Why are you people against protecting environment?

[malamute]

Originally Posted by Winter_Sucks

As someone who likes to hike, hunt, and garden, I love the outdoors. I think the best way to protect the environment right now would be for the US to transition away from fossil fuels, protect and expand forests and endangered species.

I think the best way right now would be to use solar and wind wherever possible and then use nuclear to satisfy any other demand not met from solar and wind.

Liberals have these open borders policies, want unlimited immigration, amnesty, Dream acts to entice millions more people to show up here. With millions of people coming into this country, and using welfare to have babies they cannot afford, there isn't going to be any land for wildlife and forests. Forget that.

[vamos]

I think one of the problems people have is with the apparent "one-sidedness" of arguments without ever highlighting the down-side of a given environmental policy. Alternatives to fossil fuels, for example, are often presented as though implementation of such technologies has only positive effect.

For example, look at the sources of "green" energy often presented:

Wind energy: Sounds great and produces no obvious pollution in it's operation. Unfortunately, wind mills apparently tend to have a tremendous impact on migration paths of birds in that they tend to kill lots and lots of birds and thus, disrupt migration routes and affect reproductive numbers of various species. Also, the constant hum of the blades tends to disrupt ecosystems in the immediate surroundings - whether this is on land or on the water. (And no, I don't recall where I read studies about this - I think it was in Germany where wind mills have been installed on a rather large scale). Never mind what it does to the aesthetic natural beauty of a place.

Water power: Wonderful - we let water run down a steep incline into turbines and get our power that way. No mess, right? Of course, in order to have enough water, we need to build large artificial lakes that destroy acres and acres of natural habitat - and sometimes, even established towns. What's more, the resulting lake, depending on its size can often emit more carbon dioxide than an oil-fired power plant.


Don't get me wrong, in the eyes of most of my neighbors, I am a tree hugger: I ride my bike, use an electric lawn mower, recycle, compost, etc. I am also strictly opposed to raping the earth for the sake of procuring more fossil fuels that are just going to be wasted - nature needs to be preserved, if not for any of the many other reasons, then because we simply cannot live without it.

I do not understand, though, how many people argue against conservation of energy. It is as though being wasteful is a badge of honor. To me, something is not wired correctly in these people's heads. Just because I can do something doesn't mean that I have to, does it?

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by vamos

I think one of the problems people have is with the apparent "one-sidedness" of arguments without ever highlighting the down-side of a given environmental policy. Alternatives to fossil fuels, for example, are often presented as though implementation of such technologies has only positive effect.

For example, look at the sources of "green" energy often presented:

Wind energy: Sounds great and produces no obvious pollution in it's operation. Unfortunately, wind mills apparently tend to have a tremendous impact on migration paths of birds in that they tend to kill lots and lots of birds and thus, disrupt migration routes and affect reproductive numbers of various species. Also, the constant hum of the blades tends to disrupt ecosystems in the immediate surroundings - whether this is on land or on the water. (And no, I don't recall where I read studies about this - I think it was in Germany where wind mills have been installed on a rather large scale). Never mind what it does to the aesthetic natural beauty of a place.

Water power: Wonderful - we let water run down a steep incline into turbines and get our power that way. No mess, right? Of course, in order to have enough water, we need to build large artificial lakes that destroy acres and acres of natural habitat - and sometimes, even established towns. What's more, the resulting lake, depending on its size can often emit more carbon dioxide than an oil-fired power plant.


Don't get me wrong, in the eyes of most of my neighbors, I am a tree hugger: I ride my bike, use an electric lawn mower, recycle, compost, etc. I am also strictly opposed to raping the earth for the sake of procuring more fossil fuels that are just going to be wasted - nature needs to be preserved, if not for any of the many other reasons, then because we simply cannot live without it.

I do not understand, though, how many people argue against conservation of energy. It is as though being wasteful is a badge of honor. To me, something is not wired correctly in these people's heads. Just because I can do something doesn't mean that I have to, does it?

i repped you for this because you make a lot of good points. wind power is a pipe dream as currently set up. i mean really, giant windmills? has anyone ever driven through an area where these wind farms are located? they are blight on the horizon.

solar power has promise, but it has issues also, for instance solar panel efficiency rates are still quite low, while the cost is still quite high. and where do we store the energy created?

hydro electric power also has its issues beyond what vamos listed. for instance many hydro electric dams block rivers where salmon return to spawn after years in the wild. and while there are creative solutions for smaller dams, fish elevators, fish runs that bypass the dam, etc. there are still other issues as well.

conserving energy is a good idea, and is in fact happening, though slowly. for instance why do we think we need big SUVs when a much smaller more efficient vehicle would nicely?

we also have to compromise more on automotive design aspects as well. safety systems are great, but they cost in more ways than just money, they also add weight to a vehicle.

and we are increasing the amount of recycling we do as a nation, but we have a long way to go in that area also.

one more thing we need to consider with any energy system we choose, and that is the law of unintended consequences. we need more electricity, so we decide that we need clean hydro electric power. thats great, but then we lose land to a large lake. that can be ok if we use that water for other things as well, like irrigating farmland and providing drinking water to cities, but we forget about other issues as well.

as for alternative fuels, we have them now, but there are issues with those as well. take ethanol for instance. cars will run on the stuff with a few simple modifications, but ethanol does NOT reduce emissions. it DOES change the emissions put out by an internal combustion engine. bio diesel, good choice, but it has its problems as well. are we going to set aside huge tracts of land to grow soy beans to make into an oil that can be converted to biodiesel? probably not considering that the land can be used to actually grow crops that FEED people.

and lets say that science actually comes up with a truly viable alternative fuel. what then? we dont have the infrastructure in place to handle this new fuel, and we dont have vehicles that can use the new fuel right now, so what happens? people get upset because they believe the conspiracy theories that the big oil companies are somehow blocking this great new fuel from coming to market, and they also believe that their conspirators in the auto industry wont build cars that use this great new fuel. but the reality is that it would cost trillions to build the infrastructure to handle the new fuel.

people forget that when the automobile was first introduced, you didnt have a corner gas station where you could pull in and fill up, and charge it to your mastercard. you had to go to the local chemist, and buy the benzene you needed to run your new fangled car that was at that time a trendy new fad for the rich. our current infrastructure has been built up for more than 100 years to where it is today.

and then what about the EPA, and the environmentalists? how are they going to react to this new fuel? what regulations are going to be imposed on it, and on the cars that need to be built to use the new fuel. and what about the consumer themselves? how many people buy something that is quite new, have the normal teething problems, but declare loudly and often that this new piece of equipment is total junk? and despite the fact that later models are quite reliable and less costly, how many sales were lost because if the first models teething issues?

[kshe95girl]

Originally Posted by malamute

Liberals have these open borders policies, want unlimited immigration, amnesty, Dream acts to entice millions more people to show up here. With millions of people coming into this country, and using welfare to have babies they cannot afford, there isn't going to be any land for wildlife and forests. Forget that.

Oh, puleeeeeze!
-hands malamute a super sized roll of tinfoil to wrap themselves in-

[gysmo]

Originally Posted by Dressy

I was wondering...

why are you people so angry with environmentalists and what are your personal reasons to be against protecting environment?

NOW, THIS IS NOT A THREAD WHETHER OR NOT GLOBAL WARMING EXISTS!

I ask everyone please, do not feed the trolls if any will come!

My question is why do some people take this side or the other?
Just curious.

Here is my reasons:

I like to breath fresh air. I think cities that pollute air less have more sunny days. I like to ride my bike and to be fit. I hate the amount of huge SUVs on the roads, that take a lot of space and polute a lot of air.

I like travel to places and see wilderness. I lik to bird watch. I am upset to see that more and more wild spieces dissapear from earth.

I want to know that the water I drink is not polluted.
I am upset to see to many natural catastrophs, like hurricanes, earthquakes, forest fires , floods... that occure recently.

I like hiking and seeing beautiful places. I am upset to know that mountain tops are being cut (to mine coal, granit etc).

I like diving and snorkelling. I am upset that beauful marine life is being destroyed when the water is polluted. That corals die because of hotel development and boats. that fish die because corals die, and because plastic stuff and other dirt gets to the sea.

I am upset to see so much precious land on the planet is devoted to garbage fields.

What are your reasons to support one side or another?

I am anti-environmentalist, pro-enviroment forest fires are put out sooner there by saving millions of trees. there are millions of more tree then we ever had simply because forest fires are put out, insted of letting them burn out!!! I like the fact that we have garbage fields if it wasnt for them, I believe whole cities would be garbage fields and their rivers that run trough them full of garbage as well! I like the fact that there are hurricans, earth quakes, forest fires. it reasures me that the earth is constantly renewing its self without our help! I respect the envirnment not because we will destroy the earth but because the earth will destroy us!

[bluesjuke]

"Why are you people against protecting environment?"




We're not, not at all.
Against crazies and extremist that want everyone to take ill advised steps, yes we are.