Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 42

Thread: Human damage to earth worsening fact

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

    Default Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Human Damage to Earth Worsening Fast (YAHOO NEWS) Saturday, 6:47 PM
    This is getting scarier!!!( Anyone have any suggestions on what to do here? ((((HELP!!))))

    Science - Reuters (YAHOO NEWS)


    Report: Human Damage to Earth Worsening Fast

    Wed Mar 30, 9:17 AM ET Science - Reuters


    By Alister Doyle, Environment Correspondent

    OSLO (Reuters) - Humans are damaging the planet at an unprecedented rate and raising risks of abrupt collapses in nature that could spur disease, deforestation or "dead zones" in the seas, an international report said on Wednesday.



    The study, by 1,360 experts in 95 nations, said a rising human population had polluted or over-exploited two thirds of the ecological systems on which life depends, ranging from clean air to fresh water, in the past 50 years.


    "At the heart of this assessment is a stark warning," said the 45-member board of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.


    "Human activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted," it said.


    Ten to 30 percent of mammal, bird and amphibian species were already threatened with extinction, according to the assessment, the biggest review of the planet's life support systems.


    "Over the past 50 years, humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively than in any comparable time in human history, largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber and fuel," the report said.


    "This has resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on earth," it added. More land was changed to cropland since 1945, for instance, than in the 18th and 19th centuries combined.


    GETTING WORSE


    "The harmful consequences of this degradation could grow significantly worse in the next 50 years," it said. The report was compiled by experts, including from U.N. agencies and international scientific and development organizations.


    U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan said the study "shows how human activities are causing environmental damage on a massive scale throughout the world, and how biodiversity -- the very basis for life on earth -- is declining at an alarming rate."


    The report said there was evidence that strains on nature could trigger abrupt changes like the collapse of cod fisheries off Newfoundland in Canada in 1992 after years of over-fishing.


    Future changes could bring sudden outbreaks of disease. Warming of the Great Lakes in Africa due to climate change, for instance, could create conditions for a spread of cholera.


    And a build-up of nitrogen from fertilizers washed off farmland into seas could spur abrupt blooms of algae that choke fish or create oxygen-depleted "dead zones" along coasts.


    It said deforestation often led to less rainfall. And at some point, lack of rain could suddenly undermine growing conditions for remaining forests in a region.


    The report said that in 100 years, global warming widely blamed on burning of fossil fuels in cars, factories and power plants, might take over as the main source of damage. The report mainly looks at other, shorter-term risks.


    And it estimated that many ecosystems were worth more if used in a way that maintains them for future generations.


    A wetland in Canada was worth $6,000 a hectare (2.47 acres), as a habitat for animals and plants, a filter for pollution, a store for water and a site for human recreation, against $2,000 if converted to farmland, it said. A Thai mangrove was worth $1,000 a hectare against $200 as a shrimp farm.





    "Ecosystems and the services they provide are financially significant and...to degrade and damage them is tantamount to economic suicide," said Klaus Toepfer, head of the U.N. Environment Program.

    The study urged changes in consumption, better education, new technology and higher prices for exploiting ecosystems.

    "Governments should recognize that natural services have costs," A.H. Zakri of the U.N. University and a co-chair of the report told Reuters. "Protection of natural services is unlikely to be a priority for those who see them as free and limitless."

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    ************************************************
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    If you can become a charter member to help even more PLEASE!!! Do so now! I have a very bad vision of the destruction of our planet(

    Please! Find it in your heart to become a charter member. Or give it as a gift to someone you know love & Trust.

    https://commerce1.care2.com/charter.html

    Call if you do not want to give out Credit Card Info on the Internet. Charter Member Services - (650) 622-0860 x 111

  2. #2
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Hmmm, I hate to tell the so-called experts but our air is actually getting cleaner. According to the EPA. From, "Latest Findings on National Air Quality":

    National air quality levels measured at thousands of monitoring stations across the countryhave shown improvements over the past 20 years for all six principal pollutants.

    But doesn't greaters human activity mean dirtier air? No, not necessarily. Let's look at the last 30 years.
    Since 1970, aggregate emissions of the six principal pollutants have been cut 48 percent. During that same time, U.S. gross domestic product increased 164 percent, energy consumption increased 42 percent, and vehicle miles traveled increased 155 percent.

    So during the last 30 years or so, we drove more, produce more and used more energy, yet our air still got cleaner. The idea that more people has to equal dirtier air is not borne out by science.

    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

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

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    First of all, limiting your scope to only six pollutants (there are MILLIONS in gas fumes alone) and air quality isn't really a complete picture. The above listed article is a bit more "global" in scope than just one issue

    Secondly, we are losing that battle now that the Admin has rolled back or proposed rollbacks of clean air requirments

    Third, how much clenaer is our air becuas e we've shipped all the manufacturing overseas? This of coure leads to worse GLOBAL pollution and the "blowback pollution" problem Melonie brought to light in an earlier thread.

    From :http://www.nrec.org/synapse35/swart.html another perspective
    In the United States, both population growth and over-consumption contribute to environmental destruction. We have only 5% of the world's population but we use more then 25% of the world's commercial energy, drive 1/3 of the world's cars, and produce more garbage than any other nation. In fact, one American consumes as much of the world's resources as 30 people in developing countries At present, there are less then 5 acres of arable land per person on the planet. How much land is needed to grow the crops you eat, the clothes you wear, and to supply the energy you use? Add to that the land covered over to provide a place for you to live, to work, or to study, and roads to travel on. How much of your 5 acres is left over for the millions of other species that inhabit the earth? If human population reaches 12 billion, there will be less than two acres of arable land per person. How much of the earth's resources will be left to support non-human life?

    More info at http://www.carryingcapacity.org/facts2003.html

  4. #4
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    First of all, limiting your scope to only six pollutants (there are MILLIONS in gas fumes alone) and air quality isn't really a complete picture. The above listed article is a bit more "global" in scope than just one issue
    First, I'm not the one that "limited" the scope to six pollutants, the EPA did. Secondly, they are the six principal pollutants as defined by the EPA. Doesn't it make sense that if you want to clean up the air that you concentrate your efforts on the worst pollutants? That's just sound science. The thrust of the article is that among other things, the air has gotten worse and worse. Science says differently. Lastly, the article says that the reason the air has gotten dirtier and dirtier is because of human activity. That's not the case. Over the last thirty some odd years, economic and human activity has increased dramatically in our country while our air has gotten cleaner.

    Secondly, we are losing that battle now that the Admin has rolled back or proposed rollbacks of clean air requirments

    Third, how much clenaer is our air becuas e we've shipped all the manufacturing overseas? This of coure leads to worse GLOBAL pollution and the "blowback pollution" problem Melonie brought to light in an earlier thread.
    A fair question, obviously it doesn't help the world as a whole if we "export" our pollution elsewhere. However, I would argue that our country could be a model of how economic growth and clean air can go together. In fact, I would argue that those countries experiencing a decent standard of living with hope for greater gains in the future are the very countries at the forefront of environmental issues. Rather than issue gloom and doom predictions, why not hold out capitalism as a proven method to have both economic prosperity and a cleaner environment?

    From :http://www.nrec.org/synapse35/swart.html another perspective
    In the United States, both population growth and over-consumption contribute to environmental destruction. We have only 5% of the world's population but we use more then 25% of the world's commercial energy, drive 1/3 of the world's cars, and produce more garbage than any other nation. In fact, one American consumes as much of the world's resources as 30 people in developing countries
    Yes, but you left out one fact. With roughly 5% of the world's population, the U.S. produces approximately 25% of the world's goods and services. That's not a case of over-consumption, that's a case of raw materials going where they can be used more efficiently. Desperately poor countries in Africa have little need for zinc, and if it weren't for the export market they wouldn't bother mining it. The U.S. on the other hand needs raw materials to manufacture things.
    At present, there are less then 5 acres of arable land per person on the planet. How much land is needed to grow the crops you eat, the clothes you wear, and to supply the energy you use? Add to that the land covered over to provide a place for you to live, to work, or to study, and roads to travel on. How much of your 5 acres is left over for the millions of other species that inhabit the earth? If human population reaches 12 billion, there will be less than two acres of arable land per person. How much of the earth's resources will be left to support non-human life?
    Running out of arable land? No, we are not. The entire world's population could be fed by an area approximately the size of Texas. Are there occasional periods of drought? Yes, of course there are, However, every single famine in the world over the past twenty years has been the result of political unrest, not long-term environmental disaster. The communist governments of africa are especially good at using starvation as a way of bringing their political opponents to heel. Besides that, modern technology in the food industry is more than capable of feeding our population. Genetically modified seeds hold tremondous promise is helping to feed our growing population.

    Lastly, some historical perspective to all this doomsaying might be order. Here's a quote from a Stanford Professor prominent in the environmental movement: "The battle to feed all of humanity is over...hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death". That statement was made by Paul Ehrlich in 1968. Yet despite none of these doomsday predictions having come true, people continue to believe them. In cateloging our planet's resources, you overlook the biggest resource we have, the human brain. The problem with too many environmentalist is that they see people as the problem. People are the solution.
    Last edited by Destiny; 04-03-2005 at 03:59 PM.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  5. #5
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    . Over the last thirty some odd years, economic and human activity has increased dramatically in our country while our air has gotten cleaner
    Yes, thanks to Melonie's "last decimal point" environmetnal rules and the exporting of factories overseas. I'm lookig for numbers on GLOBAL pollution, but all I find are bad reports about developing nations (where our factories are).

    I would argue that our country could be a model of how economic growth and clean air can go together.
    WHERE SHOULD THE COUNTRIES WHICH NOW PRODUCE MOST OF WHAT THE US CONSUMES EXPORT THEIR FACTORIES TO?

    I proposed elsewhere that global factories producing for the US should meet our enviro guidelines - to help the global economy and environment Without that, we'e just exported our pollution

    /quote] why not hold out capitalism as a proven method to have both economic prosperity and a cleaner environment?[/quote] because if you look globally (even US factories overseas) it isn't true.

    , the U.S. produces approximately 25% of the world's goods and services.
    NO, we consume 25%...most of what the US consumes is CREATED OVERSEAS. That's why we're running such a killer TRADE DEFICIT that even Newsweek wrote an article on how it's threatening global economyl.

    Running out of arable land? No, we are not. The entire world's population could be fed by an area approximately the size of Texas.
    which is being developed for sprawl, malls, etc

    I also point you to the studies at on how much land each person in the US uses to live, work, eat, etc...and telll me that 's sustainable as 6-10 BILLION people work to reach our level

    I also point to the "water wars" in India and similar countries...fighting over the most basic resource.


    modern technology in the food industry is more than capable of feeding our population. Genetically modified seeds hold tremondous promise is helping to feed our growing population.
    OK, I refer you to www.pasafarming.org and many other sites listing the issues with processed and GM foods regarding our health...not to mention the "agricultural runoff" lsted elsewhere

    The problem with too many environmentalist is that they see people as the problem. People are the solution.
    People are the solution IF THEY ACT PROPERLY. The problem is the ostriches that stick head in ground and say "it's going to be allright - I don't have to look at how my lifestyle affects anyone or anything.

    My work is in BALANCING economy, ecology, environment, and I take to heed the work done by international scientists who say the same thing...we need to live more sustainably and find balance.

    The real dangerous people are the ones who say nothing's wrong, and ignore the growing fire. Yes, we can solve the problem. No, it won't adversely affect our lifestyle or standard of living. Yes, it will require THOUGHT, CARING and EFFORT, and yes, products that are "right" will be more expensive as we compete with subsidized "big business" farms (where 90% of the government money slated for small farmers ends up) and the economy of scale issues as well as higher labor demands for doing it right. The question is..are we willing to do what our HEADS and our SCIENTIStS tell us we need to?

  6. #6
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    Yes, thanks to Melonie's "last decimal point" environmetnal rules and the exporting of factories overseas. I'm lookig for numbers on GLOBAL pollution, but all I find are bad reports about developing nations (where our factories are).
    Well now, first you complained that the EPA study only covered the six principal polluntants, now you give the EPA's rules credit for our cleaner air. Which is it?
    WHERE SHOULD THE COUNTRIES WHICH NOW PRODUCE MOST OF WHAT THE US CONSUMES EXPORT THEIR FACTORIES TO?

    I proposed elsewhere that global factories producing for the US should meet our enviro guidelines - to help the global economy and environment Without that, we'e just exported our pollution
    Why is it either/or? The data shows that is is possible to have economic growth and a cleaner environment.

    because if you look globally (even US factories overseas) it isn't true.
    Well if capitalism isn't the answer what is? Socialism? Ever been to Mexico? It's not the cleanest place in the world.

    NO, we consume 25%...most of what the US consumes is CREATED OVERSEAS. That's why we're running such a killer TRADE DEFICIT that even Newsweek wrote an article on how it's threatening global economyl.
    The latest study for 2002 study estimated the United States' Annual Gross Domestic at $10.45 trillion. The next country was China with a GDP 5.989 trillion.

    Definition: The gross domestic product (GDP) or value of all final goods and services produced within a nation in a given year. GDP dollar estimates in the Factbook are derived from purchasing power parity (PPP) calculations. See the CIA World Factbook for more information.

    The idea that we are a nation of lazy goof-offs hogging more than our fair share of the world's resources is simply not true.
    Now think about it, we have roughly 260 million people, yet we produce almost twice as many goods and services as China, a country with a billion people. One could make the case that if the rest of the world was as efficient as our country, much of the perceived problems would disappear.

    which is being developed for sprawl, malls, etc
    Obviously you've never been to West Texas.

    I'd like to argue more, but Arrested Development is coming on.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  7. #7
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    Well now, first you complained that the EPA study only covered the six principal polluntants, now you give the EPA's rules credit for our cleaner air. Which is it?
    Sorry, I'm not a black and white person...the EPA can be right on one thing and wrong on another.

    Bigger issue is that EPA is a national group, with national studies. The references in the YAHOO article are folks with a global perspective.


    Why is it either/or? The data shows that is is possible to have economic growth and a cleaner environment.
    I never said either or.

    In fact, my mission, along with Paul Hawken (author of Natural Capitalism) and many others is that WE CAN HAVE BOTH. A step toward having it would be to use our economic strength to encourage ALL producers in ALL countries to step up to the plate

    Well if capitalism isn't the answer what is? Socialism? Ever been to Mexico? It's not the cleanest place in the world.
    Where does this become a debate of capitalism? I am fully in support of capitalism..all my businesses depend on it. We just need to stop Excluding and externalizing things like natural capital (environmental and natiral resources) when counting profits. THe dollar is not the only definition (thankully, since our spiraling deficits make foreign currency much more attractive) of profit. Ever hear of the "triple bottom line" (economy, ecology, lifestyle/social issues)?

    Try reading [email protected], Cradle2cradle (book) and looking into sustainable business practices and you'll see that conservation/sustainable business planning is the most capitalist concept in the world. It starts with "pay for what you use, use resources carefully"

    The latest study for 2002 study estimated the United States' Annual Gross Domestic at $10.45 trillion. The next country was China with a GDP 5.989 trillion.
    Again, why is this part of a debate whether or not we should improve how we do things?

    Or try http://www.mabico.com/en/news/200502.../article18167/
    "'f US real GDP gains that are remarkably close to 4.0 percent, ... Meanwhile, imports increased 11.4 percent, higher than the initial ."

    The idea that we are a nation of lazy goof-offs hogging more than our fair share of the world's resources is simply not true
    and it was never said

    One could make the case that if the rest of the world was as efficient as our country, much of the perceived problems would disappear.
    Precisely my point! Thank you for making it! Now, let's step up pressure on ALL manufacturers and individuals to be more efficient

  8. #8
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    Sorry, I'm not a black and white person...the EPA can be right on one thing and wrong on another.
    No, facts are facts. The fact is that over the last 20 years the numbers for the six prinicpal pollutants have gone done, despite healthy economic growth. Futhermore, the last time I checked, the U.S. was part of the world. Therefore since our air has actually gotten cleaner, the statement, "a rising human population had polluted or over-exploited two thirds of the ecological systems on which life depends, ranging from clean air to fresh water, in the past 50 years." is not true of the entire world.

    Bigger issue is that EPA is a national group, with national studies. The references in the YAHOO article are folks with a global perspective.
    I didn't know smog stopped at the border. And I'm to believe that the motives of the people quoted in that study are totally pure? "The study urged changes in consumption, better education, new technology and higher prices for exploiting ecosystems". I wonder who they have in mind to educate us and work on that new technology? It seems that every environmental study is done more as a project to drum up work for environmental scientists. This is understandable I guess since foundations and governments rarely dole out grant money to study problems that don't exist.

    I never said either or.
    You asked where the foreign factories should relocate to. As if that is the only alternative.

    In fact, my mission, along with Paul Hawken (author of Natural Capitalism) and many others is that WE CAN HAVE BOTH. A step toward having it would be to use our economic strength to encourage ALL producers in ALL countries to step up to the plate
    Well, there's a little problem there. It's called national sovereignty. See, the other countries of the world don't like us throwing our weight around. Let's put things in perspective. In France they have a 35 hour work week. One result is that the typical American worker is a lot more productive than the average French worker, leaving the french economy at a disadvantage. What would we say if France banned all imports from the U.S. until we adopted the 35 hour work week like they have? How is your plan any different?

    Where does this become a debate of capitalism? I am fully in support of capitalism..all my businesses depend on it. We just need to stop Excluding and externalizing things like natural capital (environmental and natiral resources) when counting profits. THe dollar is not the only definition (thankully, since our spiraling deficits make foreign currency much more attractive) of profit. Ever hear of the "triple bottom line" (economy, ecology, lifestyle/social issues)?
    The type of Planned Economy you promote doesn't sound like capitalism to me. Let's look at the poor peasant chopping down the rain forest. He's just struggling to survive, the reason he doesn't give a thought about the fragile environment he's destroying is not that he doesn't care, it's that he can't afford to care, he's trying feed his family. All the "education" in the world isn't going to change his practices. The only thing that will change him is economic prosperity. Which would you rather he do, chop down the rain forest or make sneakers for Nike to sell in Wal-Mart for $5 a day?

    Try reading [email protected], Cradle2cradle (book) and looking into sustainable business practices and you'll see that conservation/sustainable business planning is the most capitalist concept in the world. It starts with "pay for what you use, use resources carefully"
    What about lumber companies? Are they they type of sustainable businesses you favor?

    Again, why is this part of a debate whether or not we should improve how we do things?
    You stated that, "most of what the US consumes is CREATED OVERSEAS." If a relative handful of Americans are producing almost twice as much stuff as a billion Chinese, we must be selling a hell of a lot of it to somebody out there. The U.S. is the most efficient producer in the world.

    and it was never said
    You stated, "We have only 5% of the world's population but we use more then 25% of the world's commercial energy, drive 1/3 of the world's cars, and produce more garbage than any other nation. In fact, one American consumes as much of the world's resources as 30 people in developing countries". I pointed out that the reason for that is that is the world's resources are naturally coming here where they can be used most efficiently. Take two automobile plants. One uses modern technology, computers, robots, etc. to produce 200 cars an hour. The other one makes their cars by hand and a few simple tools, and produces one car a day. The first plant uses a lot more resources, but it does so much more efficiently.
    Precisely my point! Thank you for making it! Now, let's step up pressure on ALL manufacturers and individuals to be more efficient
    The policies you advocate are not the policies that have made us the richest country in the history of the world or the most productive economy in the world. The free market forces efficiencies on an economy. Generally speaking, governments and unions force inefficiencies. In a totally free market, the organization that is inefficient will either stagnate or cease to exist. Efficiencies don't come from "pressure". What organization would you suggest use "our economic strength to encourage ALL producers in ALL countries to step up to the plate"? the government? You really expect the same people that brought us the $700 hammer to start telling foreign businesses how to operate more efficiently?
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  9. #9
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    a rising human population had polluted or over-exploited two thirds of the ecological systems on which life depends, ranging from clean air to fresh water, in the past 50 years." is not true of the entire world.
    nope, just 2/3 of the ecological systems on earth. Last time I checked, air was but one of our ecological systems, and the US didn't occupy (nor does the EPA monitor) 2/3 of the world.



    I didn't know smog stopped at the border.
    Precicely why the US should monitor the emissions from every plant having anything to do with our economy. It's self preservation

    And I'm to believe that the motives of the people quoted in that study are totally pure?
    Maybe. I doubt the Secretary General of the UN will have trouble finding work when the term is over. Do you really think 1 outdated EPA study is more impressve than the work of 1,000 international scientists? You really think it's more comprehensive?

    "The study urged changes in consumption, better education, new technology and higher prices for exploiting ecosystems".
    I don't see anything bad here The information (at least basic) already exists...we already know that globally consumption and generation of waste (including air and water pollutants) is on the rise...and that:
    Every 3 months the US throws out enough glass and plastic to rebuidl the entire US commercial airline fleet.

    in the same period, we waste enough other material to build a wall along both coasts more than a story high.

    Tell me that's a consumption pattern that doesn't need to change. We're not talking anything that will negatively impact economucs, just balancing economics with other factors

    You asked where the foreign factories should relocate to. As if that is the only alternative.
    Amd I see you suggesting so many.

    Well, there's a little problem there. It's called national sovereignty. See, the other countries of the world don't like us throwing our weight around.
    1. if selling to our country is important (and if we actually have soverignty as well) then they'll deal with it - what they have now is us exporting our pollution to them

    Their workers and citizens will LOVE us, because theyll be less poisons in their atmosphere and community.

    It's capitalixm...we're the customer, we get to make demands. The companies who refuse to meet those demands don;t get the money.

    What would we say if France banned all imports from the U.S. until we adopted the 35 hour work week like they have?
    First, my plan impacts worker and community health...things that we've established the international community is very concerned with

    2. france is a bad example, since they are the FIRST to control imports

    3. they have EVERY RIGHT to do so, if they so choose. We as a nation would then decide if we want to play in that arena. If selling to them was vital enough to our needs, we could consider it.

    Listen, we already require overseas factories to build products that meet US safety and other guidelines...no one in those countries complains about that. Why is this any different.

    [QUOTE] The type of Planned Economy you promote doesn't sound like capitalism to me. [QUOTE] What planned economy? Simply require that everything coming into US market is made safely (good for our environment, the overseas worker and international security.) THat's it. No socialist blanket, no communist 5 year plan.

    Let's look at the poor peasant chopping down the rain forest. He's just struggling to survive,
    And the company he's selling to tells him what kind of trees to cut, etc. they pay him a tiny fraction of their income becuase there are no controls in place requiring he make a living wage. No controls to make his employer not overwork him, poison him to make crops grow faster, etc. A simple change to US import policy fixes all that. The lowly farmer might not have the time to care, but his bosses, their bosses, their clients and finally the customer (us) have the chance, choice and responsibility. It's in everybody's best interest INCLUDING the farmer.



    You talk about humans having brains and using them. Why don't we?

    Which would you rather he do, chop down the rain forest or make sneakers for Nike to sell in Wal-Mart for $5 a day?
    I'd rather he sustainably utilize the rainforest resources OR make sneakers at a living wage in a safe factory. That is, if his employers value the profit they make of him and the US market.

    Both jobs can be done correctly, sustainably and make a profit. Otherwise, the Dow Jones Index of Sustainable Companies wouldn't be outperforming other parts of the stock market.


    What about lumber companies? Are they they type of sustainable businesses you favor?
    IF they utilize sustianable practices...which a few do. Most don't because (even in our pristine national forests, which were supposed to be protected for all US citizens) there's little presure. I went to a home show, quizzed the owners of several "hardwood" products dealers about the sustainability rules and resources (where do they get the lumber, is it harvested correctly, etc) and NOT ONE could answer that they even knew what I was talking about!

    We all know the rainforest isn't sustainably harvested. Neither is the lumbering in your national park or many other places. SOME Companies are making strides, but few see the economic reason to when customers don't care and the government lets it go.

    In short, lumber companies COULD do well, but many DON't

    again, I refer you to the resources I suggested.

    f a relative handful of Americans are producing almost twice as much stuff as a billion Chinese,
    And China represents the entire world from which we import? OK...

    If we were the world's #1 producer, then why are we running a TRADE DEFICIT for generations? clearly, we're importing more than we export - and the increase in our imports is growing faster than our GDP

    But for the last time....we're not having and ECONOMICS discussion, were having a SUSTAIINABILITY discussion. BALANCING the triple bottom line.

    The first plant uses a lot more resources, but it does so much more efficiently.
    Cars. bad example. 90% of them are made (at least some components) overseas. last time I checked NOT ONE of the Chrysler/Jeep models was made in the US (dealer said yes, I asked where, he said Quebec, I said when was that made a US State?)

    the government? You really expect the same people that brought us the $700 hammer to start telling foreign businesses how to operate more efficiently?
    Nope. I expect people, concerned about their future and the health of their families, offspring and planet, to demand a change. We all see the changes and waste...why not start making GRADUAL changes now to avoid a DISASTER later?


    Remember, we;re supposed to be smart. We're supposed to be a government of the people, and we're supposed to use what we know.

    It won't end the economy...it will allow growth to continue FOREVER because we won't be eating away at the systems on which our economy and life depend. You don't light a fire in the basement and then go to bed upstairs.

  10. #10
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    ... The problem is the ostriches that stick head in ground and say "it's going to be allright - I don't have to look at how my lifestyle affects anyone or anything.
    Well lets talk about another winged creature shall we? Ever hear the story of Chicken Little?

    One part of my posts that you never qouted or addressed is the part about Stanford Professor Paul Ehrlich. He's the one who predicted the death of hundreds of millions of people in the 1970's due to starvation. One would think that after his dire prediction failed to come true that he would go back to his office in the ivy-covered world of education and keep quiet. No, he continued to make dire predictions of impending ecological doom, each one more dramatic than the last, none of which came true. Well, one would at least assume that people would ignore his predictions of gloom and doom since his "science" had shown itself to be totally unreliable right? No, Professor Ehrlich and his wife were granted numerous awards along with hefty cash prizes for their "scientific" work on the environment. This, despite the fact that none of their predictions of imminent environmental disaster have ever come true. Only in the world of environmentalism can you be wrong 100% of the time and reach the pinnacle of your profession. From Paul Ehrlich to Al Gore, this is a trend that has repeated itself over and over for the last 30 years. Environmentalists make fantastic claims of imminent ecological disaster, each one more castastrophic than the last. When their predictions fail to materialize, they don't shut up and go rethink thier science, they just continue on with their doomsday forecasts. Is it any wonder the majority of the population tunes them out? The environmental movement has a real credibility problem and the only way people are ever going to take environmentalists seriously is if they acknowledge it.

    Why is environmental "science" wrong so much of the time? Simple. It is predicated on an erroneous assumption. Enviornmentalist take short term trends and extrapolate them into future and draw terrible conclusions. Their predictions are usually prefaced with the phrase, "If current trends continue..." Well, the one thing history teaches us is that current trends will not continue indefinitely. There was a time in this country when a primary source of power was water, which was used to power mills. The reason many towns sprang up along the banks or rivers and creeks was to take advantage of this source of energy. An environmentalists back then could have calculated the growing population, measured the amount of water availible for powering grist mills and "concluded" that the U.S. was in danger of imminent starvation due to a lack of water to power the mills to feed us. Such may seem logical, but history tells us it would have been dead wrong. The same is true of modern environmentalists. You keep saying, "we can't go on like this". But history teaches us that we won't go on like this and that the change will not come from any Central Planning on the part of environmentalists either. The poor guy grinding out his grain on a grist mill could not have imagined a world in which more power produced by that mill would be delivered to every american's home at the flick of a switch. In the same way, we cannot look into the future and see what alternative sources of energy the Free Market will provide in the long term. That's not putting our head's in the sand, that's an honest assessment of the great capacity of the human mind for innovation.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  11. #11
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    I didn't answer the comment about Elrich for 2 reasons:
    1. Both sides have been wrong. People said Aerosols had no impact on ozone, smoking wasn't bad for you, etc. The fact that someone on the other side was wrong is no big deal...

    2. i'm not chicken little...my approch is pragmatic. When a business sees a loss or risk of loss they take action....but when the risk is environmental, accusations of doomsday predictions fly.

    Bottom line: We KNOW some of our actions have dangerous consequences, and some of them (like genetically engineered food) have unknown consequences both good and bad.

    We KNOW there are ways to do what we already do better (more efficient cars, less dependence on fossil fuels, less wasteful production methods, more recyclable "closed loop" technologies and packaging. We also know these things could save money in the long run and create new industries and jobs (again, the DJSI and others)

    We KNOW there are cost to taxpayers and the general public when companies abuse natural resources for their own gain -costs the companies (even aside from subsidies that fund some of these efforts) don't ever take into account or get billed for.

    Yet somehow we want to ignore all these things, wait for some future time when the change will magically happen....regardless of who or what will be lost or hurt in the meantime. It just doesn't make sense.

  12. #12
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    Maybe. I doubt the Secretary General of the UN will have trouble finding work when the term is over. Do you really think 1 outdated EPA study is more impressve than the work of 1,000 international scientists? You really think it's more comprehensive?
    You really think the U.N. is free of all political motivation? Please.

    I don't see anything bad here The information (at least basic) already exists...we already know that globally consumption and generation of waste (including air and water pollutants) is on the rise...and that:
    Every 3 months the US throws out enough glass and plastic to rebuidl the entire US commercial airline fleet.

    in the same period, we waste enough other material to build a wall along both coasts more than a story high.
    So what? We have plenty of vacant land to bury our trash in.

    Amd I see you suggesting so many.
    No need to, as people begin to enjoy greater economic prosperity, the will demand a cleaner environment.
    Their workers and citizens will LOVE us, because theyll be less poisons in their atmosphere and community.
    Ah yes, The Worker. Glad to see someone is looking our for him, now that Marxism is dead. Funny I don't hear a huge clamouring in the underdeveloped countries of the world for our "help".

    Listen, we already require overseas factories to build products that meet US safety and other guidelines...no one in those countries complains about that. Why is this any different.
    No. We require the products that are sold here to meet our safety standards. That's an entirely different thing than regulating the factories themselves.

    I'd rather he sustainably utilize the rainforest resources OR make sneakers at a living wage in a safe factory. That is, if his employers value the profit they make of him and the US market.
    In many parts of the world $5 a day isn't a "living wage" its pratically upper-middle class.

    What about nuclear power? Do you consider that a "sustainable" source of energy?

    If we were the world's #1 producer, then why are we running a TRADE DEFICIT for generations? clearly, we're importing more than we export - and the increase in our imports is growing faster than our GDP
    Sorry, you are wrong:

    World Exports By Country

    1. United States 714,500,000,000 $ 2. Germany 696,900,000,000 $ 3. Japan 447,100,000,000 $ 4. China 436,100,000,000 $ 5. France 346,500,000,000 $ 6. United Kingdom 304,500,000,000 $

    But for the last time....we're not having and ECONOMICS discussion, were having a SUSTAIINABILITY discussion. BALANCING the triple bottom line.
    Sorry, I thought the "triple bottom line" was (economy, ecology, lifestyle/social issues)?

    Cars. bad example. 90% of them are made (at least some components) overseas. last time I checked NOT ONE of the Chrysler/Jeep models was made in the US (dealer said yes, I asked where, he said Quebec, I said when was that made a US State?)
    Then replace cars with widgets, it doesn't matter. The point of the illustration was that the reason the modern factory uses more resources is that it does so much more efficiently. The same is true for our country. The reason we use so much of the world's raw materials is that we do so more efficiently than any other country.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

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

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    You really think the U.N. is free of all political motivation? Please.
    When did I say that...all humans have political motivations. but 1,000 scientists from around the world vs 1 agency concentrating only on the US and responsible to a non-environmental adminsitration...which do you feel is more likely to be slanted? Which presents a GLOBAL rather than NATIONAL picture

    So what? We have plenty of vacant land to bury our trash in.
    perfect ostrich comment. "we have enough land in my town" - butL:
    If that were true, then the garbage barges of the east coast wouldn't have as much trouble finding a home

    Vacant land? You mean the land that currently filters our water, creates clean air, encourages tourism and supports agriculture, not to mention provides a place for developers to put new homes and business? That land

    At the current rate, how long till we use up that "plenty" ? 10 years? 20? For New Jersey, there wont' be ANY buildable open space left in 20 years.

    How many communities do you want to force to live downwind from a dump?

    Where is the logic in throwing away all these nice, reusable materials, just so we can subsidize more extraction and destruction? We already created the metal, glass and plastic...they need to be reused, not tossed.

    No need to, as people begin to enjoy greater economic prosperity, the will demand a cleaner environment.
    and that's exactly what's happening, but you're telling me it's unrealistic to demand it, unfair to business to require cleaner operations, etc. So when does it become OK to demand it

    No. We require the products that are sold here to meet our safety standards. That's an entirely different thing than regulating the factories themselves.
    Wrong. The factories are creating unsafe conditions (blowback pollution, pepole feel exploited by US factories, entire cities gassed because of poor standards) for US citizens worldwide and at home. No difference, just requires you think outside your personal sphere.

    In many parts of the world $5 a day isn't a "living wage" its pratically upper-middle class.
    You used that number as a negative, now you want it to be a positive? Pick one and stay with it.


    What about nuclear power? Do you consider that a "sustainable" source of energy?
    Not unless we can find a use for the waste material to feed another process. In a nutshell, that's teh definition of sustainable processes - that their waste is either a biological or technical nutrient to itself or some other process..so the cycle can continue indefinitely. Again, I refer you to "cradle2cradle" et al


    Sorry, you are wrong:
    I'm wrong we have a trade deficit? your evidence is EXPORTS...you failed to list the amount the US IMPORTS..look here
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/...in600034.shtml

    and here
    http://www.epinet.org/content.cfm/we...tradetestimony

    and many other places. We're clearly IMPORTING more than we're EXPORTING.


    Sorry, I thought the "triple bottom line" was (economy, ecology, lifestyle/social issues)?
    YES..IN BALANCE> Not just 1 point, and not just 1 country.

    Then replace cars with widgets, it doesn't matter. The point of the illustration was that the reason the modern factory uses more resources is that it does so much more efficiently. The same is true for our country. The reason we use so much of the world's raw materials is that we do so more efficiently than any other country.
    So why not protect our economy by encouraging companies to stay here (and use our cleaner factories) and protect the global as well as US environment and lifestyle by making all companies that want to serve our market step up to our environmental AND lifestyle safety standards while the grow a new economy.

    our administration is all about teaching the world democracy and all the things we've learned...EXCEPT how to produce products in an environmentally efficient and safe manner. Makes NO sense..

  14. #14
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    I didn't answer the comment about Elrich for 2 reasons:
    1. Both sides have been wrong. People said Aerosols had no impact on ozone, smoking wasn't bad for you, etc. The fact that someone on the other side was wrong is no big deal...
    You don't consider the fact that one of the leading environmental scientist of the last 30 years was wrong about every single predicition of environmental disaster to be a "big deal"? Well, lets not let facts clutter up the debate.

    Yes the cigarette companies used to produce "studies" showing that their product was safe. And public scorn and ridicule were heaped upon such "studies". My question is why environmental "studies" aren't given the same scrutiny? The environmental movement has a 30 year history of making dramatic predictions of impending ecological catastrophe, which have not come true. Isn't a little skepticism in order here?

    Interestingly, back in the 60's and 70's, the leading environmental scientists were talking aboug global cooling. The theory was that smog would block out the warming rays of the sun, resulting in a lowering of the earth's temperature. Then in the 90's global warming became all the rage. Well, now, if we assume that earth is billions of years old, then geologically speaking, 20 years is overnight. So overnight, scientists change their story from one of the worrying over the planet getting too cold to fretting that the planet is getting too warm. Here's another thought. Maybe they just don't really know? Yet we're supposed adopt programs that will cost us billions of dollars based on this scientific "fact" that in geological time was "discovered" this morning?

    2. i'm not chicken little...my approch is pragmatic. When a business sees a loss or risk of loss they take action....but when the risk is environmental, accusations of doomsday predictions fly.
    The accusations of doomsday predictions are firmly rooted in facts.

    Bottom line: We KNOW ...
    Who "knows"? The same scientists that have been wrong for thirty years? You're advocating a massive global change in business and government strutctures. I'd like to see a little hard evidence first.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  15. #15
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    You used that number as a negative, now you want it to be a positive? Pick one and stay with it.
    You misunderstood me. I never used the $5 a day figure as a negative. I'm perfectly happy for Nike to pay the guy $5 a day so that I can get a good price on my son's sneakers at Wal-Mart. You're the one that has a problem with that, not me.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  16. #16
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    perfect ostrich comment. "we have enough land in my town" - butL:
    If that were true, then the garbage barges of the east coast wouldn't have as much trouble finding a home

    Vacant land? You mean the land that currently filters our water, creates clean air, encourages tourism and supports agriculture, not to mention provides a place for developers to put new homes and business? That land

    At the current rate, how long till we use up that "plenty" ? 10 years? 20? For New Jersey, there wont' be ANY buildable open space left in 20 years.

    How many communities do you want to force to live downwind from a dump?
    I'll say again, obviously you've never been to West Texas

    The fact is that some 400 years after europeans started settling this country, the overwhelming majority of our population still lives within 100 miles of our coasts. No buildable space left in 20 years? That may be true of New Jersey, but it's not true of the majority of the states. The reasons the gargbage barges can't find a place to dump is not for lack of vacant land, it's a lack of political will to establish new dumps. Let's face it, a dump is the ultimate NIMBY project.

    and that's exactly what's happening, but you're telling me it's unrealistic to demand it, unfair to business to require cleaner operations, etc. So when does it become OK to demand it
    Yes, i'm telling you it's unrealistic to demand it. I'll ask again, why don't I hear all the poor, oppressed workers in these underdeveloped countries begging us to use our economic might to improve their lot in life?
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  17. #17
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    You don't consider the fact that one of the leading environmental scientist of the last 30 years was wrong about {the timing of some of} predicition of environmental disaster to be a "big deal"? Well, lets not let facts clutter up the debate.
    First of all, everything he did was NOT incorrect. Maybe made some predictions that haven't come true...but alot has been done in the last 30 years to prevent the predictions from coming true...so who's toknow what would have happened?

    Facts like:
    COmpany profits and national economy actually IMPROVES as environmental initiatives and programs are enforced (your evidence and statement)

    Pollution travels through global weather patterns?

    Companies and societies which don't degrade the systems they depend on can do more properous things for logner time?

    poison gas and chemicals are bad, and should be carefully controlled?

    Pouring arsenic on the ground (to get gold, for one) is wrong?

    Alternatives exist that can avoid some of these dangers and be cost neutral or actually IMPROVE company profits.(again, the links I pointed to)?

    Current governemnt programs support polluting industries, roll back clean air reforms and subsidize currently profitable nonsustainable industries?

    Please, let's debate facts



    The environmental movement has a 30 year history of making dramatic predictions of impending ecological catastrophe, which have not come true. Isn't a little skepticism in order here?
    Let's see...the movement was prove right about aerosols, right that environmental improvements in factories would preserve community health and improve economy, right that vehicle emissions were causing a problem and needed to be addressed (Elrich was key in this), rigth that over-development and unplanned sprawl were hurting our commuities, endangering habitats and species and depleting one of our most precious resources, right that chemicals from industry (ever hear of Love Canal or Woburn Mass, home of "a Civil Action"?) were hurting people's health (again Elrich)...

    Skepticism is good...mind if I be skeptical that industry when left to it's own devices will NOT clean up its act? I see little evidence they will...car companies resist to this day improving their efficiency standards and adjust car designs to AVOID the already lax cafe standards (just ask Subaru why their line of cars qualifies as SUV not sedan or wagon). Chemical companies do anything possible to hide their pollution (including trying to deny people the right to assemble in court actions against them) , advertisers promote 26MPG as remarkable fuel economy (it's remarkably bad, I agree), promoting disposable products that threaten the clean water we all need.

    I'm skeptical that's for sure - and practical. In order for an idea to pass my group's test it must be ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE, ENVIRONMENTALLY EFFICIENT and EFFECTIVE.

    Interestingly, back in the 60's and 70's, the leading environmental scientists were talking aboug global cooling.
    Science goes on and learns....even the former debunkers of global climate change now agree it's an issue - international insurance companies like SwissRE are already paying claims on GCC so heavily that they're investing money in sustainability education. You want to wait a "geological year" until we've really screwed things up irreparably, or take reasonable, practical action now that we KNOW will make a difference and has PROVEN to be cost effective?

    Remember, cost effectve doesn't mean cheapest - it means the most VALUE for the investment. again. BALANCE economy, ecology and lifestyle, not Economy first, everything else if there's time.

    Who "knows"? The same scientists that have been wrong for thirty years? You're advocating a massive global change in business and government strutctures. I'd like to see a little hard evidence first.
    Please,refer to the evidence I proveded...we do know there are alternatives (major companies are applying them, as are people and governments

    we know there are advantages to acting before a problem gets too big

    we know there are BILLIONS spent (see SUPERFUND, among other sources) on federal and state cleanup of environmental problems caused by industry. In my local area, 2 towns were EVACUATED AT FEDERAL EXPENSE because privately owned coal mines caught on fire and couldn't be put out.

  18. #18
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny
    I'll say again, obviously you've never been to West Texas
    so because its' not so in your local area, you deny the trend and scientific evidence from other parts of the country and world?

    why don't I hear all the poor, oppressed workers in these underdeveloped countries begging us to use our economic might to improve their lot in life?
    umm..because they are too busy working, can't afford the time or money to fight back, are afraid of losing what they have and can't get access to any major media?

    [quote] The fact is that some 400 years after europeans started settling this country, the overwhelming majority of our population still lives within 100 miles of our coasts.[quote] 1. not the statistics I have

    2. most communities, like PA for example, uses up MORE open space every year...even as populations decrease. PA recently was #48 in US for population retention and growth, but #5 in loss of open space. This makes sense how?

    No buildable space left in 20 years? That may be true of New Jersey, but it's not true of the majority of the states.
    Statistics? I'll be happy to send some over if your statement is backed up by more than belief.

    The reasons the gargbage barges can't find a place to dump is not for lack of vacant land, it's a lack of political will to establish new dumps.
    One more reason we should look to conservtion and recycling efforts - less money wasted on fighting pointless political bullshit wars that don't actually create anything more than landfills and destroyed watersheds .

    You still haven't answered the question why it makes sense to waste the NATURAL CAPITAL our lives and industries depend on when there's alternatives which accomplish the same goals,

  19. #19
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    I listened to environmental doomsday scenarios in the '60s. They cried wolf a few times too often for me to take them at face value anymore.

    Nevertheless, it would be reponsible for us, don't you think, at a conservative level to act as though our resources and are limited (clue: they are) and to be as good a steward as we can?

    It's perfectly OK for us to apply reasonable regulations to production to achieve this. It's many of the same people who cried "draconian and overbearing!" to environmental regulations in the '70s (instituted under Nixon, no less) who now say, "Everything's cool - air is cleaner now!"

    It's arguably cleaner now because of those "draconian" regulations. In other words, the industrialists have cried wolf a few times too often for me to buy stock in their protests, too.

    Just because things look OK doesn't mean they are. We like to say trees produce oxygen, and so reforestation is cool, but the majority of our oxygen comes from ocean flora. Just because we drive around a city and everything looks normal doesn't mean it's planned well or functions well. Just because there's plenty of empty space doesn't mean it's arable or can even reasonably support a big load of new development.

    I'm not impressed with "science" that comes up with tomorrow's doomsday scenarios. I'm also not impressed with "science" that tells us everything is just fine, and our consumption and pollution can continue unabated with no worries.

  20. #20
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    First of all, everything he did was NOT incorrect. Maybe made some predictions that haven't come true...but alot has been done in the last 30 years to prevent the predictions from coming true...so who's toknow what would have happened?...Please, let's debate facts
    Fact: In 1968 Paul Ehrlich published a book that stated that during the 1970's, "hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death". Which environmental law was adopted worldwide that prevented that from happening? The answer is none. It was just the beginning of the doom and gloom the environmental movement has been pushing for the last 30 years.

    Its so convenient the way the environmentalists get to have it both ways. First, they make all these terrible predictions about impending ecological disasters. When their predictions don't come true they fall back on either:



    1. Well thank god you have us around to force the rules and regulations on you that staved off the catastrophe; or
    2. Well, we might have been a little off on our timing, but rest assured, THE END IS NEAR! Now how about some more grant money to study the problem?
    If they don't go with the one of the first options, they fall back on Plan B, which is, "Well, we may not be 100% positive, but do you really want to take a chance and find out? We'd better adopt all these draconian measures just in case" (You want to wait a "geological year"). Overnight scientist change their minds and declare global warming to be a major threat to life on the planet and we are supposed to assume that they know what they are talking about? We are supposed to believe that somehow their scientific methods have magically improved? Years ago a majority of scientists prescribed bloodletting as a cure for many deseases, the fact that most educated people believed in it didn't make it correct.

    Yes, there, "are advantages to acting before a problem gets too big". There is also something to be said for not following every fad that gets published by some scientist looking for some grant money and to make a name for himself. If global warming truly exists, and if it began at the dawn of the industiral revolution, waiting a few years to make sure of our facts isn't going to change things drastically. However, if global warming is the fad I think it is, a few more years of study will keep us from doing long term damage to our planet's economy for no good reason. I'm always skeptical when people resist studying climate change and whether or not it is occuring. One of the main principles behind the scientific method is that the results are repeatable. If global warming is actually ocurring, the more we study it, the more apparent that fact will become. Yet anyone who suggests we pause and make sure of our facts is accused of "having their head in the sand". Makes you wonder if some of the evironmental scientist are really that sure of their "facts".
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  21. #21
    Jay Zeno
    Guest

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    I heard Paul Erlich speak. He was an evangelist. He was the big advocate of ZPG, which to me is an intuitively sound principle - but there will be disagreement at what level population should be capped, I suppose. He's one of the environmentalists who, to me, cried wolf way too much.

    I haven't addressed global warming, because I'm not convinced of the science, either, even though Discover magazine is beating my head against it every other issue.

    Yes, convenient how environmentalists espouse quick facts to propose draconian measures, and convenient how no science is ever good enough for industrialists. Balance is what's needed, and it's sorely lacking in attitudes - although perhaps that makes for a measure of balance resulting from the debate.

  22. #22
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    The problem (and I face it every day) is that so many people hear the words "conserve" and "sustainability" and jump off the "environut" cliff. They assume ANY suggested change comes from doomsday theories and that simply isn't true.

    Check the sources I pointed to, examine what JZ says and what even our most conservative Republicans say when asked about environmental issues (clue: Republican party is losing members over environmental concerns) and decide for yourself: Do you REALLY believe things can go on forever as they are? Is there REALLY an advantage to waiting?

    You spoke of the "BILLIONS it would cost" to implement conservation measures. I provided evidence that many of the measures are actually profit centers, and most are at least profit-neutral over time. Do you have any evidence to support the opposite case?

  23. #23
    Featured Member Destiny's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,355
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 5 Times in 5 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Quote Originally Posted by discretedancer
    The problem (and I face it every day) is that so many people hear the words "conserve" and "sustainability" and jump off the "environut" cliff. They assume ANY suggested change comes from doomsday theories and that simply isn't true.
    Doomsday Theories? Hmm.....from your original post:

    Human Damage to Earth Worsening Fast...This is getting scarier!!![img]images/smilies/sad.gif[/img]( Anyone have any suggestions on what to do here? ((((HELP!!))))...
    Report: Human Damage to Earth Worsening Fast...Humans are damaging the planet at an unprecedented rate and raising risks of abrupt collapses in nature that could spur disease, deforestation or "dead zones" in the seas,...a rising human population had polluted or over-exploited two thirds of the ecological systems on which life depends, ranging from clean air to fresh water...this assessment is a stark warning,...Human activity is putting such strain on the natural functions of Earth that the ability of the planet's ecosystems to sustain future generations can no longer be taken for granted...Ten to 30 percent of mammal, bird and amphibian species were already threatened with extinction...a substantial and largely irreversible loss in the diversity of life on earth,...GETTING WORSE...harmful consequences of this degradation could grow significantly worse in the next 50 years,...human activities are causing environmental damage on a massive scale throughout the world, and how biodiversity -- the very basis for life on earth -- is declining at an alarming rate....strains on nature could trigger abrupt changes like the collapse of cod fisheries off Newfoundland...sudden outbreaks of disease....a spread of cholera...choke fish or create oxygen-depleted "dead zones" along coasts...suddenly undermine growing conditions for remaining forests in a region...global warming widely blamed on burning of fossil fuels in cars, factories and power plants, might take over as the main source of damage.

    Doomsday? Now why would I use a term like that?

    Whether the report is scientifically sound or not is debateable, but let's make no mistake, this is a doomsday report.

    Speaking of which, could you provide the link to the actual report itself? I've read the news article, but I'd like to read the report itself.

    Check the sources I pointed to, examine what JZ says and what even our most conservative Republicans say when asked about environmental issues (clue: Republican party is losing members over environmental concerns) and decide for yourself: Do you REALLY believe things can go on forever as they are? Is there REALLY an advantage to waiting?
    I'm not a Republican, so I don't really care what the party does. I guess you didn't read my Chicken Little post. The one thing history teaches us is that things will definitely not go on as the have before.

    You spoke of the "BILLIONS it would cost" to implement conservation measures. I provided evidence that many of the measures are actually profit centers, and most are at least profit-neutral over time. Do you have any evidence to support the opposite case?
    I assume you think the U.S. should ratify the Kyoto Treaty on Global Warming?

    According to a 1998 study by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), the Kyoto treaty would cost the U.S. economy $400 billion per year, raise electric utility bills by 86%, hike the cost of heating oil by 76% and impose a permanent "Kyoto gasoline tax" of 66 cents per gallon. In total, if Kyoto were adopted each U.S. household would have to spend an extra $1,740 per year on energy.

    Interesting that someone who argues for a "living wage" is also in favor of raising families energy bills. As far as your measures being profit centers, I though the theory that we can somehow regulate ourselve to prosperity went out with Al Gore.
    Last edited by Destiny; 04-05-2005 at 09:04 AM.
    Dancing is wonderful training for girls, it's the first way you learn to guess what a man is going to do before he does it. ~Christopher Morley, Kitty Foyle

  24. #24
    God/dess
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,210
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    ZPG is nonsense. there is no population problem, there is a government problem. WIthout interference, you pretty much get the population size you need for the existing capital structures. While children are usually always a net psychic-gain, they can be an economic positive or negative. This influences heavily how many children people have. As children switch from being a capital good to just a consumption good(sorry to be grusome), people have less kids, ala the migration from farms to cities.

    In addition, much of the pollution problem can be solved by property rights and liberty. More statism is the last thing we need. Governments are some of the biggest polluters anyway. The soviet union's government certainl was and our own military is a HUGE polluter. YOu should see the stuff left behind in the wake of a fleet.

    Much of the land west of the Great Plains is idle. Our population density as a country is low.

    If you want to talk about enviromental damage, you should also talk peace, as war is a pretty damaging act for the enviroment. Especially when you factor in our love of DU weapons and the radiological disasters we have created in the Balkans and Iraq, in addition to the drug war and the "need" for defolliants and such things.




    It was hotter 600 years ago than it is today.

    The entire world's population could be fed by an area approximately the size of Texas.
    Probably even Less than that. We have a government problem when it comes to food and population. Some of the biggest bread baskets on Earth are being prevented from reaching their potential(the previous saga in the Ukraine, Zimbabwe, the subsidization of farmers here).

    I think we are under populated if anything.

    Nothing is more misunderstood than the trade deficit. The trade deficit has more to do with banking than manufacturing.

    As for the epa: Never forget!




    Enviromentalism has killed more people than enviromental damage came even come close to pretending to kill.

    Bowel movements have more integrity than the enviromentalist movement.

  25. #25
    Featured Member discretedancer's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    1,004
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: Human damage to earth worsening fact

    Destiny, I don't have the link to the report itself, though I bet you coulld gt it off YAHOO

    The excerpt you took on the DOE report is misleading, as it doesn't take into account the economy of scale (and price reductions therefrom ) of volume production of cleaner energy, the savings from conservation, COMPLETELY IGNORES the costs of maintaining military forces worldwide to protect oil reserves, the cost of emergency cleanup crews (that's your tax money folks) health effects of pollution, destruction of land values from pollution and extraction industries, expenses of relocating families when events occur, etc. NOT TO MENTION their numbers are questionable to begin with, since they disagree with what every other signing nation said about Kyoto.

    Besides, sign it or not - we didn't even agree to be involved in developing it, never suggested an alternative, and have not proposed a more "sane" alternative. Basicallly, our administration is playing "the three monkeys" (blind, deaf, mute) and pretending there's nothing to discuss.

    My suggestion was never that we can regulate ourselves to prosperity...just that we currently are subsidizing and protecting the very antithesis of prosperity and good health. All i want to do (as we have with smoking bans, helmet and seatbelt laws, and consumer product safety guidelines) is set a baseline - that we won't be STUPID and waste our natural capital for personal/company profit...leaving me (as the taxpayer and air breather / water drinker) to suffer the financial, health and comfort costs from outdated and dangerous practices.




    Quote Originally Posted by Sh0t
    ZPG is nonsense. there is no population problem, there is a government problem.
    I don't see this as a ZPG argument... it's not population, but rather a development planning issue. Communities with LESS THAN ZERO GROWTH are sprawling into open space faster every year. 20 years ago, the average department store (of same internal square footage) used 1/4 as much land as they do today - that's simply a POOR USE of land. Stupid, since I don't see anyone creating new land (excepting a couple "fill in swamps" projects...but nothing substantial)

    WIthout interference, you pretty much get the population size you need for the existing capital structures.
    Proof for this? No one interferes with people's right to reproduce in the US....I don't see where this fits

    Also I'm not sure I agree...but can't debate since I don't have the facts or see them here

    . Governments are some of the biggest polluters anyway.
    Excepting (since you've provided no evidence and I have refuted this before) the pollution from private industry (Love canal, Woburn Ma, Superfund, Brownfields, stripmines, clearcut logging, exxon Valdez and other oil spills, consumer pollution (tailpipe as well as pouring poisons down the drain) BhopalIndia, etc. etc.etc.) I won't deny the Gov't is a big polluter, but PRIVATE POLLUTION IS NOT WITH OUT CONSEQUENCE, AND WAS MUCH WORSE BEFORE REGULATION.

    Listen: if people and companies would think about the long term sustianability of their communities, country and selves - and avoid doing these overly dangerouus things, there WOULD HAVE BEEN NO REASON to begin environmental regulations or cleanup.

    Ever hear of the Ford River Rouge plant? The largest polluter IN THE WORLD before environmental regulations? Henry Ford was a great one for private property...because he could dump on his own land freely, and never worry that his pollutions were killing people downstream.

    YOu should see the stuff left behind in the wake of a fleet.
    I have , and I fight that just as hard...though the Fed Gov't has the ability to exempt itself from its own laws (which is unconstitutional) and no Americans seem to care. Still doesn't negate why we should impact what we CAN control

    Much of the land west of the Great Plains is idle. Our population density as a country is low.
    Farms are idle, the open space that filers our water and air is idle? national beauty and tourism attraction (hence the name "GREAT plains") is idle?

    Should it all look like New Jersey? No open space, no farms, no where for water to be naturally filtered? No animals or habitats, ??? THat's quite an ideal

    If you want to talk about enviromental damage, you should also talk peace,
    I do, but am at a loss why you want to fractionalize the argument. YES government is a polluter, YES, war (government run, supported by HUGE and POLLUTING private industry) is bad, but they ARE NOT the only problems. Also, ther're what we have THE LEAST CONTROL OF

    It was hotter 600 years ago than it is today.
    and the price of tea in China was lower too...WTF is your point?


    Probably even Less than that.
    evidence?

    We have a government problem when it comes to food and population.
    yep, subsidize polluting big business farmers while local farmers (using less land, less pesticides and less transportation costs and employing more Americans) are forced to go under.

    Some of the biggest bread baskets on Earth are being prevented from reaching their potential(
    so support sustainable food and local food programs...both of which SUPPORT what i'm talking about''

    I think we are under populated if anything.
    Opinions are like noses....

    Nothing is more misunderstood than the trade deficit. The trade deficit has more to do with banking than manufacturing.
    not an economics discussion, but the trade deficit is MOSTLY manufactured products (just try buying a car, TV, electronic device, shoe, clothing, or much food made in the US) .



    Never forget absurd websites without scientific qualification that are going against decades of scientific research to promote poisons in our water? Your points are getting more and more obtuse.

    Enviromentalism has killed more people than enviromental damage came even come close to pretending to kill.
    not to be a broken fucking record but?//..EVIDENCE?

    the DDT issue (can't believe you advocate birth defects...my cousin is still suffering from DDT effects) was as much a MEDICAL as scientific one. and DDT IS NOT THE CURE FOR MALARIA!..

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-11-2009, 03:41 PM
  2. Just a random fact...
    By PookaShell in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 09-17-2007, 11:18 PM
  3. Read a fact, post a fact, be enlightened.
    By BlackSheEp3 in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: 09-01-2007, 01:50 PM
  4. Random Fact
    By PookaShell in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-31-2007, 02:54 PM
  5. Are you..in fact...a junkie??
    By Joe12601 in forum General Board
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 07-10-2003, 06:16 AM

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
  •