Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That's exactly my view. I think it makes more sense to assume the worst-case scenario and act accordingly than to carry on like in the past and feel sorry later on. Going green certainly won't hurt either way. We only have one Earth and once she is so screwed up that it is easy to prove, it will be too late.
I don't think we can afford to act like in the 70s when rivers had to catch fire before we realized we had to stop polluting them.
"going green"
lets drag this out to the natural conclusion....
Do you do such in everything in life? Also, do you always act first before you understand why you are acting? If someone on the internet claims the stock market is crashing, do you first sell all of your stock before you check to see if they are correct?
Actions come after understanding and the fact is, they don't understand the issues with climate and our relation to them. Acting would be irresponsible and foolish when it concerns the manner of "worst-case" scenario.
You again Although I was not talking to you, it is clear to me that nature is doing best if we mess with it as little as possible.
There are only three possibilities regarding our unnatural actions:
a) they hurt the environment and nature
b) they don't have any effect or cancel each other out
c) they benefit the environment and nature
I guess we can pretty much rule out b unless we are incredibly naive. So will our actions in the end hurt or benefit Earth? In my view it is also unrealistic to think they benefit Earth. No matter how we mess with nature, at best we are correcting our own mistakes and getting to a tolerable state again that we screwed up in the first place. We won't be able to create a better, more stable Earth than nature herself has managed to come up with in billions of years.
"going green"
lets drag this out to the natural conclusion....
What does “going green mean to you?
This should be fun!
For instance, it is summer now (in the northern hemisphere anyway). So I have to decide whether to go on vacation or not. And if so, whether I fly to some remote place on the other side of the globe for 2 or 3 weeks or just go to the nearest lake by bike. Things like that...
For instance, it is summer now (in the northern hemisphere anyway). So I have to decide whether to go on vacation or not. And if so, whether I fly to some remote place on the other side of the globe for 2 or 3 weeks or just go to the nearest lake by bike. Things like that...
Neuling, I appreciate that kind of thinking. I make choices like that as well.
But that will not impact the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. (this is really the only issue)
You again Although I was not talking to you, it is clear to me that nature is doing best if we mess with it as little as possible.
There are only three possibilities regarding our unnatural actions:
a) they hurt the environment and nature
b) they don't have any effect or cancel each other out
c) they benefit the environment and nature
I guess we can pretty much rule out b unless we are incredibly naive. So will our actions in the end hurt or benefit Earth? In my view it is also unrealistic to think they benefit Earth. No matter how we mess with nature, at best we are correcting our own mistakes and getting to a tolerable state again that we screwed up in the first place. We won't be able to create a better, more stable Earth than nature herself has managed to come up with in billions of years.
What is a better and more stable earth?
Could you provide a proper base line as to what that is?
Also, you say we are correcting our own mistakes. What mistakes are those and how are they specifically changing the earth from this "better and more stable earth" that you speak of?
What should be the global temperature? Should the ice in the arctics never melt? Do natural ice ages fit into your "better and more stable earth" definition? Do all natural disasters and occurrences throughout history also fit into this definition?
For instance, it is summer now (in the northern hemisphere anyway). So I have to decide whether to go on vacation or not. And if so, whether I fly to some remote place on the other side of the globe for 2 or 3 weeks or just go to the nearest lake by bike. Things like that...
Will this make any difference? Have you measured the amount of Co2 and various other contaminates you expel when you do either? What about the businesses you deal with and the products you use in your more "green" choice? How do you know you are actually being more green exactly? What process do you use to measure such?
Neuling, I appreciate that kind of thinking. I make choices like that as well.
But that will not impact the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. (this is really the only issue)
So what do you propose we do about this?
Actually, CO2 is not the only issue. There is also Methane and a range of other substances we produce (for instance through the billions of farm animals we have around the world, but such gases are also released by the oil industry).
I am not saying we should return to live like cavemen. But I do think we should cut back our consumption of everything as much as possible. This is exactly where a lot of people can't follow yet because they like and cling to their excessive lifestyle. I understand that but I guess it is better to start to change voluntarily now than to wait and see and then be forced to radically change within a very short period of time.
Could you provide a proper base line as to what that is?
Also, you say we are correcting our own mistakes. What mistakes are those and how are they specifically changing the earth from this "better and more stable earth" that you speak of?
What should be the global temperature? Should the ice in the arctics never melt? Do natural ice ages fit into your "better and more stable earth" definition? Do all natural disasters and occurrences throughout history also fit into this definition?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander
Will this make any difference? Have you measured the amount of Co2 and various other contaminates you expel when you do either? What about the businesses you deal with and the products you use in your more "green" choice? How do you know you are actually being more green exactly? What process do you use to measure such?
That is the difference between you and me. You need measurements to change (which you know I can't give you as I am not climatologist), I only need my common sense.
Stable for instance includes the number of species on earth. The more there are, the more stable nature is.
Should the ice never melt? In our interest probably not. While there have always been natural fluctuations such as ice ages and warm periods, up until a few hundred years ago humans were so few relative to the surface of the earth that those natural changes were not really a problem. Now an ice age or the opposite would affect a whole lot of people.
I firmly believe we ought to be looking at the impact of industry on a micro level. for instance, where I grew up cancer is rampant. I fully believe this is a result of dirty industrial practice.
It would be far better to review those things and find better methodologies than it is to spend trillions on "Global warming" and crazy ideas like Cap and Trade.
Look, the reality is, businesses understand that we are at the very beginning of an energy sift. In a few years, we will not be producing energy the way we do right now. Those businesses understand that being on the “ground floor” of that change will make them billions of dollars.
The best thing Governments can do is get out of their way, make the environment beneficial for those doing the research and building the new technologies.
Actually, CO2 is not the only issue. There is also Methane and a range of other substances we produce (for instance through the billions of farm animals we have around the world, but such gases are also released by the oil industry).
I am not saying we should return to live like cavemen. But I do think we should cut back our consumption of everything as much as possible. This is exactly where a lot of people can't follow yet because they like and cling to their excessive lifestyle. I understand that but I guess it is better to start to change voluntarily now than to wait and see and then be forced to radically change within a very short period of time.
the change you advocate will not have any impact. The only thing that will change anything is a total shift in how we produce energy.
That will happen. But the worst thing that we can do is prematurely hamstring our current energy production because that will cripple the economy and that will slow down the process of change....
and I still do not buy that CO2 is that dangerous. in fact, it might be very benificial.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Although I was not talking to you, it is clear to me that nature is doing best if we mess with it as little as possible.
