Do we need to change the way we live?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Then stun them with your devastating insights or **** off.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by OliverFA
As Jac De Molay wisely points those "evidences" are Evidences of Nothing. There are documented facts in history that shows that the Earth in pre-industrial revolution times had changes in temperature. The ice ages, the green lands of Greenland (I always knew it must had this names for some reason!), the light clothes of the Roman Empire epoch, and many more.

But, what does any of that have to do with anything? This is about human caused change, not natural change.

They aren't talking about the natural temperature changes the earth goes through, they are talking about an increasingly large CO^2 build up in the atmosphere that creates a greenhouse effect and contains the heat. And there's no denying that humans produce CO^2

They aren't talking about natural evolution and extinction of species who can't apadt to the ecosystem, they are talking about humans striping the land and making it uninhabitable to most life, or how we use the air, ground, and water as toxic waste dumps and are poisoning everything (including ourselves) to death.


Some past ice age doesn't make DDT any less toxic, nor does it make industry produce less CO^2. It doesn't reverse the dehabitisation that clear cuting and city building cause, either.

[OliverFA]

Originally posted by Osweld
But, what does any of that have to do with anything? This is about human caused change, not natural change.

The "evidences" are just some statistic data. Something like "look, it is x degrees warmer than 100 years ago". What I am saying is that those differences are lower than the differences in temperature registered before the Industrial Revolution. So, how can you know that the "present warming" is not something that would had happened previously like has been happening since a lot more than 200 years ago?

Taking care of the environment is something that everyone should do. Being alarmist basing in inconclusive data and using it to change the way we live is a completely different thing.

[RGBVideo]

Let's start from the first post which raises any points, good or not:

First of all, we have to stop spreading outwards, and start spreading upwards. I am talking about our cities. This will give room for nature to grow and grow strong.

Huh? How do you know when the nature has "grown" strong enough to survive? The best indication that the cities have taken too much room from the agricultural sector is that the space is expensive enough to make it more economically rational to build "upwards". If you're meaning somekind of almost completely untouched areas of "nature" instead of the land used for economical gain, well, that's for nature preservation areas are for, aren't they?

We need to stop agriculture from taking over too much of the land.

But ultimately, don't grow GM foods at all.

Contradictionary. Global famine will be the result.

All polluting factories must be rebuilt, they must be clean running factories.

What? First of all, how do you define 'clean', composts create methane too, where do you draw the line between "clean" and "polluting"?

Factories that have no choice but to pollute, (aluminium melting? etc) should not be in the city, they should be far from the city, far from farmland, and surrounded by fast growing tree's - thousands of them.

First of all, imagine the energy which should be spent to logistical purposes. Okay, since 'energy' probably isn't a word negative enough, imagine the fossil fuel amounts which should be burned in tranportation?

All cars must stop using petrol, they must all go the solar power or electricity path.

Magnificent! So, now that you have introduced the main principle of your latest invention, could you show us the technical details? Solar power mirrors (okay, I don't know the exact English word, so shoot me) will be broke before they produce enough energy to even create a similar amount of solar power mirrors.

FAST EDIT (tm): Ok, I've read about the australian solar-driven car. But it was (is?) slow, expensive, and unreliable.

You will no longer be allowed to make or sell petrol driven automobiles. Gas Stations will have to provide a service for recharging the car.

Even more merrier. What do you really know of physics?

It must be illegal to light open fires in all homes around the world, you must either get another source of heat or get an efficient wood burner that doesn't pollute ( or rather burns its own pollution).

Okay, now that I've asked about physics, how about chemistry, or basic geological biology, for that matter?

If you are caught hunting endangered animals, you will be placed in jail for life - without a doubt.

A bit harsh, but fair. Unfortunately, this would demand working punishment systems in certain nations where main amount of illegal poaching happens. Also, most 'intellectual' hippies would probably be against it.

Hunting must become one of the world's most heaviest crimes.

Depends largely on the exact details & situation.

Deforestation must stop. It must become illegal worldwide. Foresters will only be allowed to grow and cut their own forest plantations.

I assume you mean the main problem in the world currently, rapid deforestation of jungle in Brazil. Mostly issue of poor local living standards, economical situation and the large global demand for mahogany.

GM Foods are going to be here with us, so we may aswell accept it, but GM Foods must be grown in sealed off areas, they must have impossible contact with natural grown foods.

Huh? I understand that the rapidly increasing similarity between crops, resulting mainly from global planting of GE, identical crops can cause some problems with the crop diseases, but why not turn it the other way? Why not upkeep minor sealed off areas with these 'natural', inefficient crops?

But ultimately, don't grow GM foods at all.

Wtf? I'll quote this again, since I don't understand why to say something like this. Newsflash: Usage of GM foods lessens the amount of room needed for purely agricultural reasons, therefore increases the room for the "nature" you've been referring to.

Fixing the Earth now, should be every countries top priority, once we know Earth is no longer in danger, we can start on the other smaller problems, like Space Travel, Famine and Terrorism.

Whatever.

[RGBVideo]

Yeah? So what? Lions are big and scary and have teeth and want to eat you. Ask somebody living in the bush if more lions are needed.

Ever heard of food-chain?

[RGBVideo]

In a way this ties in with the stuff on going to Mars(in the other threads) - maybe we wont need to because we are actually on our way to creating our own Mars here?

You have no idea what you are talking about do you? With increasing amounts of CO2 in the athmosphere, Earth would move fürther away from the air structure of Mars and nearer to Venus.

Its easy to dismiss the destruction of species as part of the normal process of evolution, its when we accelerate this 'natural' process that we really should worry more.

We can't 'accelerate' evolution, nor we can 'accelerate' natural processes. You have fundamentally misunderstood the definition of both words.

We are not technically advanced enough yet to survive in our world without nature doing its thing, so as far as i see it(maybe not far some might say) we are just speeding ourselves to our doom.

...even if creating living conditions more optional to our species, both directly and indirectly?

Which isnt a bad thing as a normal part of this 'doom' thing would i guess be mass death first, but not on a species extinction level. We will die in our billions, but some will survive.
I'm not too worried as i've insured myself as much as i can, in that i can grow food pretty well, can raise animals, hunt/fish and survive in many types of enviroment(I've travelled alot).
Still as i said i was aware of stuff from a young age, so i've spent most of my life getting ready for such a thing, it was a strong hunch.

I'll make a wild guess: Your parents and teachers were overestimating the threat and claiming that world would end into a economic disaster by the year 2000, but you're still trying to tell yourself that some year, something will go 'boom' and you could actually do something necessary with those abilities of yours?

The article itself isn't really the issue here i was getting at.
Its more if YOU(and your children) think you are ready to not be one of the millions doomed to die as we slide merrily along our present chosen path?

"It's not really about the fact itself that I'm right. It's more like if YOU don't do what I'm claiming to be right, you and millions of other doomed people will die as we, who have done the right thing, selected the correct path, will continue living merrily ever after?" Great, that's all we need -- a ****ing Jehova.

[Jac de Molay]

But, what does any of that have to do with anything? This is about human caused change, not natural change.

That was my point. You have A) rising levels of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases (although CFC production is being phased out, and is decreasing year after year)

Then you have B) an observable increase in temperature based on the ice core samples and other criteria.

Now, prove to me that one is causing the other. Because if you can, you're a hell of a lot smarter than the scientists who can't come to a consensus on the "man-made" impact

We don't even have close to enough climatological record-keeping to establish the length and nature of trends since civilized man spread on the planet, much less establishing whether shifts in climate are man-made or not.

They aren't talking about natural evolution and extinction of species who can't apadt to the ecosystem,

Fine. And in other ecosystems, they're absolutely thriving. There's several populations of endangered species in the Midwest alone that have made startling comebacks. It's just not...that...bad...

they are talking about humans striping the land and making it uninhabitable to most life, or how we use the air, ground, and water as toxic waste dumps and are poisoning everything (including ourselves) to death.

That's a bunch of baloney. If were "poisoning ourselves to death" why has the quality of my air and water never been better? 30 years ago, you couldn't even fish out of the Great Lakes because of the mercury and toxin levels. Now, the water has never been cleaner.

You want to know what's really bad for the environment? Recycling!! 13 of the 50 worst Superfund hazardous waste sites during the 90's were once recycling facilities. Recycling 100 tons of newspaper produces about 1/3 of that in toxic sludge. Personally, I think we should start composting some eco-weenies.

[FrostyBoy]

Bugger, VJ doesn't agree with what I said.


Oh well, VJ MUST be correct, the governments and automobile leaders of the world are wasting their billions of dollars on doing what I said. *shrug*

All Hail VJ, our new leader, who will free us from the darkness and into the light.

[child of Thor]

It wasn't anything that i was taught that gave me my slant on the future, it was a hunch. I looked at the world around me, saw how it was and thought 'this isn't the best way to be, it'll end in tears' kinda thing.
I was only young but seeing a cause and effect thing in motion.
The cause was the way our modern lives didn't appear to live in harmony with the world around us, the effect i wasn't aware of except in relation to having a feeling that it wasn't going to be sustainable.

The article was just one of many that seem to point to the same conclusion in one way or another.

We can deny everything and anything we want, but the more scientists find out about our impact on the enviroment, the more we should maybe pay a bit more attention? Thats about it.

Of course i dont really mind if we do or don't, although i will be sad not to be able to walk in a tropical rainforest in the future, or if my children can't.

If that makes me(or people like me) your Jehova sales person nightmare, then maybe you should listen to what the enviroment is saying to us all......man, rather than just thinking everything will be ok cause the responsibilty of doing the right thing is too much?

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay


That was my point. You have A) rising levels of CO2 and other "greenhouse" gases (although CFC production is being phased out, and is decreasing year after year)

Then you have B) an observable increase in temperature based on the ice core samples and other criteria.

Now, prove to me that one is causing the other. Because if you can, you're a hell of a lot smarter than the scientists who can't come to a consensus on the "man-made" impact

We don't even have close to enough climatological record-keeping to establish the length and nature of trends since civilized man spread on the planet, much less establishing whether shifts in climate are man-made or not.

Are you denying that the greenhouse effect exists, or are you making a strawman out of ice-core samples? Like I said before, historic weather does not change what is happening the present. If you think the greenhouse effect is bunk, you can take it up with the scientists. But it's not something that was created out of 'observations on the weather', like some doofs seem to think - it was created out of a knowledge of physics and chemical reactions. Even if I wanted to, I'm certainly unable and unqualified to provide proof of it. Go ask google, there's dozens of websites that explain it. But personally, I'm more concerned witht he direct effects of pollution, anyways.

Fine. And in other ecosystems, they're absolutely thriving. There's several populations of endangered species in the Midwest alone that have made startling comebacks. It's just not...that...bad...

Avoiding destrcution is hardly thriving. Just because some species escape the mass exctintion we've created doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

That's a bunch of baloney. If were "poisoning ourselves to death" why has the quality of my air and water never been better? 30 years ago, you couldn't even fish out of the Great Lakes because of the mercury and toxin levels. Now, the water has never been cleaner.

Never been better.... then 30 years ago?

You can't help but win if you set your goals that low.

If you want to see the effects of our poisoning, just look at all the people who've been born with birth defects (or have died, for that matter) from the numerous insecticides and pesticides we use. Or how common Asthma has become - or how hundreds, even thousands, of people can die from smog on a bad day. Or how you can't drink most water without it going through serious amounts of filtering (which isn't perfect, since you still get chlorine and alot of other toxins in your drinking water). We've cleaned up a lake or two so we can "commune with nature" - what does that do for the rivers of sludge flowing through our cities, that no sane person would ever swim in, or eat anything that you could find living in it. (if you could)

The list goes on. You'd have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to not see the effects of pollution in our world.

You want to know what's really bad for the environment? Recycling!!

Deffinately. It sustains industry and keeps us going. And is, as you mentioned, not 100% efficient anyways.

[monkspider]

In answer to the original question: yes. But people are slow to learn this.

[Space05us]

If you are caught hunting endangered animals, you will be placed in jail for life - without a doubt. Hunting must become one of the world's most heaviest crimes.

No No No! You have it ALL wrong! Have you gone hunting a day in your life man?! The people caught hunting endangered animals should be put on a hunting ranch where we can hunt them to extinction!
Its what they deserve for making those of us who care have to wait years longer to hunt them purdy animals again.

[Jac de Molay]

My two sources:

The skeptical environmentalist by Bjorn Lomborg, 2001, Cambridge University Press.


Toxic substances in the environment by B. Magnus Francis, 1994, John Wiley and sons,

Are you denying that the greenhouse effect exists, or are you making a strawman out of ice-core samples?

Pretty much every computer model to date, which takes in account the current levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, has been wildly inaccurate in predicting mean temperature increase- usually a half a degree Celsius higher than what is observed. There is simply too much complexity in the system, taking into account the production of sulphates which cool the Earth, cloud cover, and other factors to understand what is actually affecting climate change over short and long-term. You're the one who is asserting that the CFC and greenhouse gas production has been DIRECTLY responsible for climactic change and temperature increase.

Like I said before, historic weather does not change what is happening the present.

No, but it doesn't strengthen your claim that CFCs are causing some runaway global warming, either. A similar jump in temperature occurred from the period of 1910-1945, when virtually no CFC's were being produced. Some of this was attributed to an increase in solar irradiation from 1700 onwards. It's just as easy to say the same thing is happening now, especially when you consider that CFC production has declined considerably from 1985-current.

Avoiding destrcution is hardly thriving. Just because some species escape the mass exctintion we've created doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Of the 1,600,000 observed species on the planet (with estimates of 2 to 60 million not yet observed/documented), 1,033 have become extinct since 1600, which works out to about 2.5 per decade.

Even if you extrapolated that to all undocumented plant and animal life, you're talking about an effective extinction rate of about, if my math skills serve me well, about .06 percent. Hardly substantiates your notion of a mass extinction.

Even in circumstances of mass deforestation, extinctions in any number are basically non-existent. Over two centuries, the forests of the Eastern US were reduced to just 1-2 percent of their original area over two centuries. The number of resulting extinctions? One forest bird.

We've cleaned up a lake or two so we can "commune with nature" - what does that do for the rivers of sludge flowing through our cities, that no sane person would ever swim in, or eat anything that you could find living in it. (if you could)

In 1987, the UK had 30 percent polluted beaches. In 2000 that fell to 5 percent. The same criteria applied to to the EU shows a 16 percent over the course of only 15 years.

Concentrations of harmful substances such as DDT, PCB, dieldrin, and cadmium have fallen drastically across the board in coastal seas both in the US and Europe. For instance, Danish and UK studies have shown a decline of PCB and DDT of over 90 percent since 1973.

The same positive trends were observed for river watersheds, as well. Based on classification systems used by the National Water Council and the National Rivers Authority to classify the nation's rivers-good, fair, poor, or bad- the fraction of "poor" rivers declined from 16 percent in 1970 to 10 percent in 1997. The worst rivers ("bad") have decreased even faster from 2.6 percent to just 0.7 percent. Equally, the share of good and very good rivers has increased from 37 percent in 1989 to 59.2 percent in 1997 - a remarkable increase in less than a decade.

Similarly, going back to my Great Lakes example, which make up 20 percent of all freshwater water on earth, we see the same picture- a dramatic decline of 80-90 percent of DDE, PCBS, HCB, and dieldrim.

Then again, I wouldn't expect ecoweenies like you to back up your arguments with hard science and actual statistics.

Moving on,

If you want to see the effects of our poisoning, just look at all the people who've been born with birth defects (or have died, for that matter) from the numerous insecticides and pesticides we use.

Lets start with cancer risk. All man made pollution, in total, accounts for around 2% of cancer in the western world. Out of that, the percentage actually attributable to pesticides is virtually nil. You're probably exposed to more carcinogens by simply eating fresh fruits and vegetables than you are from pesticides.

The same goes for incidences of birth defects. All things considered-diet, genetics, lifestyle- the rate of birth defects directly attributable to pesticides is so small as to be virtually negligible.

Or how common Asthma has become - or how hundreds, even thousands, of people can die from smog on a bad day.

The six substances that constitute the so-called criteria pollutants, Particles (smoke and soot), So2, O3 (ozone), Lead, Nitrogen Oxides, and Carbon Monoxides, have all shown downward trends in air concentrations. Some more dramatically than others, but the most dangerous ones, particles and lead, have shown the highest decreases.

As for asthma, it's difficult to actually discern how much of asthma is directly attributable to air pollution. Indoor air, the rising incidence of obesity, cigarette smoking, and other factors, appear to be more responsible for the rising incidence of asthma as opposed to air pollution.

The list goes on. You'd have to be blind, deaf, and dumb to not see the effects of pollution in our world.

I could go on and on, but I won't. You just go right ahead and live in your apocalyptic cocoon, ignoring the world of science and hard facts that contradict just about every assertion you've made that the global environmental condition is in dire straits. I shouldn't expect that ecoweenies like you can back up their arguments with anything approaching substantial evidence

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Jac de Molay


Pretty much every computer model to date, which takes in account the current levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, has been wildly inaccurate in predicting mean temperature increase- usually a half a degree Celsius higher than what is observed. There is simply too much complexity in the system, taking into account the production of sulphates which cool the Earth, cloud cover, and other factors to understand what is actually affecting climate change over short and long-term. You're the one who is asserting that the CFC and greenhouse gas production has been DIRECTLY responsible for climactic change and temperature increase.



No, but it doesn't strengthen your claim that CFCs are causing some runaway global warming, either. A similar jump in temperature occurred from the period of 1910-1945, when virtually no CFC's were being produced. Some of this was attributed to an increase in solar irradiation from 1700 onwards. It's just as easy to say the same thing is happening now, especially when you consider that CFC production has declined considerably from 1985-current.

I told you, if you have a problem with the green house effect, take it up with the scientists. Tell them that their understanding of physics and chemistry is wrong.

I haven't been claiming anything about climate change.

Of the 1,600,000 observed species on the planet (with estimates of 2 to 60 million not yet observed/documented), 1,033 have become extinct since 1600, which works out to about 2.5 per decade.

"30 years ago..." "1600..." you have the most bizzare comparison dates ever.

I don't know the numbers, personally - and I'm sure you don't, either - but the the rate of extinction, whatever it is, is generally agreed to be 50-100 times more then what is considered normal. And we're just geting started. We're in a buisness of exponential growth, we're constantly growing and increasing our needs and demands, and increasing our destruction - reducing what we have. All at an ever increasing rate. It'll only speed up in the years to come.

Then again, I wouldn't expect ecoweenies like you to back up your arguments with hard science and actual statistics.

You mean quote meaningless statistics from books? Maybe if you explained how each point was rellevant to global problems, it might actually mean something.


What I'd be interested to know about these places that have cleaned up their act is, how has their industry faired? are they producing the same amount, or has industry moved elsewhere? Are we polluting less in the UK, and more in Indonesia, perhaps?

That's the problem with using local statistics for global matters - they show absolutely nothing. Especially when they have an agenda and don't explain the details surrounding them.



And by the way you - er, maybe I should say the authors you are quoting - should really stop using the 70's and 80's as a standard for environment conditions.

Lets start with cancer risk. All man made pollution, in total, accounts for around 2% of cancer in the western world.

How do you tell what causes a cancer?

Out of that, the percentage actually attributable to pesticides is virtually nil. You're probably exposed to more carcinogens by simply eating fresh fruits and vegetables than you are from pesticides.

The same goes for incidences of birth defects. All things considered-diet, genetics, lifestyle- the rate of birth defects directly attributable to pesticides is so small as to be virtually negligible.

I wasn't talking solely about pesticides. We've smartened up a bit about that in the west (but not in a great deal of the world) but even still, there is much concern about pesticides and their effect. After all, it was only a few decades ago where mothers where warned against breast feeding because for most women it had become toxic due to the insecticides commonly used.

I doubt this is something that's easily trackable, anyways. But it only takes common sense to finish the equation of "Toxin + Human =" and there's no denying we are exposed to toxins on a regular basis.

And not to mention the wildlife, for which no precautions are taken.

The six substances that constitute the so-called criteria pollutants

Er, criteria for what? You really gotta go easy on that cut and pasting.

Particles (smoke and soot), So2, O3 (ozone), Lead, Nitrogen Oxides, and Carbon Monoxides, have all shown downward trends in air concentrations. Some more dramatically than others, but the most dangerous ones, particles and lead, have shown the highest decreases.

Let me guess, this is another stellar comparison of from the 70s or something, isn't it? And I bet it's a local statsitic too.

As for asthma, it's difficult to actually discern how much of asthma is directly attributable to air pollution.

It's common sense that air pollution will make it harder for people to breathe and give them lung problems.

I suppose the people rushing to hospitals - or sometimes droping dead - on a bad smog day are just obese smokers too.

Er, wait... why is smoking being used as an example against air pollution?

I could go on and on, but I won't. You just go right ahead and live in your apocalyptic cocoon, ignoring the world of science and hard facts that contradict just about every assertion you've made that the global environmental condition is in dire straits. I shouldn't expect that ecoweenies like you can back up their arguments with anything approaching substantial evidence

Right back at you.

[General Ludd]

By the way. You do realize that the 1970s was when the environmentalist movement became mainstream, right? Those "ecoweenies" are the whole reason any of the statistics you quoted exist, because they've been pushing us to change the way we live since the 70s. Quoting their successes as reasons against environmentalism is beyond ironic. (and also shows how meaningless those sorts of statistics can be in an argument, if both sides can use the same numbers to prove each other wrong.)

But even still, most of it has just been bandaging to slow the bleed, or carpet sweeping to hide the mess. Not actual sollutions to the problem. Reducing emmisions does just that - reduce them, not eliminate them. The problem still exists. And it generally means that the industry just produces more "hard" pollution, anyways.

Cleaning up beaches is nice. you can take the kids swimming now and not have to worry about them steping on a needle from some medical waste or something. But how much have the landfills grown while you're busy cleaning up the recreation areas? They'll be overflowing soon, too - they already are in alot of places - and you'll have to look for a new places to sweep it.

Which is not to say that there have been no successes at all. The place I live in right now used to be used by NASA for lunar training, because it was a virtual moonscape. The hippies replanted the dead forests, put alkaline in the lakes to make them non-acidic. (I suspect this hasn't been done with the lakes no one lives on or swims in, however) they built the smokestack that caused all the damage higher, to disperse the pollution more - that's no success. But they also got it to reduce it's emissions... by puting scrubbers in the stacks that take the pollutants out of the smoke, not by stoping the actual production of those pollutants - not a real success, either. But fortunetly, a decline in the nickel market coincided with the increasing restrictions on the emissions and they ended up closing a mine and reducing production in foundry - that's a success, but wether it was hippies or econimists that did it isn't clear, however.

Then again it depends on where you live if you can see any improvement. I live in a pretty posch neigbourhood. Lots of trees, nice parks, a lake to swim in. They probably came through here first, when they where revitalising the land. But go down the street a few miles into coppercliff, and you'll have a giant slag heap in your backyard. And always, there's that giant smokestack looming over you creating actual clouds of smoke overhead, no matter where you go... I wonder if making the smoke turn out a white colour and look like a cloud was a part of the 'clean up' effort, or if it was always like that.