Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 38 of 38

Thread: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years

  1. #26
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    I
    Therefore, besides saving hugely on labor costs, taxes, benefit costs etc. the company that owns the plant saved literally hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs for rinsewater treatment and stack filtration
    ,

    Not arguing the Mexican plants are horrible, just arguing your 100:1 assymption that modern releases in both countries are that far off.

    It's your numbers I am questioning...not the lack of riles in Mexico

    , This has nothing to do with the ABILITY/TECHNOLOGY to reduce air and water pollution, it has to do with the INVESTMENT/COSTS of reducing air and water pollution or more specifically in avoiding those costs.
    ,PRECICELY. And a simple US law that requires all factories producing items for the US follow our rules for safety and environmental protection woud simultaneousl reduce the attractiveness of offshoring factories (preserving US jobs) and also protect worker health and the global environment, not to mention the "blowback pollution" you mention

    ,Again it has nothing to do with technology ... it has to do with cost/benefit ratios. If a 90% reduction in pollution costs say $100,000, but a 99% reduction in pollution costs say $1,000,000, and a 99.9% reduction in pollution costs $10,000,000 ---
    , again, where are you getting these numbers? Illustrations without fact?

    , but the company can't make a profit if it is forced to spend more than $1,000,000 --- what has the EPA accomplished by requiring them to spend $10,000,000 or go out of business in the USA ?
    ,Again, implement my policy and this no longer is the deciding factor.

    What you're suggesting is we choose - pollution or progress, when we KNOW thechnologies exist to do it better - they are subsidiezed by our not implementing such a rule.

    As for cost comparisons, Been there. I'm working with a major state university on just this problem - greening their faciliteis and reducing inflows/outputs WHERE FEASIBLE. Not saying we can make it perfect, not even arguing for the existing EPA regulations (there are as many loopholes as draconian rules. just ask CAFE standards experts) Simply stating that it isn't an either or proposition....and that we'd spend alot less subsidizing the EPA regulated technology improvements for ALL companies in the US than spending for rettraining (for what jobs, McDonalds?) and extending unemployment while trying to cleanup from pollution at factories that are now closed and fixing "blowback" pollution issues. I'm arguing that if we adopted our own rules accross the board, other countries wouldn't get an unfair advantage

    It's no joke in El Paso, Texas for example.
    ,Enact balanced rules...save the people of ElPaso!

    , If the US laws are changed to prevent US citizens from buying products made by polluting factories in Mexico or other countries, at this point in time, there are already many products that US citizens simply won't be able to buy anymore.
    ,You mean no enterprising company with a PROVEN market share would fill the niche? I find that hard to swallow.

    Tell you what, I'll be the monopoly in any profitable industry that doesn't rise to meet the guidelines.

    NIKEwill close rather than improve? Even with federal subsidies we know they'll get?

    Oh well, if their survival depends that much on killing me with pollution, then I guess bye bye to them.

    What you're saying is that it isn't worth it to inconvenience the industries or consumers to fix a real and growing problem? What makes it worth it?

    For example, the next time your refrigerator quits, if you can't buy one made by a polluting company outside the US, you're not going to be able to buy one at all (or maybe you'll be able to stand in line for a limited number of units still produced in the USA at twice the current price).
    ,
    1. I don't agree this is correct, but even if true I don't think US units are 2x the cost of comparable quality imports

    2, aren't you concerned your fact presents a security risk to our at-war nation? Shouldnt our leaders who have sworn to place Homeland Security as a prioirty fix this issue and make sure America can supply Americans>? Seems so important for Oil we're drilling in a pristine enviroment to reach a puddle...why is the rule variable depending on what "security" will mean to profits?

    ,The only way that your proposal could actually be implemented is via draconian wage and price controls, accompanied by a major across the board decline in the US standard of living.
    Interesting. Please prove or define this

    Did requiring all imported cars meet US crash test ratings do this? or did it make foreign cars more cost competitive and save the lvies of Americans?

    Did requiring all imported cars meet emission standards end the US standard of living


    Can you show one industry that was destroyed by requiring the imports follow the same rules as US companies?

  2. #27
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years

    Quote Originally Posted by doc-catfish
    With tragic consequences sometimes, I might add.

    For example: http://www.fluoridealert.org/pollution/1299.html
    What can I say, you're proving my point. Your idea is to loosen US environmental regulations, with no motivation for other countries to improve theirs at all. the cost difference will still exist

    My solution levels the playing field - and eliminates the pollutant causes which lead to stories like this.

  3. #28
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    there isn't a goddamn thing that the EPA or any other US agency can do about it at this point,
    The people and their elected representatives can, and it will take about 10 minutes. Change import laws, effective 5 years from signing date (give companies time to catch up) that balance emissions and safety and taxation requirements for all factories GLOBALLY who sell to US.

    No improvement in practices, no permit to import your products. That'll do it. No cost to the taxpayer, even.

  4. #29
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years

    The people and their elected representatives can, and it will take about 10 minutes. Change import laws, effective 5 years from signing date (give companies time to catch up) that balance emissions and safety and taxation requirements for all factories GLOBALLY who sell to US.
    Again you're missing the point. Preventing mexican maquiladoras from importing their products into the USA unless they implement US environmental standards will NOT cause them to implement US environmental standards. What it will do is cause them to shut down their sister operation on the US side of the border (with subsequent loss of remaining US jobs and tax revenue) and simply sell their products somewhere else. This would also require that the US abrogate existing treaty obiligations with Mexico, which could spark retaliation i.e. Pemex selling oil to the Chinese. But most importantly, the next time an American needs to buy a new refrigerator or a new air conditioner or virtually any new durable good, without Mexican imports or imports from other 'polluting' offshore sources, the American customer is not going to be able to find one to buy - !

    Well that's not strictly true. If US laws prevent the legal importation of durable goods made by 'polluting' offshore industries, they will still be able to stand in line to pay two or three times the current price for a small quantity of products still available from US manufacturers. Or they can buy it on the 'black market' i.e. smuggled across the border at a price 50% higher than the current price.

    As I said earlier, this all sounds great on paper, but when there aren't enough American companies left to satisfy the needs of American consumers, very bad things can happen i.e. last winter's flu vaccine shortage (it was damn lucky that the flu strain wasn't too virulent). No company is going to invest billions of dollars to construct/upgrade factories to last decimal point environmental compliance unless they can pass on those costs to customers - even if that translates into chronic shortages of important commodities within the USA.

    And in regard to there being 'no cost to the taxpayer', how long do you think that welfare and social security recipients are going to stay silent while prices double and their gov't checks stay the same size ? The US standard of living is totally dependent on the low costs of foreign labor, foreign environmental (non)compliance, foreign taxes etc. to allow goods to be produced and sold at today's prices. There is simply not enough GNP in the entire country to sustain the current US standard of living based on US costs of labor, environmental compliance and taxes being applied to every important commodity. I would argue that your proposal's end result will be that the rich will get richer and that the poor will get poorer.

  5. #30
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years

    aren't you concerned your fact presents a security risk to our at-war nation? Shouldnt our leaders who have sworn to place Homeland Security as a prioirty fix this issue and make sure America can supply Americans>? Seems so important for Oil we're drilling in a pristine enviroment to reach a puddle...why is the rule variable depending on what "security" will mean to profits?
    I'm glad you raised this issue because this very question was addressed in the 90's in regard to US DRAM manufacturers and the manufacturers of other key components. The long and short of it is that the gov't acknowledged the huge cost premiums necessary to enable US businesses to operate in the black, opted to keep a few going via paying super-high military/industrial complex prices with our tax money, allowed many others to close their US operations, and established a strategic stockpile of imported components as a means of reducing vulnerability due to exclusive dependence on foreign suppliers.

  6. #31
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    What it will do is cause them to shut down their sister operation on the US side of the border (with subsequent loss of remaining US jobs and tax revenue) and simply sell their products somewhere else.
    But i thought your other post said the US was the sink for exports from other nations....what economy in the world could absorb the production if US turns it away? Are these companies really prepared to lose that much of their market share?

    This would also require that the US abrogate existing treaty obiligations with Mexico,
    The word may be renegotiate...but first we'd have to see that our existing treaties specifically exempt them from pollution laws. As I said before, we've made such changes in import rules for safety reasons, labeling reasons FCC interference reasons....why not environmental and social responsibility? We seem to have no isssue making broad threats to get support for war on drugs?

    If US laws prevent the legal importation of durable goods made by 'polluting' offshore industries, they will still be able to stand in line to pay two or three times the current price for a small quantity of products still available from US manufacturers. Or they can buy it on the 'black market' i.e. smuggled across the border at a price 50% higher than the current price.
    So these wonderfully powerful companies working in our current "free market" economy will not adjust to the new rules (as they have before) and continue to do business> Tha's Bullshit.

    how long do you think that welfare and social security recipients are going to stay silent while prices double and their gov't checks stay the same size
    About as long as it takes to replace their walmart barely subsisting with public support job with a high paying US factory job.

    The US standard of living is totally dependent on the low costs of foreign labor, foreign environmental (non)compliance, foreign taxes etc. to allow goods to be produced and sold at today's prices.
    Isn't that wonderful? The standard of living (if we take your statement) is dependent on the EXploitation of people from other nations (who happen to be different color, but we won't mention racism) and EXploitation of their environments even to the destruction of those habitats and the "blowback pollution" brought to the US by those industries. Wow, we're really an intelligent society.

    All I'm asking is we realize the complete cost of what we consume, not pretend like the human and environmental cost of unsafe production facilities and commuities have no value or impact. Speaking of security, this is a VERY dangerous pattern and is why we're hated in alot of developing nations.

    Our free markets (ok, sorta free) will adjist. They will have to.

    There is simply not enough GNP in the entire country to sustain the current US standard of living based on US costs of labor, environmental compliance and taxes being applied to every important commodity.
    There was historically (US industry saved the world in WW2, even leading the world in resource control and safety rules) enough capacity, and I believe we can do it again. Besides, I'm not limiting factories to the US< just saying if you sell here, follow our rules

    Remove subsidies for big corporations, redirect the same $$ to the issues you mention, and level the global rules. Other countries labor will still be cheaper, so they;ll still be advantages there

  7. #32
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years

    So these wonderfully powerful companies working in our current "free market" economy will not adjust to the new rules (as they have before) and continue to do business> Tha's Bullshit.
    Here is the ultimate bottom line. If doing business in America under your proposed conditions results in the inability to turn a profit, then no they're not going to continue to do business. There are tons of examples where this is already the case i.e. Chiron vs. Aventis Pasteur and flu vaccine. If a company can't pass on the true cost of producing their product to US customers, in the case of this example by gov't mandate, then they will indeed respond to market forces and get the hell out of the business of making that product. So under your proposal there are two market driven choices, manufacturers charging US customers much higher prices to cover the true costsof production, or widespread shortages as manufacturers decide not to continue producing particular products at a loss.

    Chiron counted on making a profit by cutting corners with the production process, and as a result their product was contaminated. Aventis Pasteur remains in the business because of US gov't and state subsidies plus cost shifting (i.e. recouping losses on one product by overcharging for other products). Either way, there is a shortage of flu vaccine producers for the simple reason that it is not a profitable business under current US laws/regs. Your proposal opens the door to similar situations developing for virtually every 'durable good' which was formerly produced in the USA but which is now produced in Mexico.

    There was historically (US industry saved the world in WW2, even leading the world in resource control and safety rules) enough capacity, and I believe we can do it again.
    Well, if total tax rates on US citizens today even remotely resembled the total tax rates on citizens at the end of WW2 I would agree with you. I also wouldn't look too closely at the relative costs of environmental or worker safety measures in effect during WW2 versus today either. Nor would I look too closely at the prices paid to US manufacturers under gov't contracts vs. actual costs of production during WW2 either, for that matter. Unless the US repeats its WW2 destiny and places itself in a similar position of being able to dictate policy to every country in the world, there will never be a 'level' playing field.
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-18-2005 at 03:07 PM.

  8. #33
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    If a company can't pass on the true cost of producing their product to US customers, in the case of this example by gov't mandate, then they will indeed respond to market forces and get the hell out of the business of making that product. ...Your proposal opens the door to similar situations developing for virtually every 'durable good' which was formerly produced in the USA but which is now produced in Mexico.
    Your example is medical...which may require intervention to monitor prices (and appropriate subsidies for low income users) but I don't see the reason why the government would put any price controls on 90% of consumer products (DVDs, games, PCs, etc)- whatever the real price is, let people pay it or do without. Good Ol' Capitalism...free market!

    What suggestion do you have to balance America's ability to compete (now that even high tech jobs go overseas), protect against foreign blowback pollution, increase our homeland security (by making sure we have manufacturing capacity here that weneed) and improve trade balances?


    Unless the US repeats its WW2 destiny and places itself in a similar position of being able to dictate policy to every country in the world, there will never be a 'level' playing field.
    Isn't this GW's goal? involve our might in every overseas area he sees a need, or rather an opportunity for profit?

    My proposal doesn't require any foreign policy...just regulation of US imports.

  9. #34
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years

    I don't see the reason why the government would put any price controls on 90% of consumer products (DVDs, games, PCs, etc)- whatever the real price is, let people pay it or do without. Good Ol' Capitalism...free market!
    In the consumer electronics example you used, indeed there would be no major consequence of US consumers having to 'do without' a new video game. BTW the amount of pollution generated in the production of DVD's, PC's and other consumer electronics is pretty minor and reasonably inexpensive to mitigate, meaning that the actual consequences of your proposal would be minor.

    Perhaps my choice of a pharma example wasn't the best, but the reason I chose it was to accentuate the complexity of the 'do without' option i.e. millions of people being forced to 'do without' flu vaccine because all but one of the former US manufacturers had already been forced to get out of that business due to lack of profitability. BTW when those millions of people started complaining, it didn't take long for various state gov'ts to decide to throw FDA regulations overboard and go searching the world for additional supplies even though the potential suppliers didn't comply with FDA regulations, did it ?

    I don't want to keep hammering on this issue, particularly in light of the circular discussion, but I'll make one last try. The rule of thumb these days is that if something can ship UPS you build it in Asia, but if something must ship by truck you build it in Mexico. Therefore a large chunk of the Maquila business involves major appliances, auto parts, etc. Just exactly how does a consumer decide to do without a refrigerator ? If your refrigerator dies and you need a new one, faced with the choice under your proposal of paying $1,500 for a US made unit (or imported under US reg compliance) instead of paying $500 for a Mexican made unit today, nobody is going to decide to simply 'do without'. Thus that $1000 in extra cost for a simple refrigerator is going to ripple through the entire economy i.e. higher rents for furnished apartments, higher taxpayer financied HUD costs, demand for higher welfare benefits, demand for higher minimum wage etc.

    What suggestion do you have to balance America's ability to compete (now that even high tech jobs go overseas), protect against foreign blowback pollution, increase our homeland security (by making sure we have manufacturing capacity here that weneed) and improve trade balances?
    In today's global economy there really is only one answer. However it's an answer that most of America doesn't want to hear. Do away with the 'artificial' high standard of living in America - cut welfare, cut medicaid, cut minimum wage, cut mandatory employee benefits, and let the entire system of wages and prices readjust. Until conditions in the US come into some semblance of a 'level playing field' with the rest of the world no amount of gov't intervention is going to actually accomplish anything positive. Consider the real world ramifications that an unemployed US welfare recipient has about an equal standard of living to a Mexican IT professional !

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-19-2005 at 03:45 AM.

  10. #35
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie
    BTW the amount of pollution generated in the production of DVD's, PC's and other consumer electronics is pretty minor and reasonably inexpensive to mitigate,
    Great! then why are these things made overseas now? Could it be :
    The lack of factory safety standards and non-living wages
    The lack of emissions controls, meaninmg waste PCPs, Lead, Mercury and other toxic chemicals which are in almost EVERY Electronic device (but don't have to be...NEC proved that with its "green" computer) can simply be dumped...and any smoke emissions can simply be released
    The lack of inspections to make sure any laws are followed

    Perhaps my choice of a pharma example wasn't the best, but the reason I chose it was to accentuate the complexity of the 'do without' option
    No doubt there are a few categories which need to be looked at and possibly phased in over time (though I doubt alot of emissions are released in the making of vaccines) - but that;s a SMALL FRACTION of the products we import.

    I still haven't heard a viable option to my proposal. Your plan is to let the problems continue until we all choke, the foreign employyees are used like slaves, and eventally a war breaks out?

    when those millions of people started complaining, it didn't take long for various state gov'ts to decide to throw FDA regulations overboard and go searching the world for additional supplies even though the potential suppliers didn't comply with FDA regulations, did it ?
    True, but don't go there. The states
    A) responded with predictable politically-motivated actions in response to a public outcry that ws substantially media generated. Good precedent for wwhat I want to have happen - the public to demand better performance from our vehicles and lower emissions on the factories making our products. THen the gov't t act

    B)did due dilligence in choosing suppliers that were used by other developed and intelligent nations with good testing

    However
    C) since the federal gov't is supposed to be in charge of all imports to the US,I must admit I'm not clear on how the states were allowed to do this. Hell, if we can't legalize marijuana on a state-by-state level, how the hell can we import unregulated drugs from other countries in state-by-state level?> Feds pull highway funding (or have in the past) for one "infraction" but not the other. Different thread alltogether

    Just exactly how does a consumer decide to do without a refrigerator ?
    You haven't shown me that they will have to . WIth a 5 year implementation timeline (or whatever) the companies have time to A) ramp up their factories or B) find another solution to supplying the demand. Same as they did when we implemented seat belts, same as they did when we required other safety improvements on products....why is it any different

    If your refrigerator dies and you need a new one, faced with the choice under your proposal of paying $1,500 for a US made unit (or imported under US reg compliance) instead of paying $500 for a Mexican made unit today, nobody is going to decide to simply 'do without'. Thus that $1000 in extra cost for a simple refrigerator is going to ripple through the entire economy i.e. higher rents for furnished apartments, higher taxpayer financied HUD costs, demand for higher welfare benefits, demand for higher minimum wage etc.
    Again, circular argument, since I've not seen where you can
    A) show these numbers are reality, and that the price difference isn't a few dollars
    B) explained why companies would choose to close their doors if faced with a level playing field
    C) In the rare and almost inconceivable case of problems as you describe, adjustments to the policy would be TEMPORARILY made on a case-by-case basis. The companies would still have to rampup or be replaced by new competitors, but there could be more time made available We're talking about protection of US industry, protection of global worker health, protection of the very enviromnent that provides the natural capital which we depend on for air, water, light and recreation.

    your argument was made when the US required catalytic converters on all imported vehicles. (and domestics). U don't see the car industry as dead, do you?


    I have to say, Im blown away a conservative (usually that means in support of fre trade, competition, capitalism, etc) would support continuing an unbalanced playing field that is detrimental in several ways to the US economy, worker and health. Not to mention our future financial hardship when these factories close, companies go away, and the US Gov't has to move in and clean up the mess. MOre burdens to the taxpayer, more subsidies to the rich


    Do away with the 'artificial' high standard of living in America - cut welfare, cut medicaid, cut minimum wage, cut mandatory employee benefits, and let the entire system of wages and prices readjust. Consider the real world ramifications that an unemployed US welfare recipient has about an equal standard of living to a Mexican IT professional !
    Where in your propssal do we cut MAXIMUM wage - that of CEOs and officers making MILLIONS per year on companies losing money...in some cases thousands of times what their average employees do. Seems like Tha'ts a big expense

    Ditto with stock options not being counted as liabilities - to inflate stock price...

    Cutting management perks would go a long way too - and donations to politicians in the MILLIONS.

    Why start cutting at the bottom? WalMart has 70% of its employees on public assistance already - meaning US TAXPAYERS SUBSIDIZE ALL WALMART ENTERPRISES. That's fair? You really want to make that worse?

    When the top end comes back in line (and as this is captialism, I'm not suggesting that) then you can lean up the small expenses on the bottom end.

    If you take away mandatory benefits, here's what could happen:
    1. Remove SSI, and your older workers that put in their time but never made enough to have a 401k or other retirement will go on public assistance...or go hungry and be foreced to crime. This is a good thing for you?

    2. Remove health benefits, and people will end up in community sponsored ERs instead of getting regular checkups and avoiding issues...again costing the taxpayer more.

    3. Remove unemployment, and outsourced, displaced or other workers will be forced to live on the street (HOMELESS PROBLEM - gotta move them every time a politician comes to make a speech) or start life of crime.

    4. do away with minimum wage, which came about because old big industries were paying their people peanuts, then (because they couldn't afford real estate or other rental housing ) "rented" tehm homes and sold them food in the company store, at rates that far exceeded their income. THis led to indebted workers, unrest, and effectively a slave class. If you strike or try to improve your situation, you're evicted., THIS WILL IMPROVE CONDITIONS IN THE US AND MAKE US MORE COMPETITIVE?

    I hope you can disprove some of these...because the research I did wasn't able to

    Instead:
    Why not do away with our perception of a high standard of livng by making consumers pay the actual cost (including cost of emissions and waste recovery) of the things they use? I see more and more products advertised as disposable, which simply externalizes the cost of dealing with something on the US taxpayer.

    I specifically am NOT regulating any country's wages and social programs- that's the one area they can decide to raise themselves to US levels, we can glide down (though try getting your congressman to push that) to foreign levels, or remain with a competitive difference. It's called capitalism. Called democracy. Supposed to be the cornerstones of our country's values....but maybe not

    I'm a high tech person, but I'm biding against overseas competition every day. That's free trade. As long as they're in safe, clean, easonably non polluting work places, I don't have much to say....more power to them! Societally, we need to examine

  11. #36
    God/dess threlayer's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    5,921
    Thanks
    369
    Thanked 419 Times in 290 Posts
    My Mood
    Fine

    Default Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    1. The changes have accelerated as our activity has grown

    2. Our outputs of heat and pollution are substantially more than the earth saw before, and our work has reduced the earth's natural ability (less open space, wetlands, and green) to cleanse itself.

    3. We need to build, develop and grow- but we should find a way to do that in the most balanced way possible- after all, we're the smartest species aren't we? Smart enough to help moderate our own impact?
    I swear sometimes I think we are not the smartest species, especially when we are out to destroy ourselves and the whole planet.

    Now dolphins. They don't destroy their environment. They swim, eat, play, and fuck all day and night. And they can beat up a shark. Now, that's a life worth living.
    I loved going to strip clubs; I actually made some friends there. Now things are different for the clubs and for me. As a result I am not as happy.

    Customers are not entitled to grope, disrespect, or rob strippers. This is their job, not their hobby, and they all need income. Clubs are not just some erotic show for guys to view while drinking.

    NOTE: anything I post here, outside of a direct quote, is my opinion only, which I am entitled to. Take it for what you estimate it is worth.

  12. #37
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years

    I swear sometimes I think we are not the smartest species, especially when we are out to destroy ourselves and the whole planet.

    Now dolphins. They don't destroy their environment. They swim, eat, play, and fuck all day and night. And they can beat up a shark. Now, that's a life worth living.
    And humans could theoretically live exactly the same way ... if they gave up technology and went back to living in a 'traditional' fashion i.e. hunting, fishing, farming. Of course given the current world population a few billion humans would necessarily have to die in the process because the resources of a 'natural' environment unaided by technology couldn't sustain them.


    I have to say, Im blown away a conservative (usually that means in support of fre trade, competition, capitalism, etc) would support continuing an unbalanced playing field that is detrimental in several ways to the US economy, worker and health. Not to mention our future financial hardship when these factories close, companies go away, and the US Gov't has to move in and clean up the mess. MOre burdens to the taxpayer, more subsidies to the rich
    I'm NOT advocating these things. I am merely saying that given political and economic realities, and given the ripple effect of well intentioned but vastly underaccounted US environmental, labor and social services laws that are not likely to be changed in the forseeable future, that an 'unbalanced playing field' is here to stay for a while at least. My only major point in this entire thread was to point out the irony that, despite the good intentions of some environmental laws, the real world results have actually been that they have, via the ripple effect, created more pollution on a global scale than if 20 year old 'reasonable' regulations had been left in place (with US bankruptcies, job losses, trade deficit etc. being other manifestations of that same ripple effect).
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-19-2005 at 06:32 PM.

  13. #38
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Mount Kilimanjaro stripped of its snowcap for the first time in 11,000 years

    [QUOTE=discretedancer]And driving cars that run on biofuel, using solar and
    wind power to create electriicty (along with selected hydro) and implemented
    lower-toxicity technologies in computers and other devices. This stuff is
    known now (hell, Ford and Toyota both are making plastics from sweet potato)
    and much more will be learned. So it's not black and white as you describe.

    Check out [email protected] magazine.

    Humorous statement, since the world as it presently is has the same problem.
    We're destroying the very systems we depend on, eating out our host like a
    parasite. And we know we're causing damage - we know there are alternatives
    - but aren't implementing them. Care to discuss whether the current
    population and society are sustainable? We both know our current path is
    not permanently going to allow the planet, or the human race, to continue.
    No life without clean air, and water. None of that if we destroy all the
    habitats and poison the planet.

    How long before the countries that we're using as environmetnal dumps now
    get pissed and fight back> How long before their young people decide there
    are better (high tech) jobs they can steal from the US...and refuse to
    manufacture our crap anymore? How sustainable is a resource war when
    people are fighting for their lives? And what will the out-of-work
    Americans (factory workers and IT gurus unite!) think of this war?

    US environmental regs....you mean the ones GW has been eliminating as the
    economy continues to tank? The ones that are LOWER than many in the
    European Union ... per the previous link?

    If people want to change that, they can. This isn't a train track, we (as
    humans, as Americans) have control

    Yes, and I disputed that point and asked for your evidence, which never
    materialized. Your entire premise is faulty...the math doesn't work.

    However, I presented an option which if implemented would solve BOTH
    problems...that you simply called unrealistic

    And, you still haven't shown a plan to solve the problem, other than
    re-introducing pollution into the US and lowering the average worker's
    standard of living. As was said so often in the campaign, "Here's my plan,
    what's yours?"[

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-17-2010, 09:35 PM
  2. First time breaking $1,000!!
    By SpeakngEZ in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 02-10-2009, 12:05 PM
  3. Who is (or was) a FULL time student AND stripped to pay for it?
    By Ms. Mia Roberts in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: 10-22-2008, 03:31 PM
  4. Replies: 36
    Last Post: 07-17-2008, 02:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •