for debate, that mind set that the world is too big for us to impact is on the same level as the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth. Laughable.

Not debatable: forests gone, water poisoned, air poisoned, garbage everywhere, massive extinction, receding glaciers, dying reefs, rising sea level, too many people, exhaustion of resources, societal lack of consciousness, inadequate education, corrupt media and government, messed up economy - all related.

Did you know that what we think of as most of the standard effects of aging have been traced to ubiquitous lead in the environment? Isn't that special? Ever wonder just why they put lead in everything for so long: gas, paint, innoculations?

The pharms in the water supply: free health care for everyone and man boobs. :celeb3:

well said!



I think these anti environmentalists need to look at the good that has been done through environmentalism and conservation. And without it, the world would be in an even worse state. With no hope whatsoever.

They also should try watching the Di Caprio Docu Film "Eleventh Hour". Maybe they might learn something.

 

[jankytomato]

Re: Go Cork a volcano

Re: Go Cork a volcano

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12665370#post12665370 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Tlytell
90% of all co2 emissions come from volcanos. Stop global warming - go cork a volcano

I can think of something better to cork.

Arguments I am sick of:

1)The Earth is so big we can't affect it.

2)God made the world for * people to do what they want with it.

3)If you (who don't care) acknowledge pollution exists we (dirty tree loving bastards) should be so happy even though you still don't care or think it needs to change.


*I left out many adjectives here. I used to not care because I know we will die off like bacteria in a petri dish and evolution will repopulate the world (probably in an equally interesting way) with the descendants of the roaches and whoever else survives. Now I have a baby daughter which gives me a different perspective that we should save this thing, and I find people who have children and still don't care about the world to be incomprehensibly despicable.


You can't argue with the brain dead masses - there are people still blaming Bill Clinton for everything, like blaming him for the current consequences of trickle down economics**. I didn't approve of his environmental policies at the time, but at least the economy was doing good, the deficit got flipped for the first time in my life and since before the fake conservative movement, and compared to what has happened environmentally since (which is not covered in the news - you have to do your own research which I refrain from as I know more about it than I can handle already) OMG he looks better and better.


**Know why they call it trickle down economics? Are you thirsty neo-slaves? Look here comes the rain. (peeing on your head)


Want even more offensive? People hate on Clinton for getting head in the White House. If the same happened with Bush, the girl would disappear never to be heard from again. Not that it would matter, he could [violation] a corpse and his followers would say "well, that's his right as a powerful man, grovel grovel."

Sorry to the activists who are trying to slog it out in the system, I know I'm not helping. I just think these peoples' minds are locked in and impervious to reason, argument and logic; might as well have some fun with them. :smokin:

 

[virginiadiver69]

Wow...sounds like you and rosinni have a lot to talk about.
Oh...and I'll be the first to warn you since you seem to be new to RC..."they" don't like political discussions. Though as long as you keep it to bashing Bush or conservatives in general you get a little leeway. It will be interesting to see what the attitude about Necrophilia is. I don't know if that's covered in the user agreement or not.

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12671541#post12671541 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
Though as long as you keep it to bashing Bush or conservatives in general you get a little leeway. It will be interesting to see what the attitude about Necrophilia is. I don't know if that's covered in the user agreement or not.

[chimp]

 

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12670021#post12670021 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jankytomato
You can't argue with the brain dead masses - there are people still blaming Bill Clinton for everything, like blaming him for the current consequences of trickle down economics**. I didn't approve of his environmental policies at the time, but at least the economy was doing good, the deficit got flipped for the first time in my life and since before the fake conservative movement, and compared to what has happened environmentally since (which is not covered in the news - you have to do your own research which I refrain from as I know more about it than I can handle already) OMG he looks better and better.


**Know why they call it trickle down economics? Are you thirsty neo-slaves? Look here comes the rain. (peeing on your head)


Want even more offensive? People hate on Clinton for getting head in the White House. If the same happened with Bush, the girl would disappear never to be heard from again. Not that it would matter, he could [violation] a corpse and his followers would say "well, that's his right as a powerful man, grovel grovel."

...and this goes unnoticed.

 

[jankytomato]

Well, I was trying to self delete but it wouldn't let me. It was over the top even for me, but that is the beauty of the internet I guess.

What can I say, people at work listen to Rush Limpo all day, but I have to work with them.

I really hate you guys though, seriously. :mixed:

 

[Rossini]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12674020#post12674020 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
...and this goes unnoticed.

:sad1:

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12674020#post12674020 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
...and this goes unnoticed.

Had you used the "report this post" link it might have gotten taken care of before I got back to reading this thread

 

[Tlytell]

Talk about drinking the Liberal/Socialist Kool aid. Freedom goes out the window, while governments use enviormental policies to try to fix a fictional problem. Thus giving them more control over the daily lives of there citisens. Take a real look at the polution from communist contries (China-Russia). Goverment run policies ALWAYS waste, polute, and cost more.

 

[jankytomato]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12678563#post12678563 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Tlytell
Talk about drinking the Liberal/Socialist Kool aid. Freedom goes out the window, while governments use enviormental policies to try to fix a fictional problem. Thus giving them more control over the daily lives of there citisens. Take a real look at the polution from communist contries (China-Russia). Goverment run policies ALWAYS waste, polute, and cost more.

I find it interesting that both opposing sides of the issue blame the government. Small steps in environmentalism are made against enormous opposing forces only to be reversed when a Bush gets elected, yet the Limpos act like the government is just awash in environmental socialists. They also think the media is liberal, which is just insane.

The rich, be them individuals, multinational corporations and/or hidden string pullers have almost complete control of the government and make small ineffectual concessions occasionally to maintain the illusion of democracy. The media is their propaganda machine, and mass mind control is a long established science.

I can tell by your grammar and spelling that you are a real genius. I am assuming your position is something like, "I lived near a nuclear waste dump my whole life and I turned out just fine," am I right? You throw out all these random unrelated things, mixing a poor understanding of economics, politics and ecology into one garbled, unintelligible statement. :hmm4:

 

[virginiadiver69]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12676982#post12676982 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
Had you used the "report this post" link it might have gotten taken care of before I got back to reading this thread

Oh...and it's my responsibility now? You saw that post before you saw mine and decided to do nothing about it.

 

[Rossini]

externalities

externalities

People who criticse environmental policies and say we must think of the economics forget that without ecology there would be no economy.

This is taken from an article in the Guardian by Tony Jupiter. Please have a read.

Externalities are basically impacts that occur because of an economic transaction but which are not reflected in it. So, for example, the impacts of releasing carbon dioxide through clear-felling an ancient rainforest are externalities not reflected in the price of beef, soya or timber. Because the externalities are excluded from how we calculate the overall impact of deforestation, it seems from an economic point of view to often be a positive process.

Even oil spills count positively in conventional economic calculations - for example, because of the money spent on buying detergents and hiring ships and people for clean-up. This is only because the damage to wildlife and the marine environment is not factored in to the economic calculations, of course. The fact that natural capital is being liquidated to achieve "progress", or that some of the "growth" we are enjoying now will lead to very severe costs later on, is nowhere to be seen in the calculations of economic progress published by governments and international agencies.

The scale of this oversight was highlighted by researchers at the University of Vermont, led by Robert Costanza, in a seminal paper in the journal Nature published in 1997. In one of the first serious attempts to value what is now known as "ecosystem services", Costanza and his team studied how natural systems, through soil formation, crop pollination, climate regulation, flood protection, sustaining biodiversity and so on, support human welfare. They then took the vital step of estimating the value of all that in economic terms. Their calculations were based on how much benefit humankind derives from all those services, and took account of the financial cost of replacing them, if we possibly could.

They looked at the then current economic value of 17 ecosystem services, based on published studies and a few original calculations. For the entire set of services they looked at, the total value was estimated to be in the range of US$16-54 trillion per year, with an average of US$33 trillion per year. Because of the nature of the uncertainties, they said that this should be considered a minimum estimate.

To put this US$33 trillion figure into context, note that global gross national product in 1997 was around US$18 trillion per year. Thus, the bits of the economy that we do measure are considerably smaller than the parts that we don't. It seems remarkable how with this scale of economic miscalculation that some economists have the nerve to suggest that environmentalists are innumerate.

If anyone is missing the main point about the environment it has to be conventional economists. Nowhere in our national accounts do they count the fabric of our planet for anything (even though it is positive to note that one or two tools are being modestly taken up in some economies - such as emissions trading in the EU). With so many conventional economists in so many positions of power and influence, perhaps it is no wonder we are in such a mess.

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12679698#post12679698 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by virginiadiver69
Oh...and it's my responsibility now? You saw that post before you saw mine and decided to do nothing about it.

In all reality, I actually missed that on the first go around. And yes, if you want to complain about such posts being missed or not noticed right away, it helps to take some responsibility and report such posts

A warning for all:

Keep the political commentary out of the discussion, or the thread will be closed. Same goes for any insults or flames from either side of the argument.

 

[jankytomato]

Can I say: "I like Rossini, I think he/she is smart?" :rollface:

 

[billsreef]

Here's some good reading from Yale Universities School of Forestry and Environmental Studies. There's an interesting article on CO2 impact on the ocean by Carl Safina and Marah Hardt of the Blue Ocean Institute.