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.
I used to support environmental movements and groups when they were more about innovation and education. Which was the case up to the mid 2000s or so.
For example we phrased out CFCs to help curb global warming and developed better products that does not so much affect the end user. A move I proudly supported. We still have hairspray, refrigerators, A/Cs that work better than the CFC era ones. We also greatly increased the efficiency of these appliances. We eventually developed LED bulbs without banning incandescent bulbs. No the 100 watt light bulb ban was not a ban on incandescent bulbs, it was that the newly developed 95 watt bulbs were brighter in lumens and burn longer than the old 100watt bulbs.
But since the late 2000s I noticed these groups such as Green Peace and Sierra Club had abruptly changed the course of their agenda into governmental/corporate driven behavioral engineering than actually studying the issue and developing innovative solutions. In other words they are pushing governments of all levels around the world to turn from carrots to sticks and legislate otherwise unprecedented authoritarian style solutions. Even if it clearly goes against their fundamental respect for their constitution and long standing rule of law. Also since the UN embraces their idealism, they pressures all its members (which covers 90% of countries) to follow suit by shaming governments that don't adapt, whether national, regional, or local governments(ICLEI).
Quite a number of environmental scientists had warned that such movements can actually be more harm than good. I.e back in around 2008 the UK environmental agency had clearly warned against schemes that involves banning, taxing, or requiring mandatory fees for carry out bags as they have proof that's it does far more harm than good for the environment and hastens climate change, yet in 2016 England still decided to do it anyways. Ironically this happened three years after the UK was trying to sue Italy for doing something similar. Therefore it shows that the movement is about looking green and politically right for progressive politicians rather than actually saving the environment.
Nowadays I find these groups are all about controlling the little guys and making them suffer in order to make a point, even if its not actually good for the environment.
Examples include,
The Cool biz campaign, that started in Japan back in 2006 that forces salaryman and students in Japan mostly of the public sector but some private sectors as well to sweater in 28C/82f temperatures during the hot months, its causing productivity and health to suffer, the heat index is no joke when the humidity is also at 82degrees. I mean would's had made better sense in a country already leading in high efficiency air conditioning technologies to fix air ducts, add insulation, seal leaks, and better of all cutting work hours short especially on hot days which allows buildings to use much less power overall and less load on cooling as well and may actually improve productivity.
In California during the "great drought" of the 2010s, the state instead of looking into developing Geo water, building and commissioning desalination plants, and more eco friendly water retention facilities has instead legislated a dracon water tax on individuals and a 55 gallon water limit for each individual by 2025 drought or not. A lot of hypocrisy already occurs in this state during the drought with some places losing water completely(despite senior water rights) while plenty of construction projects, almond farms, and other corporations still uses large amounts of water a day. Don't even get me started about the proposal to drain the Hetch Hetchy Reservior during that time. Yet they want people using water from here to not to flush their toilets. Plenty of water in CA had been diverted for so called "Environmental purposes" as well. Individuals use only 9% of water in CA.
While there are many signs that these movements may have backfired, these groups and their brainwashed progressive politicians just don't care and would push their agenda farther and farther, there success these days are strictly measured by seeing people suffer or pay up or change their behavior to look like they are saving the environment and not truthful data. The list goes on much longer but you get the point as I don't want to make my first post too long.
It's all about power & control....Remember the day after the 9/11 attack? EVERY American had a flag in their window & on their car. A crisis unites people regardless of their political POV-- and those who want to gain power try to create an artificial crisis. What could be better?- an artificial one can't be solved; it just lives on as long as it's useful or until the naïve public finally sees it as a lie.
It's all about power & control....Remember the day after the 9/11 attack? EVERY American had a flag in their window & on their car. A crisis unites people regardless of their political POV-- and those who want to gain power try to create an artificial crisis. What could be better?- an artificial one can't be solved; it just lives on as long as it's useful or until the naïve public finally sees it as a lie.
Good answer.
I am curious how these people “radical environments” gain so much control on a global bases. And why the people and politicians in the world give in so easily even if they disagree. They could had easily pushed back.
It’s true though these movements had caused violent consequences on staff that deal with customers. As they have been turned into pawns to get in the way of customer service.
Today in California some restauranteers would literally “bite your head off” should you dare request a straw with your drink. They won’t even ask if you want a straw with your drink or not. I mean Aren’t there already compostable straws that look no different from regular straws, why not encourage those instead. Same with bags, I mean wouldn’t it be more practical to develop compostable plastics overall for all plastics instead? Rather than target just one particular use of plastic? Am I right?
Radical environmentalism has been around since the publication of Silent Spring in 1962. Much of what it has accomplished has made the environment a better place to live.
[quote=citizensadvocate;54838345 ….why not encourage those instead. …. wouldn’t it be more practical to …...quote]
Exactly. That's helps prove my point-- solutions make even less sense than the problems they purport to solve. One must deduce that "They" are really interested in pretending to solve the fake "problem" thus signaling leadership and therefore deserving of even more power.
The UN, a prime example, is an un-elected bureaucracy responsible to no one. Like all bureaucracies, their main goal is to ensure their own jobs, so they use the fake problems to gain support of the masses also. Their Agenda 21 and newer Agenda 2030 are examples of their desire for world domination, erasing national sovereignty. (..ever wonder why eradicating private ownership of guns makes up such an important part of their agenda?)
Two good areas with universal importance are the weather and the food supply, and they've managed to conflate the two: GW will kill us all and eating meat will make GW worse. Without meat, people will become weak & sickly and easier to control. Perfect!...And even a dog knows not to bite the hand that feeds it. If the UN controls the food supply, they control anybody who eats.
Water melons-- Green on the outside; Red on the inside.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
Radical environmentalism has been around since the publication of Silent Spring in 1962. Much of what it has accomplished has made the environment a better place to live.
Good example. Rachel Carson has been proven wrong on several, if not all, of her contentions. How many African kids have died of malaria because her book led to the banning of DDT? Millions. Even if your heart is in the right place, beware of unintended consequences when you go off half cocked.
The "environmental movement" got its real start in 1969 when large protests were staged over an oil leak from a derrick off the coast of Malibu. Globs of hardened oil were washing up on the beach...It made no difference that chemical fingerprinting of the globs proved that they didn't come from that oil derrick, but from a natural oil seep closer to shore...Follow up studies after the famous Exxon-Valdez oil spill showed that beaches "cleaned up" by volunteers took longer to return to natural ecology than beaches left untouched by "helpers (?)." ....Mother Nature knows best.
Famous pioneers in environmentalism like Aldo Leopold and John Muir were educators, not "activists." Activists are trying to reduce our use of fossil fuels. Cost & availability of energy will go up and those who will suffer most are the world's poor. They will remain in poverty..and thus be easier to control. QED.
I would prefer that smaller brushes be used than the broad ones being used to parry and thrust so far. Neither side to this has any right to claim complete victory. I remember the doomsayers when leaded gasoline was banned. Doom didn't happen, cleaner and safer air did. I remember the complaints about adding corn alcohol to gasoline, and have had equipment that failed because of that. I remember the stench of an old gasometer, and was thankful when it had to be stopped. I remember the smell of a factory that used to make "Maypo" maple flavored cerial and bemoaned the loss of the heavenly maple syrup and malt smell when it had to also comply. I used to like the smell of certain pipe tobaccos, but retch when some shags and latika were smoked. I'm glad none are around in my everyday environment.
^^^ More good examples of fake problems. De gustibus non disputandum est...so I can't argue against any aesthetic advantage that may have accrued to you by the noted changes-- but none of them produced any measurable improvement in the environment.
Pb was removed from gasoline & paint-- adding it was one of the costliest step in the production process and the biggest lobbyists for the change were the industry producers themselves-- but there has been no measurable improvement in children's health or mentality since the change.
Mandating ethanol in gasoline was a political move aimed at gaining farm votes. It saves only 1 gal of gasoline for every 100 used (ie- a fuel supply slated to last 100 yrs will now last 101 yrs. Big deal) at the expense of actually putting more co2 into the atmosphere, if anyone still thinks that's important.
"Second hand smoke" is another non-problem. It's been calculated that a non-smoker would have to work 5 eight hour shifts a week in a room with 20 active smokers for over 1000 yrs to be exposed to as much carcinogen as one smoker in his 40 yr smoking career-- and only 15% of smokers actually get lung or throat cancer. (That fact in itself is another example of how we get this false impression of how great a problem something is supposed to be when our only foray into the facts is what we get from the popular press.)
In summary, these Draconian regulations have produced no discernable advantages to air quality, but the regulators can take a bow for their "concern" for our safety.
^^^ More good examples of fake problems. De gustibus non disputandum est...so I can't argue against any aesthetic advantage that may have accrued to you by the noted changes-- but none of them produced any measurable improvement in the environment.
Pb was removed from gasoline & paint-- adding it was one of the costliest step in the production process and the biggest lobbyists for the change were the industry producers themselves-- but there has been no measurable improvement in children's health or mentality since the change.
Mandating ethanol in gasoline was a political move aimed at gaining farm votes. It saves only 1 gal of gasoline for every 100 used (ie- a fuel supply slated to last 100 yrs will now last 101 yrs. Big deal) at the expense of actually putting more co2 into the atmosphere, if anyone still thinks that's important.
"Second hand smoke" is another non-problem. It's been calculated that a non-smoker would have to work 5 eight hour shifts a week in a room with 20 active smokers for over 1000 yrs to be exposed to as much carcinogen as one smoker in his 40 yr smoking career-- and only 15% of smokers actually get lung or throat cancer. (That fact in itself is another example of how we get this false impression of how great a problem something is supposed to be when our only foray into the facts is what we get from the popular press.)
In summary, these Draconian regulations have produced no discernable advantages to air quality, but the regulators can take a bow for their "concern" for our safety.
Leaded gasoline was by all accounts a short-term "fix" that everyone with even a rudimentary understanding of engineering recognized as short-sighted. I remember the struggling dirty landscape plants I had to keep alive or replace under a roadside theatre sign. I can't give experiential data on kids, but I can say with some certainty those d***ed plants kept dying until the change was made, even with plant and soil changes. I hated them before and after the regulation changed, so bias doesn't enter in.
On second hand smoke not being a problem, I have to say BS. As a ten year old, I was tasked with cleaning florescent light fixtures in a radio station studio as part of a remodel. Two of the announcers that used the studio were chain smokers. The amount of tobacco tars on those fixtures was unreal. I had to resort to ammonia and sp*k-n-span in a concentrated solution to clean them, and the bucket solution and cloth would be yellow-black after cleaning one four foot fixture. Ask an insurance company about the costs related to smokers in a workplace.
Cancer is only one effect of smoke. After having to take sudifed and ibuprofen every day for years to tolerate an office filled with smokers, my gf is now not only actively allergic to smoke, but can no longer tolerate those two medications.
The restrictions on smokers were not "draconian" until the last five to ten years. In movie theatres, smokers were the same jerks that now use cellphones indiscriminately. Even though I sometimes smoked in the 1970s, few things would irritate me like some jerk lighting up in the middle of an auditorium, so that his smoke clearly was visible in the projection beam, disturbing the illusion for anyone seated behind him. One warning, then toss him out, no refund. Call it draconian if you want. Deal with it. I've watched too many people suffer smokers to care.
I used to support environmental movements and groups when they were more about innovation and education. Which was the case up to the mid 2000s or so.
For example we phrased out CFCs to help curb global warming and developed better products that does not so much affect the end user. A move I proudly supported. We still have hairspray, refrigerators, A/Cs that work better than the CFC era ones. We also greatly increased the efficiency of these appliances. We eventually developed LED bulbs without banning incandescent bulbs. No the 100 watt light bulb ban was not a ban on incandescent bulbs, it was that the newly developed 95 watt bulbs were brighter in lumens and burn longer than the old 100watt bulbs.
But since the late 2000s I noticed these groups such as Green Peace and Sierra Club had abruptly changed the course of their agenda into governmental/corporate driven behavioral engineering than actually studying the issue and developing innovative solutions. In other words they are pushing governments of all levels around the world to turn from carrots to sticks and legislate otherwise unprecedented authoritarian style solutions. Even if it clearly goes against their fundamental respect for their constitution and long standing rule of law. Also since the UN embraces their idealism, they pressures all its members (which covers 90% of countries) to follow suit by shaming governments that don't adapt, whether national, regional, or local governments(ICLEI).
Quite a number of environmental scientists had warned that such movements can actually be more harm than good. I.e back in around 2008 the UK environmental agency had clearly warned against schemes that involves banning, taxing, or requiring mandatory fees for carry out bags as they have proof that's it does far more harm than good for the environment and hastens climate change, yet in 2016 England still decided to do it anyways. Ironically this happened three years after the UK was trying to sue Italy for doing something similar. Therefore it shows that the movement is about looking green and politically right for progressive politicians rather than actually saving the environment.
Nowadays I find these groups are all about controlling the little guys and making them suffer in order to make a point, even if its not actually good for the environment.
Examples include,
The Cool biz campaign, that started in Japan back in 2006 that forces salaryman and students in Japan mostly of the public sector but some private sectors as well to sweater in 28C/82f temperatures during the hot months, its causing productivity and health to suffer, the heat index is no joke when the humidity is also at 82degrees. I mean would's had made better sense in a country already leading in high efficiency air conditioning technologies to fix air ducts, add insulation, seal leaks, and better of all cutting work hours short especially on hot days which allows buildings to use much less power overall and less load on cooling as well and may actually improve productivity.
In California during the "great drought" of the 2010s, the state instead of looking into developing Geo water, building and commissioning desalination plants, and more eco friendly water retention facilities has instead legislated a dracon water tax on individuals and a 55 gallon water limit for each individual by 2025 drought or not. A lot of hypocrisy already occurs in this state during the drought with some places losing water completely(despite senior water rights) while plenty of construction projects, almond farms, and other corporations still uses large amounts of water a day. Don't even get me started about the proposal to drain the Hetch Hetchy Reservior during that time. Yet they want people using water from here to not to flush their toilets. Plenty of water in CA had been diverted for so called "Environmental purposes" as well. Individuals use only 9% of water in CA.
While there are many signs that these movements may have backfired, these groups and their brainwashed progressive politicians just don't care and would push their agenda farther and farther, there success these days are strictly measured by seeing people suffer or pay up or change their behavior to look like they are saving the environment and not truthful data. The list goes on much longer but you get the point as I don't want to make my first post too long.
ICLEI is entirely voluntary. not sure how that could be considered oppressive.
Plenty of studies to counter your claim of bag ban being bad for environment or economy: study link
Cool biz is in response to Japan's energy production shortage following earthquake damage.
Desalination plants are so ridiculously expensive they are only viable as a last resort.
I don't see the demons here that you do.
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.
