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.
"Environmentally friendly" goods and services are frequently inefficient, counterproductive and costly. The thoughts for this thread started with a few pet peeves but recently I have noticed a pattern worthy of discussion.
Recently, the floor lamp in our master bedroom, using a halogen bulb of 300-500 watts breathed its last. I have been trying to replace it. All of the replacements come with a maximum of either one 180 watt bulbs, or two 100 watt bulbs. They are way too dim to light up the room to a level comfortable for reading and dressing. I am now faced with either an expensive installation of recessed ceiling lights (about six 60 watt bulbs) or a chandelier. In either case, lots of money spent and no energy saved. I asked the various lighting stores in New York City's famous "lighting district" (an area on The Bowery roughly between Christie Street and the beginnings of Chinatown) why this was and the merchants (the ones who could speak English that is) said that is was because of "conservation." I call it politically correct stupidity.
Another example is toilet paper. When I was growing up folding the toilet paper twice gave me a clean rectum and clean fingers. Now four-folding gives neither. It is disgusting but too much information for now. I suspect the same reasoning applies.
Trash recycling is another whopper. Poeple go to enormous energy to separate "recyclables" from trash. A try to a waste facility shows that the garbage often goes to one place. More wasted effort and wasted taxpayer dollars.
My synagogue uses solar panels and other devices to create a "green" sanctuary. Want to bet that the synagogue draws from the main grid on overcast days, so that the peak demands on the system remain unchanged?
Even the Clean Air Act of 1970 and its progeny probably shifted most manufacturing overseas. Result: 18 year olds who are not really college material no longer get jobs at the local factory. And minorities' path to advancement is cut off.
In short, how much do people think we are spending? And how much environmental benefits do people think we are achieving?
Have you ever visited China, India, or major African cities?
A better question is, how much should our government subsidize pollution? Personally, I think the US has made great strides in cleaning up our environment.
Another example is toilet paper. When I was growing up folding the toilet paper twice gave me a clean rectum and clean fingers. Now four-folding gives neither. It is disgusting but too much information for now. I suspect the same reasoning applies.
[/quote]
They have triple ply toilet paper. I suggest you try it.
Have you ever visited China, India, or major African cities?
A better question is, how much should our government subsidize pollution? Personally, I think the US has made great strides in cleaning up our environment.
And if you've ever visited China, India or Pakistan you'd know where the "dirty" jobs are now being done.
i agree that we need to be good stewards of our environment. however we cannot go so far as to harm people and business. there has to be a balance between what is good for the environment, and what is good for business and people.
And if you've ever visited China, India or Pakistan you'd know where the "dirty" jobs are now being done.
The air quality in the major cities is still bad despite China's actions, ditto for all the major cities of those countries listed. Not to mention waste removal and water quality.
The "dirty" jobs in China have moved into the mainland. China's environment is utterly degraded to the point where it's causing social unrest and taking a bite out of their economy.
The cost of environmental degradation in China was about $230 billion in 2010, or 3.5 percent of the nation’s gross domestic product — three times that in 2004, in local currency terms, an official Chinese news report said this week.
The statistic came from a study by the Chinese Academy of Environmental Planning, which is part of the Ministry of Environmental Protection.
The figure of $230 billion, or 1.54 trillion renminbi, is based on costs arising from pollution and damage to the ecosystem, the price that China is paying for its rapid industrialization....
I would imagine that has peaked as China has cooled down and is investing tens of billions into cleaning up their air and water.
Well I'm sure as technology advances some of the bugs will be worked out. The thing is a policy of infinite growth on a planet with finite resources is lunacy. We all have to live on the planet and I'd even like my grandchildren to be able to live here one day too. Of course we can't just shut everything down and go back to prehistoric living; however, we have to find a way to conserve what we have so we can continue to live on this planet. Right now it is the only one we have so I'd like for it to continue to be livable.
i agree that we need to be good stewards of our environment. however we cannot go so far as to harm people and business. there has to be a balance between what is good for the environment, and what is good for business and people.
No, there doesn't. What is good for the oil business is not good for people or the environment. There is no negotiation. Polluting industries need to keep their money out of Congress and get out.
I think many people don't understand about China is that China has its goals to become a global superpower. They are in a race against time. They certainly understand importance of protecting the environment but not at the cost of their economic growth in population growth and political stability.
For their retirement fiscal system and economic growth, they have recognize that they need to grow their population. The more people the better. They will address the environment but not in isolation. All that will have to be part of their economic growth and Empire building You may not like it but you do not get to dictate them. If you want to take actions of climate change and environment, go ahead and do it. They are not going to sacrifice their economic growth and empire building unless you start doing more on it, then maybe They will consider it
No, there doesn't. What is good for the oil business is not good for people or the environment. There is no negotiation. Polluting industries need to keep their money out of Congress and get out.
What a simplistic answer. The oil industry creates a tremendous number of jobs and those are good for people. Just want example. Just saying. We need to encourage businesses not environmentalism if we want a better economic future. For that matter, we also need to increase immigration as it will keep the labor cost reasonable and keep jobs in United States for, guess what, people
Our country is mostly empty land. There is plenty, plenty of land to build and expand. Our goal should be to become one of the most populous countries in the world. More people give us more power.
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.
